Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Oldest people

An ArbCom case is now closing on the topic of Human Longevity. The members of the World's Oldest People WikiProject are being urged to seek advice from uninvolved editors for guidance about how to improve the project. We've also been advised that an ongoing dispute about whether pages listed at www.grg.org are reliable sources belongs here, not at ArbCom. I have argued that they are not. Others, with more professional expertise in the matter, disagree. In my view, they are, as a prior RSN thread suggested, works-in-progress. They are used near-exclusively to source a host of lists and bios. But they are tables of raw data. The experts assure us that the data is not raw. That it's reviewed and verified in the same way a peer-reviewed secondary source journal is. If some uninvolved editors would take a couple of days to review the Oldest people page and some of the bios and lists it links to, review their sourcing, and opine, it would be most helpful.

Please take some time on this. You can count on those with another view to make their case better than I have, and more eloquently, in the meantime. We're not looking for a snap judgment. It's a longstanding issue and is about to lead to some bans for principal disputants. ArbCom has quite specifically refered us here on the sourcing matter.

Experienced RSN contributors without significant involvement in prior kerfuffles about human longevity can do a great service for the WikiProject and the larger community by providing guidance.

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gerontology Research Group appears to be half a dozen or so academics who do this as a collaborative project with the help a several dozen volunteers around the world. Some sources seem to suggest that it has an official or semi-offical relationship with the UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, but that appears to be a bit of an exagguration or misunderstanding, as the group doesn't claim that on its website, and I couldn't find mention of it at the school website. Basically, the website looks to me like a group SPS; it is certainly not published by an independent third party. Under the circumstances, I do not think that it can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also tend to see the site as a SPS. If it were unequivocally a reliable source, it would need to have a clearly defined editorial process or peer-review mechanism, because that's what we trust to give a RS its authority. To be usable as a SPS, the site would have to rely on the credentials of its authors to lend it authority, and I'd want to see where the authors were published in this field by reliable third parties, or were extensively cited by independent reliable sources. If neither of those two criteria were met, I would not consider the site a RS in this context. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This has to be one of the ugliest web sites I've seen in a while. But we are not concerned with aesthetics. I do not see any sort of editorial policy although editorial oversight may exist. But ultimately, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In this particular case, this source has been cited by numerous independent reliable sources including:

• Medscape Today[1]
• Los Angeles Times[2][3]
• New York Daily News[4]
• St Petersburg Times[5]
• Toronto Star[6]
• Chicago Sun-Times[7]
• MSNBC[8]
• And literally dozens more[9]

This indicates that this source has earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. So, I'm leaning towards this being a reliable source. That said, reliability is not a binary 1/0 switch. Rather, reliability should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that the pages linked above cite the GRG and its website in words such as "the GRG said yesterday", "the GRG says" -- in the main text, not in footnotes. They are citing the GRG for its opinions, and treating those opinions respectfully, but they are not (on those pages) citing it as a source of established fact. Andrew Dalby 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with naming your source or using in-text attribution. This style of writing is common among sources where the journalist has to rely on the expertise of others to make statements of fact, "Astronomers say the universe is 14 approximately billion years old", for example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. It's a good and wise thing to do. But it implies -- as in the example you give -- that the source cited cannot be regarded as 100% reliable on the issue under discussion. Just as no astronomer is reliable on the age of the universe, so (these journalists imply) GRG may not be reliable on the exact age of those aged people. We can't argue, from the fact that the newspapers cite it in those terms, that GRG is a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of us can attest to the truth of any of these statements. All we can do is verify what the source says. IMHO, if other independent reliable sources trust this source enough to cite, then we can do, too. If you diagree, what criteria would you use to determine whether or not a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the journalism or the GRG website?

1. If the journalism, the answer is that this kind of citation by a journalist usefully limits what a fact-checker has to do. If the journalist says "X was 110 years old", the fact checker has to try to verify that; so if we consider the journal's fact-checking good, we might state it in our article as a fact (citing the journal in our footnote). If the journalist says "according to GRG, X was 110 years old", the fact checker only has to verify that the GRG said that. Well, we can't on that basis state it in our article as a fact; if we want to use it, we have to repeat in our article the attribution to GRG.
2. If you're talking about the GRG, these citations from newspapers don't tell us anything much (I think) about the GRG's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. They only tell us it produced a press release at the right time, or that the site looked OK. Andrew Dalby 15:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking in general. But I don't think these sources would routinely cite GRG if they honestly didn't consider the source reliable. But you didn't answer my question: what criteria would you use to determine whether or not a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, a reputation is a sum or consensus of people's opinions. So, if people say "the GRG site is accurate and they check their facts", it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Andrew Dalby 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally -- don't take me too seriously :) -- I'm not saying we shouldn't use this site at all. I'm saying that, just like the newspapers, if we rely on it for an assertion, we should attribute the assertion, just like those journalists do. Andrew Dalby 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are "people"? Can you give a little more detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: Reputation: "2. The common or general estimate of a person with respect to character or other qualities; the relative estimation or esteem in which a person or thing is held." People: "6. a. Men or women indefinitely; men and women; persons, folk." Those are the senses in which I understood you to use the word "reputation" and in which I intended the word "people". I now bow out of this: I think it's getting silly. All my fault, I'm sure. Andrew Dalby 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with using in-text attribution. It's a small consession to make if it resolves a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some other editor's opinions here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

...sound of crickets chirping... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping the crickets down, I will repeat what I've said elsewhere and opine that this is rather a tempest in a teapot. I think WP's standards for reliabilty of most published sources are pretty low. When it comes to newspapers or data from websites, all WP generally requires is that they call themselves a newspaper or "official reporting site," and that they are NOT somebody's personal blog (i.e., not produced by one lone human being, who might be a nut). So if the Lake Wobeggon Gazette (e-version) with a circulation of 150 people and a masthead that has six names on it, publishes that Elvira Gulch has celebrated her 113th birthday and is the oldest person in the Michigan, WP generally takes that as a verifiable source (since you can look it up) and as for reliability, we give them the same pass that we do for most publications. If another publication like GRG contests this, then WP reports them both. Remember (as I said someplace else) most of what's in WP is NOT from peer-reviewed academic scientific literature. The matter of who the oldest-old are, is as much of a historical question as a scientific one, and the definition of a "historical primary source" is whoever claims to know the most about a subject that nobody else knows about, and is not known to be a liar. The GRG really only needs to publish data regularly that are then archived and never changed, and are thereafter available as citable data. They are not required to have M.D.s or Ph.D.'s or be connected with a university. Any more than any high school sports score webpage needs to do these things to be citable as a source of sports scores or trophies or records or whatever.

Look, let's make this comparison easy: Take a look at the list of web connections for high school sports score-reporting websites, at the end of High school football. How many of them would pass the kind of scrutiny JJB wanted to subject the GRG to? I would guess almost none of them would. Thus, I challenge anybody here who agrees that the bar must be as high as JJB thought it should on WP, to go over to the High school football page, and just delete all those links, as "self-published linkspam that doesn't meet our reliable-source standards on WP." Good luck, Mr. Phelps. SBHarris 02:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Football scores (or Pokemon, another oft-cited counter-example) are not biographies, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an extraordinarily weak argument, JJB is irrelevant, and following your suggestion would be the archetypal WP:POINT violation. David in DC (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What or who is "JJB"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:John J. Bulten. Very involved at the World's Oldest people project. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And now banned from wikipedia for a year for edit warring. SBH's references to him seem to follow User:Ryoung122's claim that other editors (me, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, User:Itsmejudith) are simply JJB's minions in an anti-centenarian cabal. No, really. RY is now topic-banned from longevity articles for a year. It was ArbCom's direct recommendation that we who were not banned seek the advice of RS-savvy editors on this noticeboard as to the reliability of the GRG tables. That's why I started this thread. David in DC (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Three points in answer. First: dead people get no "reliability" criterion advantage over any other subject in Wikipedia. The special things in that regard are for WP:BLP, not some kind of general "biography" category. BLP is usually not a big problem in superlongevity, since almost all these people have passed on, and each one still alive has a 50 to 70% chance of dying within the next year. So any WP:RS question for any still-living persons can wait, until they die. I'm happy to do that, and if your problems here focus only on the small BLP issue, please say so now, and we can sidetrack 99% of RS discussion, since we'd be talking past each other, otherwise. I assert that dead people are as fair game for WP writing as Pokemon. Second: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is NOT an extraordinarily weak argument. It's a quite reasonable and strong argument, which in the real world is called justice, fairness, due process, prior legal precident, stare decisis, and a host of other names. On WP, as this article itself points out, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is how precidents are codified, and is how we historically arrived at some of the "inherent notability" criteria which we all abide by NOW, such as the inherent notability of high schools, but not junior high schools. If this were an "extraordinarly weak argument," it would be rather difficult to explain such a powerful effect on notability policy there. Furthermore, however weak the argument may be, the counterargument is even weaker, since it amounts to WP:I DONT CARE WHAT EXISTS ELSEWHERE ON WP, I WANT IT MY WAY ABOUT THIS MATTER. That one is really bad. Third: WP:POINT applies to actual disruption of WP, not the use of a hypothetical to make a point. Since I believe we all agree what would happen if you were to delete high school football website sources (i.e., a giant edit war which you would lose), it's not actually necessary that you or anybody else to actually DO that, for me to make my point. Which point, does indeed involve OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And that's okay. Since so far as I can see, you've got nothing better. SBHarris 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The rules about biographies of living people do not apply to dead people. But many of these lists include some live people. It'd be nice to have consistency on these lists. More importantly, people, dead or alive, are more important than high school football or all them cute l'il pocket monsters. Editorial discretion applies to information about all three topics. The BLP rules are motivated by more than slander and libel laws. Those same considerations should go into decisions about dead people, in a way they need not for animated characters and their trading cards or high school football scores. When we talk about fellow humans, alive, dead, or whose death is uncertain, we should follow the Golden Rule, even if WP:GOLDENRULE turns out to be a redlink.

Also, "Thus, I challenge anybody here who agrees that the bar must be as high as JJB thought it should on WP, to go over to the High school football page, and just delete all those links, as "self-published linkspam that doesn't meet our reliable-source standards on WP." Good luck, Mr. Phelps." is a very peculiar way to couch the terms of a hypothetical posed merely to make a point.David in DC (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The external links, which are external links, not sources, in High school football have been tagged as potentially inappropriate since August 2010. Nobody is going to put up much resistance to their deletion. Not a very good comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From reading this section, I think we are getting sidetracked from the original discussion brought up by David in DC in the first post here. The argument is whether Gerontology Research Group (www.grg.org) can be considered as a reliable source. To quote David in DC, "But they are tables of raw data. The experts assure us that the data is not raw. That it's reviewed and verified in the same way a peer-reviewed secondary source journal is." That is correct -- the data are peer-reviewed by gerontologists as well as by GRG correspondents and volunteers; the data has to meet several criteria for a person to be listed as a supercentenarian.

Furthermore, A Quest for Knowledge also nailed it on the head that while the GRG's website is aesthetically quite ugly -- and I concur -- but the matter still stands that GRG has been quoted by multiple independent reliable sources "earning a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking".

So while I appreciate that we need advice from RSN contributors on how to improve our WikiProject's World's Oldest People page [10], I just feel that the conclusion should be made that GRG is considered as a reliable source on this RSN so we can move on to other matters to improve our WikiProject. Thanks! CalvinTy 12:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Gerontology Research Group is clearly notable. It's been written about, and GRG volunteer gerontologists and correspondents have been quoted in numerous independent, reliable sources. Those quotations, in reliable secondary sources, are what makes GRG notable.

But just because the group is notable, the next link in the chain of logic --- that of declaring GRG tables, published by GRG and hosted on its own website (i.e. self-published) to be reliable sources --- does not follow.

In my view, until such time as the tables themselves are published in a secondary source, they are primary sources. Citing to them requires prohibited original research and synthesis. Putting the tables as external links at the bottom of articles such as Gerontology makes perfect sense. But inserting the lists whole, onto a gazillion wikipedia pages, simply turns wikipedia into a web-hosting platform that gives the lists a much-wider audience than www.grg.org can muster on its own. I can see why GRG volunteer experts and correspondents would want to do this. For the life of me, I can't figure out why wikipedia should oblige, violating its own rules in the process. David in DC (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi

A single editor has been using his inerpretation of a primary source (Namely the films themeselves) to suggest that these two films were in fact marketed and released as Star War Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars Episode VI:Return of the Jedi. Yet they were in fact released as The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. His only other source for this appears to be a [1980 article, from Time Magazine. Yet there appears to be thousands of other sources that controdict this single source. He has reverted numerous references to the fims being released under these titles, [11], [12], [13]. And he seems to feel that his interpretation of the primary source trumps all secondary sources. George Lucas himself has also confirmed in the DVD commenatry that the films were marketed and released under the single titles and the "episode" titles only came into being after Episode I:A Phantom Menace was released.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While I appear to have been the only editor recently making these changes to the correct titles, I am by no means the only one to do so. However, Jojhutton is absolutely incorrect in asserting that Lucas confirmed anything in the DVD commentaries - that is blatantly false, as it is a historical fact that two two sequels (but not the original film) have always had the full titles, including episode number, shown on-screen. Also, the original copyright records on file with the US Copyright Office show the full titles on the applications: Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. It's an open and shut case, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All primary sources, and The Empire Strikes Back record says, Title: The Empire Strikes Back.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office is a primary source? I don't think so... And for the record, the record for TESB specifically states: Application Title: Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back. Copies directly from the page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see it both ways in reliable secondary sources. But re: the comment above, please look a little closer. The ref you provide lists the "Application Title" as Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back, but the "Title" as The Empire strikes back. I looked at two major and fairly authoritative sources of info on the movies: IMDB.com uses the longer title, starting with the Episode number [14]. RogerEbert.com does both. For some of the Star Wars series is uses the short and simple title (episodes 1 [15] and 4), for others (Emp Strikes Back [16] it uses the episode number as part of the title. Also, as you note, Time uses the Ep number. Sorry, I don't think there is a definitive answer.Early morning person (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the library of Congress: The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. As well as the National Film Registry. If you want to keep the page names as they are now, I don't think that anyone was arguing that point. Its only your constant removal of any mention of these films, in any article, being released under the shorter titles, which they were. Trust me, I saw them all in theaters.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah - so are you claiming that you saw them in the theaters without the Episode numbers being shown in the crawl? Also, if you look at the full records for both the links you provided, you will see that it states: Copyright title: Star wars. Episode V, The empire strikes back and Copyright title: Star wars. Episode VI, Return of the Jedi.TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not what I said and this is not the first time that you have tried to change the subject by putting words in my mouth.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is people (as well as news organizations, other writers, what have you) almost always use shorthand in referring to films with longer titles - articles on, say, the Lord of the Rings film generally refer to the indiviual films by the subtitle; same with the Narnia films, or the Pirates of the Carribean films. Doesn't change the fact that the actual title is the full title, even though you might have a perfectly valid reference stating otherwise. However, Jojhutton's assertation that the films were originally marketed and released by a certain specific title is even more problematic - if we try to claim that the original release was only The Empire Strikes Back, what about the fact that every poster that exists from the original release features a logo that calls it Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? Same problem for Return of the Jedi. However, the fact that the films have always had the complete titles on-screen is (or should be) an uncontestable fact - and since that's how they've always been presented, it makes the naming issue moot, as far as I'm concerned. This has been debated time and again on the various film's talkpages - I'm not sure why it's an issue again now. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If its been debated and there is a previous consensus, why do you not link to that consensus?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

{EC} As someone old enough to have seen them when they first came out, I can tell you that only the first movie didn't contain the episode number. I can try to dig up some original comic books and bubble gum cards later. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was as simple as whether or not the episode number was in the opening scroll, this wouldn't be an issue. Its what the film was released as, and almost all sources confirm the they were originally released without the Episode in the title.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet, if it was always shown onscreen in the crawl (which is an established fact for Empire and Jedi), then that's the title of the film - as the copyright records of the time show. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not what the LOC and the NFR say though is it?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2009, a related discussion took place on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. That discussion was about moving the article, but the issue seems the same; and although there were both supports and opposes, the move did not occur. This seems to be about common names versus official names. Jojhutton, you say that there are thousands of sources which support the idea that the movies were released under the shorter names. What are those sources? Are they authoritative? We need to get down to the data. Omnedon (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These films have been discussed in a very wide range of media around the world. If you want to respect WP:COMMON then it's a matter of looking at what many anglophone sources say (even if they're more noted for wide readership than for a rigorous stance on film nomenclature), rather than just choosing one specialist / definitive / initial source, so RS/N may be less helpful. Of course, WP:COMMON is not always respected, and sometimes wikipedians seem to prefer a "technically accurate" name instead... bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is about what to entitle our articles on the films, we should follow our policy WP:Article titles, and go with the shorter and more common "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" (per WP:COMMON). The more "official" version (with the episode numbers) should be given in bold letters in the lede. In the body of the text we can go back to the shorter informal versions (or even abbreviate as ESB and RotJ, both of which are fairly common on industry websites). Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not about changing the name of the article(period) End of that discussion. This is about removing any and all references to the film being released under the long drawn out names that Lucas changed them to when he decided to release another three movies. Yes there are thousands of references. A simple internet search reveals very little for me since wikipedia dominates just about every search result and it would seem that the the new name tends to be scattered among the various search results. In order for me to combat that, I use a subscription based (Free though my local library), called NewsBank, which searches newspapers in the United States going back at least 35 years. When I type in Star Wars Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back. I get only one source for the years 1980. When I look at that source, it still says that the film was released as The Empire Strikes Back. There are also no articles using the term Episode V in the years 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, or 1992. This seems odd to have no news articles for one of the most popular movies of all time for these years, which would make me believe that the movie went by a different title during that time. Its not until 1997 when there starts to be more articles (25) using the Episode title. Yet when I type in simply The Empire Strikes Back, without any reference to episode, I find 156 articles in 1980 alone all saying the same thing: The films title was The Empire Strikes Back. Not one even a single source says that the film is being released as Star Wars Episode V;'The Empire Strikes Back. If you need me to type some of the sources I can. Yet these sources are the Boston Globe, Washington Post, New York Times kind of sources so There's no worry about their reliability.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no serious debate possible about whether these films have long and short names, and framing discussion in this way is keeping discussion from getting to any solution. We do not need to even bother with the concept of what name is most "official" because WP policy on this matter (Wikipedia:Article titles is clear and also quite logical, and it does not tell us to be official. We use concise, common and recognizable names. The long names should surely also be mentioned, as explained by Blueboar, but there is no need to make our article titles longer than necessary. Concise, that means short, is what the policy demands.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue seems to involve determining the names under which the films were originally released. Jojhutton, I'm not sure that newspaper articles would be authoritative on such a subject, but I don't know the context of the articles you've found. Do they specifically address the naming, or are they simply articles about various other aspects of the films? If the latter, I would not be at all surprised if they used the shorter names for various reasons, but I'm not sure that's significant here. Omnedon (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Normal style where you have a long name and a short name is to put the long name in brackets at the first mention. I am sure there must be other non controversial solutions which could also work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No ones arguing the articles title, yet. Although I have read some pretty convincing arguments for doing so. Its about interpreting the primary source over what all other reliable secondary sources say. It seems that there is a discrepancy in the thinking and the question is: should we rely simply on the interpretation of the primary source, or should we follow policy and rely the secondary sources as we should.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, it is obvious that there are long and short versions of the names of these films. Both can be sourced, and just because a source is primary does not make it automatically a bad source in all contexts. I strongly suggest treating this as a case of a thing with long names and short names which are both correct, and not trying to give the principles involved any artificial importance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Both can be sourced? This is exactly why wikipedia has policies and guidelines, so that they can be used in policy discussions, not to ignore them. The policy here is clear, interpretation of the primary source material does not trump the overwhelming secondary source material.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My question is: what are these secondary sources, and are they appropriate for the specific application of determining the official release title, or are they about the movie (rather than the movie's title)? If you are presently focusing on news sources, what is the focus of those sources? I merely ask. Omnedon (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The only citation that specifically is about the titling of a film that I've found so far is this one from the week Empire was released, which specifically states "the movie is identified as Episode V. Since it is the immediate sequel to the original Star Wars, that opus has been retitled Star Wars: Episode IV, raising a meteor shower of questions." No kidding - 31 years later and someone still wants to argue over this. Frankly, I can't believe this is an issue. The films are specifiallly titled on-screen - this should trump any secondary sourcing - it's like someone saying my name is X because everyone just calls me that (and here's a bunch of third-party references to back me up!), even though my name is Y. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of primary source does not trump what hundreds of secondary sources say. Doing so would constitute WP:OR. We should probably follow wikipedia policy on this one, unless there is a policy that says primary source material should be used over secondary sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not an "interpretation" of a primary source, it's a factual representation of the source. Answer me this - are the films identified on-screen in the films themselves as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi"? A simple yes or no will do. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a scroll that floats across the screen that says Episode V: the Empire Strikes Back, followed by three paragraphs of scroll. So according to your interpretation, the entire three paragraphs are alos part of the story. Or is it just the part that fits your POV?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I'm not convinced that there is any real disagreement between what's been described as primary and secondary sources here. Surely it's more an issue of common usage. If a news source calls the movie by a certain name, I don't think one can say that the source is authoritatively saying that the movie's name is definitely X and definitely not Y. Rather, it's most likely just using a common name for the movie. Stating that the news source defines the movie's name seems to be a mis-application of the source. Omnedon (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Policy is what policy does. As WP:V, which is one of wikipedias three core policies, states that information must be verified by a reliable source and that its about what can be verified, not what is true. Sources use the phrase The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, its WP:OR to suggest otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a sample from these sources, please? Omnedon (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources use those names to reference the film, but they do not authoritatively state that that is what the film is titled (execpt in the case of the Time magazine mention above) - they're just using the common name. This is very simple - the film company states that the film name is X. The copyright application states that the film name is X. The films themselves state that the film name is X. Yet Jojhutton seems to be arguing that because there appear to be a bajillion secondary sources that state the film's name is Y, then Y must be correct. Sorry, but no. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(To RealFennshysa)Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines. Please cite one that backs up this claim.

(To Omedemon) I will place citations with exerpts from these citations when I have access to my computer. (I left my laptop at home, and am editing on an antiquated CPU). Some are very telling and of course all policy based.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To User:TheRealFennshysa: Do you still feel that the name that the copyright source is a good reliable source?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few requested citations that confirm that the titles of the films at initial release.

For The Empire Strikes Back

Shales, Tom Once a force, always a force: In just two weeks, Washington Post, The (DC) - Monday, September 3, 1979

The reissue of "Star Wars" serves as a vehicle to promote the forthcoming sequel, " The Empire Strikes Back ," set for late spring of 1980.

Kornheiser, Tony THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, Washington Post, The (DC) - Monday, May 19, 1980

On Saturday morning, at the world premiere of " The Empire Strikes Back ," or, "Star Wars II...

Arnold, Gary, Darth Vader's Surprise Attack! Washington Post, The (DC) - Sunday, May 18, 1980

So the inevitable sequel, " The Empire Strikes Back ," can't sneak up on the marketplace, obviously.

For Return of the Jedi

Arnold, Gary, Return of the Jedi, Washington Post, The (DC) - Sunday, May 22, 1983

There is more than a single irony to the title " Return of the Jedi

Misch, Laura. REVENGE IS SO OUT, IT'S IN, Miami Herald, The (FL),, - Sunday, May 22, 1983

Movie magnate George Lucas recently changed the name of his upcoming second Star Wars sequel to Return of the Jedi

Bittan, Dave. HE'S READY FOR 'JEDI' RETURN, Philadelphia Daily News (PA) - Thursday, May 19, 1983

The reason for the bonanza for collectors is that after printing 8,800 posters reading "Revenge of the Jedi," he changed the name of the film to " Return of the Jedi.

Very clear.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

All that's clear from this is that these newspaper writers were talking about the movies and used shortened names. In my opinion, this is not in the least significant for this discussion. Omnedon (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thats not what wikipedia policy says. Read WP:V for verification, because none of these sources even hints that these are the shortened names. You appear to be using WP:OR to come to that conclusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And you may be able to ignore overwhelming evidence in the sources, but the Trailers don't lie:

Empire Strikes Back Trailer and the Return of the Jedi Trailer--Jojhutton (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, you've just gone and muddied the waters with these trailer links. First off, the TESB trailer is the very early advance from 1979, so it's hardly representative. The RoTJ one has an announcer using the short title, but it shows the logo with the "Star Wars:" prefix. So, are you claiming the title is Return of the Jedi or Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? MikeWazowski (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we can agree that they certainly do not say Star Wars Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back or Star Wars Episode Vi: Return of the Jedi, which is what is being claimed by some. And all of the trailers use the same titles regardless of release date.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research, because we know from various sources that the movies are sometimes referred to by their full names and sometimes by their shorter names. The newspaper articles you cited used the shorter names. How does that have any significance here? Omnedon (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you know it, then please provide a source for it. If not, its WP:OR.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As you know, various sources have been mentioned both here and elsewhere; but for example, IMDB uses the longer names: TESB and ROTJ. So yes, we do know that both names are in use; that's not original research and surely it's not debatable, so let's not spend more time on it. I'm not at all surprised that the shorter names are the more commonly-used names; and it seems reasonable that both names might be used in the article. However, the issue seems to be: under what name was the film released? Or, put another way, what is the "official" name of the film? Just for clarification, as this discussion has gotten rather long -- what is your goal in terms of the contents of these articles? What result are you after? Omnedon (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is about what title the films were released under, so years later and years after the names were changed to what they are no, there are plenty of modern sources that use both titles. That is why my sources predate all of that and are closer to the original release dates. As afar as what I was attempting to do. All I wanted was for the other editor to stop reverting any reference to the films being released by these titles, on any article. His persistant reverting of anyone who evenhints that the fims were released without the episode attached is disruptive as he has few source materail to back it up. He does provide a Time Magizine article, but that is a single article as opposed to the hundreds and thousands that say otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is defining what we mean by "released"... I saw the premier of RotJ in London... all the press releases, the posters, the news articles, TV promos, etc. called it "Return of the Jedi" (actually some of the press coverage called it "Revenge of the Jedi", but we can discount that)... On the other hand, I do remember that the screen crawl was headed with Episode VI (I remember because it was a back to back to back showing with the other two movies... and I remember being surprised when the crawl for "Episode IV - A New Hope" appeared on the screne when they showed the original Star Wars film... which lead me to take note of the Episode numbers on the other two). So my question is: what constitutes a "Release" name? Trying to be neutral about this, it seems to me they used both names when they "released" it. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to ignore the question. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Then its a question of primary source vs. secondary source. In this case wikipedia policy tends to favor secondary sourcing--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder what the deal with sourcing here actually is - secondary sourcing states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." There's no question that stating the actual names of the films is a straightforward, descriptive statement, and from what I've seen over the years, there's can be no (or should not be any) question that these two films have always been identified in the actual films with the full titles. It's not really a question of sourcing - the titles simply are. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If the titles are, as you say, simply are, then what are the titles as depicted on screen? I ask this because there are several words on the screen, beginning with A long time ago...., and ending with three paragraphs of dialogue. Where does the title start and where does it begin?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just adding these here:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6794/esbboot01.jpg http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9040/rotjboot01.jpg 81.106.168.51 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources notice board, not the random undated screenshot that could have created on your computer at home notice board. But thanks for trying. Jojhutton (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"released as" names for films - moving this to a generalized discussion

Maybe I am wrong but this almost looks like a discussion where there are two editors who think this is a policy issue, and everyone telling them it is not? Does anyone else apart from the two editors debating the long and short title thing think this is really a case for this board? If so, which policies are really in question that have not yet been explained above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a policy question underlying this debate... the question is: "What are reliable sources for determining the "released as" name for a movie?" I think we have answered that... there are a lot of reliable sources: a "theatrical release" copy of the film itself, ads in the newspaper from the time when the movie was released, reviews and press releases from the time... all can be considered reliable. So the next question is: "What is the most reliable source for this information?"

I am not sure whether this is a question that can be answered... but if we are to attempt it, we need to move the conversation beyond just the Star Wars films... and try to answer that question in terms of any film (and if we can, then apply that to the films in question). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For my own part, I happened across this discussion between Jojhutton and TheRealFennShysa, and am trying to find out how policy dictates that newspaper articles from the 1980s must somehow override the fact that these two movies have full titles as well as shorter titles that are (understandably) more commonly used. Basically, I'm questioning the application of newspaper articles as reliable sources when it comes to determining the official title of a film. Omnedon (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I never thought this was an appropriate venue for this - frankly, I never thought this would be an issue or even *need* a venue. I could see someone raising a fuss over the original film - the differences between the original release title and the subsequent "episode" addition are well-documented. But this is a case that should be open-and-shut. The full title has always been on the film - we've even got reliable sources from the day that specifically address that. What *should* be most reliable is the actual product - just because some "verifiable" source uses a short name doesn't make that the *actual* name. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources from the day of release that use the full title, as alleged? They have been asked for, but have yet not been produced. There is the Time magazine article which you have linked, but that appears to contradict other sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again... lets move beyond the specifics of the Star Wars films and address this in terms of any film. Fenn, I take it that your opinion is that a film itself is the most reliable source for a "released as" name? Could you explain why you think this? Jojhutton, you seem to think that magazine articles are the most reliable. Could you explain your thinking?

I'll give us another option... Theatrical posters from the time. These are "official" advertisements for the film, issued by the film company that distributed it. I think there is a good argument that these posters are the most reliable source for what the film company considered the name of their film to be when they released it.

As yet another option... copyright. If someone has a "theatrical release" copy of the film, it should contain a statement as to what name the film was originally copyrighted under (look in the closing credits). I think this would be an extremely reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That opens up an even bigger can of worms - the posters show the film title as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. You've just introduced a whole new set of names - which do we choose? As to film titles, yes, I'm of the opinion that the on-screen title of the film should be accepted as the film's name. It's like if I were to point out my name is "XYZ". But if a bunch of theoretically (and in most circumstances) "reliable" sources start calling me "XY", does that make my name "XY" because someone can point to a bunch of references and say "Well, THEY say it, so it must be so!"? I could point to a boatload of references that refer to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring as simply The Fellowship of the Ring - doesn't make it the actual title of the film, though... As to the copyright, I don't believe the films show the title in the end credits - however, the copyright applications (linked somewhere above) for the original films do, in fact, use the complete title, with "Star Wars" first, followed by the episode number. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes... I deliberately opened that can of worms... my point in doing so was to move us away from "which is the best title (with episode or without episode)" to "what is the best type of source for this type of information". It does not matter that there are now three potential names instead of two; there could be fifteen possible names out there... once we determine which type of source is best, then we can apply it and determine which of the fifteen we should use in our article. If we determine that the posters are best, then we use whatever name is on the poster. If we determine that the copyrighted title is best, then we use the copyrighted title. etc. We don't debate which name we think is correct... we debate which type of source we think is best.

If we can reach a consensus on the best type of source for determining the "as released" name for films in general, then we can apply it to the specific case. So... what is the best, most reliable source for determining the "as released" name for Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The Matrix (or any other film)?

The easiest answer would be the film itself - it is what it says it is. The examples you posted are quite clear on-screen as to their titles. Past that, the copyright records, as that's what the producing companies filed as the official titles, and they would know best. Past that, if it's still an issue, I don't see why a primary source shouldn't be acceptable, as we're talking about a subjective statement about a title, not an interpretation. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... But what about films that don't contain a title sequence (there are some)? Do they not have a name? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a particular example in mind? If not at the beginning, films usually state the title in an end credit sequence, such as in the cases of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, IIRC. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BlueBoar that this issue would be best resolved by getting consensus on the question, “What is the most reliable source for this information?" —both for these films and for any others. I agree that the copyright record seems a very reliable source, because it gives clear indication of the intention of the maker of the film. The determination of the Library of Congress would also seem highly reliable. Unlike Hollywood posters and popular media, whose aim is not to adhere to scholarly standards but to entertain and promote, professional librarians take the naming of published works seriously, and so scrutinize names with due care. Its an important part of their business, with millions of titles to keep track of. This is the kind of editorial scrutiny and control that is held high in WP:RS.

The copyright records give ambiguous results: they list the film titles both ways, with both the long and short forms. For example, if you do a search for Ep #3, Revenge of the Sith, you get both Revenge of the Sith [17] and Star wars : episode III : Revenge of the Sith [18] There's good reason for this: copyright lawyers would naturally file all the plausible names to make sure the film is copyright protected. So not a lot of help here.

However, at the Library of Congress, they generally use the longer name with the Ep number, e.g., Star wars. Episode I, The phantom menace . . . [19]; Star Wars. Episode II, Attack of the clones [20], Star Wars. Episode IV, A new hope [21]; Star wars. Episode VI, Return of the Jedi [22]

But if you love ambiguity, you’ll be happy to know that there is an exception to the rule: ep number 5 is listed as simply, The empire strikes back [23]. But commonsense and reasonableness would indicate that their general practice is to use the longer title. And since the movie maker has filed it both ways and is therefore unlikely to object, it seems there is no reason from that angle to deny the use of the longer title as the best practice in this case. It does help in keeping track of all those episodes. Early morning person (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are interesting citations, but with one flaw. None of them appear to be copyrighted 1980 or 1983. All the dates are 1997, are so then these cannot be used as sources as to what the film was titled at time of release.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1980 Reliable Secondary Sources on "Episode V" and 1983 Secondary Sources on "Episode VI"

I'm not going to wade through all of this above. It baffles me. Anybody who can use Google can see in about 5 seconds that there are a number of reliable, secondary sources from 1980 that state that "The Empire Strikes Back" was identified at the time as Star Wars: Episode V. [24] [25] Gary Arnolds May 18, 1980 Washington Post review states: The first indication of unexpected developments comes almost immediately. It is the appearance of the heading "Episode V" at the top of a prologue that crawls from the bottom to the top of the screen.[26] And, there are reliable secondary sources from 1983 that state that "Return of the Jedi" was called "Star Wars Episode VI"' [27] It is unnecessary to go to primary sources to confirm that these sources are reliable contemporaneous secondary sources confirming the "Episode" designations. Fladrif (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is more interesting synopsis. Yet the 1980 link for "Empire" gives us all of 4 hits, while the 1983 link for Jedi has 5. None of which ever says that the film is titled with Episode, only that they are Episodes (yes there is s difference). The same Google search for just the short title gives us 2160 hits for Empire, and 1970 for Jedi. If the titles of the movies on the day of release were the longer titles that are used today, you would think that there would be more hits on google.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the logic of that. It's not strange to me that the longer, more cumbersome name would be used less, and the shorter name would be used more. This is not about comparing the number of hits in a Google search. I thought it was going to be more about determining which source(s) would be most reliable for this general type of situation. Omnedon (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone offered a Google hits search, so I countered that argument. Plenty of reliable sources confirming the release title of the film have been presented.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern with the Google news hits Fladrif gives us is that almost all of them put the words "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi" in quotes, but not the words "Episode V" or "Episode VI"... which leads me to think that the authors are using the episode number descriptively and not as part of the title or name. Looking at all our options, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the best we can say is that these movies were released under multiple "official" names ... and that it is probably best to simply omit mentioning the issue in the articles. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

All That needs to happen is to get some editors to stop reverting every single instance where the films are mentioned as simply The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. Plenty of citations confirm that this was the original title. Yes Lucas changed the titles in 1997, but there appears to be no certain degree of certainty of that name prior to that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In looking at just one article, the one for The Empire Strikes Back -- the full name is used in the lead, but throughout the rest of the article, the four-word name is used in most cases. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "reverting every single instance". Omnedon (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting assumption, Jojhutton, that the films weren't retitled until 1997, when its common knowledge (and has been proven) that the two sequels have always had the full titles attached. Do you have reliable sources to back that up? I've seen plenty of citations in this discussion that claim (more authoritatively, I might add) that the titles have always been on the films. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar's phrase "multiple official names" is perfect. Flafdrif's post is also spot on. I think this question should be treated as a common sense question of what looks nice, and making sure all common names are included somewhere. I do not think policy rulings can solve every editing question. Arguing about how many newspapers use which words is like How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be perfect if we could identify sources that actually stated that there were multiple official names. In the circumstances, though, my suggestion on these two movies would be to open with a phrase like: "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (also known simply as The Empire Strikes Back) is a..." At least that's accurate and verifiable, and doesn't address the "official" part which seems difficult to cite in a way that satisfies all editors. Omnedon (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoping for a perfect solution is a very poor strategy for this type of problem. I think it might be the basic real problem here. Thing is that if someone one day finds the perfect source, in two years time, then they can use it. But what do you do now? Consider WP:IMPERFECT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a little looking at the articles, and the solution was there all the time - both Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi already mention the discrepancy in their "Releases" sections. For Empire, it reads "Simply titled The Empire Strikes Back in the publicity, the opening scroll stated "Episode V"." For Jedi, it reads "At the time of its release, the film was advertised on posters and merchandise as simply Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, despite its on-screen "Episode VI" distinction." Problem solved, apparently some time ago. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is this really a reliable source issue? The primary source (i.e. the films themselves) clearly identified the films with the episode numbers in the titles. Secondary sources of the time widely ignored the numbering and just went with the sub-titles i.e. The Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi. There are reliable sources that support both these stances, so the job is done on here as far as I can see. This should really be taken to WP:MOSFILM where these issues come up all the time. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your points are good, Betty, but I don't quite get your suggestion re: WP:MOSFILM. This is a set of guidelines, right? I looked for the applicable guideline there and it is not immediately obvious. But I agree with you and Mike W and Blueboar in the suggestion (hope i'm not unduly simplifying your positions) that reliable sources have it both ways. As a matter of fact, primary sources also have it both ways: the Library of Congress (in five out of six cases at least) uses the longer name with the episode number; but the National Film Registry always uses the shorter name (e.g. The Empire Strikes Back). This being the case, the "multiple official names" suggestion by BB would seem to be a good solution. Would the disagreeing editors consent to use the longer movie title with episode # in the main title of an article, and other prominent locations, and the shorter name, sans episode #, in the text, where using the longer name would be clumsy and burdensome? Early morning person (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

An eminently sensible solution... (and I note that this is how it is done in the current state of the article)... sadly, not all editors are so sensible. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not so simple as all that. There are multiple, l literally hundreds af articles in that reference these movies. The shorter titles have been reverted many times--Jojhutton (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Breaking down how the primary source is being misinterpreted

What it has come down to is whether or not the primary source (meaning the movie) is being interpreted correctly. The best way to determine that is to first compare the source with similar sources and then break it down piece by piece.

• 1. Most, if not all, movies have credits at the beginning of the film, usually telling the viewer who is in the movie, who made the move, and most importantly for our case, the title of the movie. Hope I don't need to source that. Lucas chose, for whatever dramatic reason, to not do this. He chose to jump right into the drama and forgo the long title credits that usually accompany a film. With the release of The Empire Strikes Back, he seems to have gotten into a bit of trouble for it. Again do I need to source that? Whether anyone agrees with the title or not, we can at least agree that Lucas took a different approach to how he was going to open his Star Wars movies. So if we know that he didn't do things the Hollywood way, then we can assume that things on the screen are not as they seem to be.
• 2. Now looking at how Lucas decided to begin his films, we can start to break it down into its simplest form. When a film begins (any film), the title appears all together on the same screen shot. Sometimes it moves across the screen as in Gone With The Wind, and sometimes its just a simple set of letters at the bottom of the screen as in The Karate Kid. Yet no matter how the title is presented, all movies place their titles on the same screen shot. The first Star Wars did this as well, using the words Star Wars, moving from front to back and then disappearing. Followed by three paragraphs of scroll. When Empire was released,, the same screen shot from Star Wars was retained and Lucas still utilized the three paragraph scroll, but there was a heading added to the scroll: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back. Obviously a suggestion that what the audience is watching is the 5th episode in a larger saga, even though it was the 2nd movie. If we break down that sequence, you may find that never do the words Star Wars and Episode V The Empire Strikes Back ever appear on screen together. This is odd since the title of just about every movie, that I am aware of, places the title of the movie all together in one clear screen shot. This information, taken with the fact, and it is a fact, that every trailer, movie poster, and reliable source say simply The Empire Strikes Back, we as educated people should be able to surmise that the official title of the movie when it was originally released in 1980 was in fact The Empire Strikes Back and did not include the Episode V heading.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All movies do NOT "place their titles on the same screen shot" - I need only point to the recent examples of the last Pirates of the Caribbean film, or the Lord of the Rings films - there's at least several minutes between "The Lord of the Rings" and the individual film subtitle. However, by your reasoning, it seems like you're making the case that Episode V The Empire Strikes Back is the actual film title - since it obviously and clearly is included in the same film shot, and has always been since the original release. However, you keep claiming that it is a fact that "every trailer, movie poster, and reliable source" named the film The Empire Strikes Back, when that is either your personal interpretation, or simply not true - it's certainly not a fact. Every original release poster for Empire does NOT, in fact, say simply "The Empire Strikes Back" - they do say, in fact Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The original copyright records for the film (filed in 1980) state: Application Title: Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back. These examples have been pointed out multiple times - are you purposely ignoring this because it doesn't mesh with your opinion? Also, FWIW, Lucas' problems with the DGA over opening credits began with the original film, not Empire. You like to claim the people should not base their actions on personal interpretation, and yet you're claiming that your personal interpretation (as an "educated person") is the correct one. Do you not see the discrepancy here?

Since you are the editor who has been misinterpreting the source, I was expecting this response.

As far as The Empire Strikes Back goes, it was the Return of the Jedi that included the Star Wars on its posters, not Empire. Of course I'm sure you've seen one, so I guess I'm wrong.

And as far as the copyright goes. Do you still feel that the Copyright records are the best determination of the actual title of the film? If so, I guess we can go with what the movie was copyrighted under.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion that I am "misinterpreting the source" - please do not frame your opinions as fact. However, if you want to go with the copyright title, that title is the full version, as shown in the Library of Congress Online catalog, where it specifically states: "Copyright title: Star wars. Episode V, The Empire strikes back". As to the posters, this page at Star Wars.com shows that the original release posters for the film included "Star Wars" in the title. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess the poster says what it says, but how about a copyright that is dated 1980, and not 1987, as this is about the release title and not as it was changed to later.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The earliest record for the film on the Library of Congress database is for a 1984 copy: it states Copyright title: Star wars. Episode V, The empire strikes back. The US Copyright Office record from 1980 states Application Title: Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good. So its best that we use the title that the films were copyrighted under. So Check and Mate.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Check your chess references, mate - those are not records for the actual films themselves, but ancilliary works. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Its the same web-site that you are trying to use. Can't back step now.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's back-stepping? I'm pointing you to the links to the records for the actual films themselves - you're pointing to records for ancilliary products - which are not the film. If you can't see the difference, then that's your misunderstanding. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton, the record you linked as "Check" is for a poster, not a movie. Did you realize that? Omnedon (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, judging by the date on that "Check" link (June 1980), it's probably for the Style B poster - which, of course, bears the logo "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" - so which is correct? At least the copyright applications for the films match the on-screen titling. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what is correct, becsause the copyright that you provided says Title: The Empire Strikes back.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It states Application Title: Star wars: episode V--The Empire strikes back - which is clearly what Lucasfilm intended, since that's the name of the film as shown in the film itself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I can chime in here, I clearly remember that upon the release of the Empire Strikes Back in 1980, the scroll said "Episode V" and, if memory serves me, when the first movie was re-released soon after, "Episode IV" now appeared in the scroll, where it hadn't previously. This made the first two films consistent as the first film, now called "A New Hope" in the re-release, had an episode title as did the second film. However, it was not until the newer sets of films came out that this "Episode" bit became a part of the title. So, it would seem there are elements here on both sides: While we started to see "Episode x" in the scroll starting with The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, it wasn't until the 90s that "Episode x" became part of the actual title. Canada Jack (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you real Star Wars fans?

I've been reading the above discussion with a measure of disbelief, since the question at hand is one that any real Star Wars fan would know immediately. Star Wars was the first title of the original movie. The second movie, however, was titled Episode V and Episode VI, with the original Star Wars movie retroactively being titled Episode IV. This is fairly common knowledge. Here, let the sources show you.

• It's all in the subtitle - The London Free Press

"After its initial release as Star Wars, creator George Lucas retitled the first movie to Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope, with the two sequels formally called Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Episode VI -- Return of the Jedi.

The first movie remains universally known as Star Wars, while the two sequels are referred to by their subtitles. The full names have caught on with Lucas' current trilogy of prequels, whose first two instalments were Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace and Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones."

• Title Bouts - South Florida Sun

"After all, no one is retroactively retitling The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back and well, ..."

• Here's a source from when Empire came out, which explains everything. Darth Vader's Surprise Attack - Washington post - 1980

"The first indication of unexpected developments comes almost immediately. It is the appearance of the heading "Episode V" at the top of a prologrue that crawls from the bottom to the top of the screen. Could one "Star Wars" plus one "Empire Strikes Back" equal five? First there is the 20th Century-Fox logo, accompanied by Alex North's familiar fanfare, which remains unchanged. So does the title "Star Wars" as it flashes upon the screen and recedes into the vanishing point of a familiar celestial background, accompanied by John Williams' even more stirring and reassuring fanfare. Suddenly, there's the jolt of that "Episode V". Having spelled out this revelation, the crawl goes on to spell out the new title and a memory-refreshing, scene-setting prologue that begins with the ominous sentence: "It is a dark time for the Rebellion.""

...

"Just as "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" start in the thick of the action, jumping into military operations caused by civil war in a remote, exotic, technologically advanced interplanetary civilization, Lucas recently disclosed that he started in the middle of a grandiose epic narrative. These sensational popular spectacles are intended to be merely the first and second chapters of a trilogy, which will be completed in 1982 or 1983 by a third chapter entitled "Revenge of the Jedi" (changed to "Return of the Jedi"). When "Star Wars" is reissued, probably next summer, the prints will include the subtitle, Episode IV: A New Hope". This adjustment may already be seen in the published screenplay, which came out last winter in an attractive book called "The Art of Star Wars.""

I hope this is able to clear everything up, because this argument is silly. Silverseren^C 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank Spiller as a usability expert

At Tablet_computer#History there's an article by usability expert Frank Spiller used as a reference, about the reasons why MS tablets didn't get consumer popularity. At the talk page we're discussing whether Frank Spiller can be used as a reliable source for the usability topic.

This guy regularly publishes at hci and design conferences[28], and his work has been cited[29]. But has also many self-published articles, like the one used as reference. So he's an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, which is the defined criteria for self-published sources. Does he count as a reliable source for the design of tablets? Diego Moya (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which third-party reliable source has published one of his articles? Can you please link to it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the above citation, his work was included in The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. That's clearly a reliable source, so his self-published work in that field may be usable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that seems like a reasonable argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He's published in an edited book. That doesn't make him an expert that I'm aware. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "expert" has a Wikipedia meaning. See WP:SPS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SPS has been brought up. I disagree with the application and interpretation, based upon what little has been discussed so far.

Let me elaborate my position: That doesn't make him an expert by any definition that I'm aware within Wikipedia, especially WP:SPS. He's published in an edited book. That doesn't make him an expert.

WP:SPS has two criteria by my reading: 1) That the individual is an expert on the topic. 2) The expert has published work in the relevant field that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I'm don't think he meets either, as the published work appears far from what we're trying to include in the article.

WP:SPS also states, "However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to make a distinction between an edited book and a third party publication. Can you elaborate on the difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as very significant to the matter, but an edited book is just a compilation of individually written articles by different authors, all writing on related subjects, edited for grammar and presentation. Just as anyone can author a book, any group can author a edited book, and it's easier to do so because the individual effort is easier. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that matters if the book is published by a respected publishing house which apparently it has. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The publisher, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, is certainly reliable, so it definitely establishes Spillers as having published in that particular field. His other publications are worth investigating as well. This is far out of my own field, so I can't offer any meaningful opinion on how relevant that field is to what we're trying to include at tablet computer. If it were relevant, then his self published source may be used (emphasis on the "may") if editors decide to through discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Normally we treat such editing which goes into making a book, a form of fact checking, and that is what we need to keep in line with WP:RS. Is there something special about this case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly someone else has also reported the same information, there were already a previous reference by Ars Technica included in the article covering the same topic, and many others sources have also expressed their opinions and given hints for MS Tablets not taking off. I just happen to like the Spiller version the most as it gives a deeper, more to the point description of the usability issues at hand. (I've copied the Ars reference to the discussed paragraph to also show its relevance there).

As for the relevance of Spiller's work to design of tablets: his published papers seem to be for basic HCI research such as task analysis and emotional design. Those principles are widely applicable to commercial & user-centered design. Given that the article at hand was published prior to the iPad announcement, I'd say his analysis was a remarkable prediction of what Apple's strengths later supposed to the market.

I thank User:Ronz for explaining why he thinks the published book doesn't count as a third party source, but as Cúchullain pointed out I think your view (that compilations of articles aren't reliable) is not correct in this case. Diego Moya (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that too. A responsible publisher (which it seems to be agreed Lawrence Erlbaum Associates is) would expect an edited book to meet the same standards as a single-author book. The same level of peer review, copy-editing and fact checking would be done in both cases. Andrew Dalby 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a clearer response to my efforts to determine what it means in this context to say an author is an expert. Let me try to summarize from what's written so far: It appears that editors think that if an author has anything published in a book by a reputable publisher, that person is an expert on related topics and that authors self-published works are reliable sources. Am I misrepresenting others' opinions this way? --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying, at least. Having publishing in the field establishes that an author's work can be used in articles related to that field; it's up to the editors to decide whether it should be. In other words, it's no longer a reliability issue, it's an editorial issue, best decided by the editors at the article in question. And of course the burden is on the ones who want to include it to defend it. (And this assumes the field Spiller has published in is really relevant to what we're trying to include at tablet computer; as I say, I'm not qualified to offer a useful opinion on that).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My view on the specific issue here is that Spillers has commented usefully on the topic, and may be regarded as an expert to the extent that his views are definitely worth citing; but since these are opinions they should be attributed to him by name in the text. At present he is not named in the text, nor even in the footnote: that's unsatisfactory. Andrew Dalby 10:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. That should be easy to fix, though. I'll see what I can do about that. Diego Moya (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting into WP:OR and WP:SOAP problems as well.

Find a source that says he's an expert and we're making progress. Find a source that says he's an expert on the usability of tablet computers, and I don't think anyone is going to question the use of his personal blog as a source. With neither, his opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I avoided explicitly calling Spillers an expert in text but included his name anyway in the footnote. As for his validity as a reliable source I think this conversation shows consensus (not WP:UNANIMOUS, but consensus anyway) that the article can be used; wp:verifiability doesn't require the sources to be sourced themselves. Diego Moya (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see consensus here, at least not favoring any proposals that his blog is a reliable source.

I realize I'm using a very strong interpretation of WP:SPS. I believe my interpretation is in line with creating a better article and encyclopedia. Time after time, I find that the best resolution to disputes is to find sources that everyone agrees are reliable and relevant.

If you chose to continue this dispute, I believe we've got as much from this venue as we can expect. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ronz: I think the consensus here is that the source is reliable per WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that we've sources that establish him as an expert. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Ronz. WP:SPS insists that he's published in a third-party source (true) and that he's an expert (maybe not true). So it's not clear that this is a reliable source as per WP:SPS. Mlm42 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, that's how I interpret WP:SPS. I brought this up earlier (18:55, 17 February 2011), but no one has responded directly.

Looking through past RSN discussions, I'm having trouble finding any good discussions on what it means to be an expert in regard to WP:SPS. Can anyone find some?

I believe the caveat in WP:SPS ("...one should take care when using such sources...") is important and needs to be addressed by those arguing for a weaker interpretation. Further, I'd like someone to respond to my concern (20:27, 23 February 2011) that it is better to rely upon better sources - doing so results in better articles and makes it easier to resolve disputes in general. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS doesn't define what an "expert" is. AFAIK, that's an exercise left to the editors of each article to determine. Generally, here at RSN, the fact that someone's been published by a third-party reliable source is taken as evidence of expertise. However, usually in these discussions, the author has had numerous publications. This is, AFAIK, the only case where the author has been published once.

If you have a better source, then use that. Or both. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense to me.

The dispute is over whether or not he's an expert, so this is the wrong forum for this dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS and Weston Price biography

Over on the Weston Price article there is the following medical claim:

"Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities. (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222, ISBN 978-1-55009-333-9)

The problem is that this claim is NOT supported by the majority of the reliable sources (see Wikipedia:NPOVN#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory and so I want to put in the following which IMHO better shows the state of affairs:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I should mention the following "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159) Both Silverman and Baumgartner are now published by McGraw Hill who also publishes little gems such as:

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Despite these red flags we are told by certain editors that the ONE reference by People's Medical Publishing House/McGraw Hill must superseed references both before and after by such reliable sources as the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House which is now also published by McGraw Hill simply because these other sources do not mention Price and yet we DO have a reliable source that does mention Price:

"The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

I must ask does pushing a clearly inaccurate reference in the light of so many others that say the exact opposite thing make sense per MEDRS?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A medical textbook is a reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Books Fladrif (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read the references. Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136 states that "in spite of lack of scientific evidence the dental focal infection theory never died (O'Reilly, PR Claffey NW "A history of Oral Sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodontal 2000 1997; 13:121-48)(Pallashe TJ (2000) "The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal" California Dental Association Journal 28: 194-200)" Wiley is a textbook!--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your posts are very hard to read (see WP:TLDR). You asked if a medical textbook was a reliable source, got an answer that it was, came back to point out that it's a medical textbook. What is your question? Perhaps you're asking for resolution of a content dispute instead of reliability of sources. That's a different matter. If you'd shorten your posts, say what you want to cite and what source you want to use, it would be helpful. Perhaps reading some other inquiries here, to see how they're framed, will help you help us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I could support your revision. All of these sources appear to be reliable. Your point is really more related to WP:UNDUE. (There's a separate noticeboard for that — WP:NPOVN.) To be in accord with that policy, I do think it's appropriate, even though Price isn't specifically mentioned, to indicate there has been a reevaluation of focal infection theory. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It would help if editors would not speed read through what I post and say they can't understand it or post information that is already in the post because they are in too much of a hurry. If you go back to the top of this you will see that I referenced a thread at WP:NPOVN!

As I pointed out in that WP:NPOVN article the Mcgraw-hill website states Ingle's Endodontics (also a medical textbook I might add) is Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand. To put it as bluntly as possible a textbook that the publisher itself states is NOT to be sold in in the US and who also publishes books that claim homeopathy works despite no studies that support such a claim is being used to override known reliable sources such as the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Does this make a lick of sense? There is nothing to show that People's Medical Publishing House was reliable and just because McGraw-Hill picked up the rights to their works doesn't magically make them qualify under WP:RS which was my point even over at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory.

My question to my fellow editors is can a textbook that even its own publisher will not allow to be sold in the US, publishes books that claim homeopathy works (including one form its medical division), and is contradicted by not only known WP:RS but by an earlier work by the very same publisher be considered a reliable source per MEDRS?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The premise of your question is false. This textbook is sold in the US. You've completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the publisher's disclaimer. That McGraw Hill imprint of Ingle's Endodontics (6th Ed) is only for sale in those countries because other publishers have the rights in the other countries. BC Decker has the distribution rights in the US. [30] This is a textbook that has been renowned for decades. It is unquestionably a reliable source under WP:MEDRS, and your continued arguments are starting to sound like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As other editors have pointed out, if you think that it has a particular detail wrong, with reliable secondary sources that meet WP:MEDRS, take it up elsewhere. But, I would also point out that you raised this question in relationship to a sentence in a BLP, and arguing over the state of dental focal infection theory strikes me as being completly a WP:COATRACK issue. Fladrif (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The premise of my question was two fold and you didn't address the second part--how can a medical statement by Ingle's Endodontics that CONTRADICTS articles from Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association, two textbooks by Wiley, and a book by the very same publisher across nearly half a century meet WP:MEDRS? Explain how Silverman (also published by Mcgraw Hill) can say "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory. The detrimental effect of focal infection on general health has been known for decades." but the very same year (2002) the 5th edition of Ingle's Endodontics states "Today the medical and dental professions agree that there is no relationship between endodontically treated teeth and the degenerative diseases implicated in the theory of focal infection."? The two statements do NOT agree ergo one MUST be wrong-QED and since Silverman has supporting evidence while Ingle's Endodontics has to date NONE, claiming Ingle's supersedes everybody else makes no blasted sense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to seriously ask if you are fully thinking about the full implications of everything I am pointing out. You have conveniently ignored the conflict with another book by the same publisher, the fact that the parent publisher is putting out books in support of Homeopathy, and that aobut every other reliable source says otherwise.

As for the BLP issue that (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues for the actual details) was in regard to WP:BLP being misused as a censorship hammer to silence any criticism of Stephen Barrett despite the consensus (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F) that in that regard Stephen Barrett did not meet WP:RS. Things escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard#Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard where the majority held that the BLP claims were totally bogus and that it was being misused as a magical censorship hammer. As I have shown with the many WP:RS (some of which are reproduced below) the Ingles Endodontics book has serious factual problems:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection ; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111).

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps." ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal; pg 27)

"...in spite of lack of scientific evidence the dental focal infection theory never died (O'Reilly (2000) "A history of Oral sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodentel 2000 23:13-18 and Pallashe TJ (2000)(Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 135-13).

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis from the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)

"This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." (Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33)

Two Textbooks as well as the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine,Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the New York Academy of Dentistry, and other WP:RS over the course of half a century all show that in this instance Ingles Endodontics at best makes a misleading statement and at worst simply got it wrong. Please note that WP:MEDASSESS which covers WP:DUE is also covered under WP:RS: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." In this case Ingles Endodontics is clearly in the minority--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

It looks as if the consensus is that the McGraw-Hill book is a reliable source. I guess I agree with others in the discussions elsewhere that you're conflating Price's applications with focal infection theory itself. I think the current text should be more clear. I'd revise it to say "Price's applications of focal infection theory . . . " TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a good hard look at BOTH Mcgraw-hill publications:

"Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory. The detrimental effect of focal infection on general health has been known for decades. Prophylactic antibiotics are routinely prescribed before some dental procedures to immunosuppressed and other at-risk patients, to combat the spread of oral bacteria into the blood stream." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" Mcgraw-hill; Page 159)

"Today the medical and dental professions agree that there is no relationship between endodontically treated teeth and the degenerative diseases implicated in the theory of focal infection. However, a recent book entitled Root Canal Cover-up Exposed has resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price.8 This body of research has been evaluated and disproved." (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), Mcgraw-hill, pp. 221–222)

Note the "recent" comment about Root Canal Cover-up Exposed. I would hardly call a book originally publisher in 1994 "recent". A little digging shows that this paper by Baumgartner was chapter 3 in the 2002 version of Ingle's Endodontics which is nearly verbatim to the 2007 version.

More troubling is this statement by Baumgartner: "Practitioners are well aware of the relationship between bacteremias caused by dental procedures (especially tooth extraction) and infective endocarditis. This is an example of focal infection that is not related to the classic theory of focal infection. A bacteremia associated with a dental procedure introduces bacteria into the circulation. It does not arise because of the mere presence of an endodontically treated tooth."

But the source of both Price's time and our own show this claim is WRONG:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"The hypothesis which assumes the causative connection between the primary focus and the secondary lesion is called the "focal infection theory."" (Stillman, Paul Roscoe (1922) A Textbook of clinical periodontia; Page 111)

"'One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

MJ: What is the "focal infection" theory?

George Meinig: "This states that germs from a central focal infection - such as teeth, teeth roots, inflamed gum tissues, or maybe tonsils - metastasize to hearts, eyes, lungs, kidneys, or other organs, glands and tissues, establishing new areas of the same infection. Hardly theory any more, this has been proven and demonstrated many times over. It's 100% accepted today. But it was revolutionary thinking during World War I days, and the early 1920's!"

"A focus of infection has been variously described but probably best as a circumscribed and confined area that:

• Contains pathogenic microorganisms;
• Can occur anywhere in the body; and
• Usually causes no clinical manifestations. (Easlick KA, Brown WE Jr, et al, An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 42(6):617-97, 1951.)

A focal infection is a localized or general infection caused by the dissemination of microorganisms or toxic products from a focus of infection."

[...]"Foci of infection have typically been said to arise from the tonsils, oral cavity, or sinuses, but also from the prostate, appendix, bladder, gall bladder, and kidney with pyorrhea alveolaris (periodontitis), alveolar abscesses, and pulpless teeth (treated or untreated) being the principal oral culprits and the viridans group streptococci as the prime microbial pathogens"

The application of the focal infection theory eventually fell from scientific favor for many reasons including the:

• Improvement in dental care;
• Advent of antibiotics;
• Small percent of "cures";
• Inability of science to prove the value of the theory;
• Eventual unfavorable reaction to the "orgy"of dental extractions and tonsillectomies;
• Inability to replicate the experiments of its advocates;
• Occasional exacerbation of the disease by the removal of the focus; and
• Lack of controlled clinical studies.

"This introduction to the focal infection of disease should not be construed to mean that the theory has no basis in fact. There is little doubt that under certain circumstances microorganisms can move from one area of the body to another to establish their customary pathology in another locale. (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis from the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue." (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)

"The pathogenesis of focal diseases has been classically attributed to dental pulp pathologies and periapical infections. Nonetheless, in recent years, their role is being dismissed while increasing interest is being devoted to the possible associations between periodontal infection and systemic diseases. In fact, periodontal pathogens and their products, as well as inflammatory mediators produced in periodontal tissues, might enter the bloodstream, causing systemic effects and/or contributing to systemic diseases." (abstract of Pizzo G, Guiglia R, Lo Russo L, Campisi (2010) G. "Dentistry and internal medicine: from the focal infection theory to the periodontal medicine concept." Eur J Intern Med. 2010 Dec;21(6):496-502.)

These reliable source both from Price's time and our own show that the very definition of "classic theory of focal infection" Baumgartner is using is is at best misleading if not flat out WRONG as NONE of them say a thing about focal infection being only related to endodontically treated tooth. So how can this source be considered as meeting WP:MEDRS when it 1) appears to be out of date even when it first appeared in 2002 and 2) uses a demonstratively misleading if not wrong definition?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the book's information specifically about Price factually incorrect? I don't understand why both aren't true: that focal infection theory is being reevaluated but that Price's specific applications of it have fallen out of favor. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two points here--Price's involvement in Focal infection theory and Focal infection theory itself:

"In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment rationale. (Easlick K.An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 1951;42:694.)(Grossman LI. Focal infection: are oral foci of infection related to systemic disease? Dent Clin North Am 1960;4:749) The studies by Rosenow and Price were flawed by inadequate controls, the use of massive doses of bacteria, and bacterial contamination of endodontically treated teeth during tooth extraction." {...} "However, a recent book entitled Root Canal Cover-up Exposed has resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price. (Meinig G. Root canal cover-up exposed. Ojai (CA): Bion Publishing; 1993.) This body of research has been evaluated and disproved. (Ingles)

Several factual points here.

1) As demonstrated by the above references the theory of focal infection itself was never "refuted" only this particular application of it. This is akin to showing that just because one application of Darwin's theory of evolution has problems that the whole theory has been "refuted".

2) Per two peer reviewed articles of Pallashch, Easlick also defined focal infection theory as "A focus of infection is a confined area that: (1) contains pathogenicmicroorganisms, (2) can occur anywhere in the body and (3) usually causes no clinical manifestations" (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association)(Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?" Endodontic Topics 2003, 4, 32–45) The very article Ingels references as supporting its claim that theory of focal infection was refuted in the 1930s also states that it can occur anywhere in the body. I challenge anyone to show me where focal infection of the appendix has been disproved which is what Ingles is basically saying here.

3)The 1947 Journal of the American Medical Association, 1952 Southern California State Dental Association journal, and United States. Dept. of the Army (1971) Dental specialist: Sept. 20, 1971, all talk about focal infection theory as being valid in dentistry so it could not have been "refuted" in the 1930s. "We conclude that 111In-labeled IgG imaging is effective for the detection of focal infection and that serial scans may be useful in assessing therapeutic efficacy." (Rubin, Robert H. M.D.; Alan J. Fischman, M.D., Ph.D., Ronald J. Callahan, Ph.D., Ban-An Khaw, Ph.D., Francis Keech, R.T., Marsood Ahmad, M.S., Robert Wilkinson, B.S., and H. William Strauss, M.D. (1989) "111In-Labeled Nonspecific Immunoglobulin Scanning in the Detection of Focal Infection") Like the New England Journal of Medicine is going to print peer review articles involving a theory refuted some 50 years ago. Sheesh.

4) The research of Rosenow and Price was shown to be flawed but it was not "discredited" as demonstrated by the 1994 New York Academy of Dentistry who references Price. Heck the New York Academy of Dentistry even stated "The work of Dr. Weston Price is therefore still to a great extent valid and important and the role of infection can not be underestimated." "Price and Haden supported much of Rosenow's work by presenting many clinical histories substantiated by a great amount of laboratory investigation. Also one cannot overlook the studies of Van Kirk, Swanson, Wolf, and Ochsenhirt in this field." (1952 Southern California State Dental Association pg 27)

5)Price himself in peer reviewed sources was far more conservative about the evidence for focal infection theory then the article on him implies: "The relationships between dental infections and degenerative diseases, if such exist, should be demonstrable by other means than the establishment of simply an association of the two in the same person, or the development of such lesions in experimental animals with cultures taken from focal infections." (Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261) Even his 1939 Nutrition and physical degeneration book Price stated "Fluorine treatment, like dental extractions, cannot be a panacea for dental caries."

6)"Recently Dr. Weston Price of Cleveland has shifted his interest from focal infection to calcium metabolism and has only recently published a paper endorsing the views of Dr May Mellanby that bone growth and calcium metabolism metabolism depend on Vitamine D. and prevents tooth decay." ((1930) Dominion Dental Journal: Volume 42 pg 39.) So somewhere between 1925 and 1930 Price effectively dropped out of the whole focal infection theory debate. Even before that Price didn't have as you put it a "specific application" but rather studies that showed a possible correlation--exactly what we see today.

Conclusion: most of the claims regarding Price and or Focal Infection theory made by Ingles can be shows to be at best misleading if not flat out wrong. Focal Infection theory as a whole was never "refuted", the definition of Focal Infection theory used doesn't agree with the referenced material nor with other reliable sources, Price's work was still being presented in peer reviewed journals as having validity as late as the 1950s which would be impossible if the concept had been refuted in the 1930s, there is no agreement among medical and dental professions, and there is serious concern that we could see what occurred during Price's time being repeated.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much time at the moment, so I can't give this material the attention it deserves. Apologies. The statements by Ingles seem to be more a matter of opinion. How does one specifically measure if something has fallen out of favor? For that reason, it would seem hard to argue for removing this source. Even if one cites later references to his work, someone could argue that such citations were rare. So my question is, wouldn't one simply represent both points of view, using the sources you've given? Again, my apologies. Will check in tomorrow morning. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Given the support for inclusion of this source earlier in this thread, it would be hard to overturn that. But there do seem issues here worth consideration. Perhaps we should move this discussion to a subpage of the Price talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But that is NOT what Ingels is being used for. It is being use to back up the statement "These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." That bolded statement is WRONG per all the sources above. Pallasch wrote two MODERN (2000 and 2003) peer reviewed article stating "The dental profession should refrain from the temptations to gain economically from the focal infection theory, to justify dental treatment solely on the basis of prevention of systemic disease, or to use this theory to criticize another practitioner’s efforts." which echos Price's own words of 1939!

"[T]he investigation into oral-systemic disease connections is a rapidly advancing area of research." Barnett, Michael L. DDS (2006) "The Oral-Systemic Disease Connection: An Update for the Practicing Dentist", Journal of the American Dental Association. Vol 137, No suppl_2, 5S-6S.

Mind explaining how the bolded statement is valid per WP:MEDRS and no tap dancing to the doesn't reference Price nonsense. If this key point cannot be justified then the source does NOT meet WP:RS because none of the other sources are saying that focal infection theory is CURRENTLY (ie 2011) considered unviable in the dental or medical communities--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

as the discussion above clearly shows, the textbook cited represents the major stream of accepted medical thought. As the standard recent work on the field, it's the ideal sort of summarizing source we look for. This is really exceptional: an attempt to defend what is now a small minority viewpoint not by the usual claim that one source supports it, but by the claim that almost all sources support it!. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DCC, considering SEVERAL textbooks are cited above your comment makes no sense. In addition to repeating the above AGAIN I have added MORE:

"With the advancement of newer oral microbial identification methods, classification of oral microorganisms and the study of certain oral microorganisms (that are normal inhabitants of oral cavity), there has been a resurgence of interest in oral focal infection theory. It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas... (Singh (2004) Textbook of Orthodontics pg 188; Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"The dental focal infection theory never died. [...] The dental focal infection theory acquired a new dimension when immunological mechanisms were added to disseminated bacteria and microbial toxin as causative factors of systemic diseases" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley-Blackwell Page 136)

"Research in the area of periodontal medicine marks a resurgence in the concept of focal infection. In 1900, William Hunter, a British physician, first developed the idea that oral microorganisms were responsible for a wide range of systemic conditions that were not easily recognized as being infectious in nature." (Newman, Michael G. Henry H. Takei, Fermín A. Carranza, Perry R. Klokkevold (2006) "Carranza's clinical periodontology") Saunders. "Unsurpassed in its authority and scope, the 10th edition of the most widely used periodontics text has been revised to include the most up-to-date information on new technology and emerging concepts."

"Focal infection --It refers to metastasis form the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring issue" Types of focal infections listed: Infected periodical lesion, teeth with infected root canals, and periodontal disease. Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459-460

Let's see, four textbooks and a book "unsurpassed in its authority and scope" that all saying Ingels (which is just reworking 2002 information) is at best misleading and at worst out of date. I would say that is a slam dunk for me especially as some of these textbooks postdate even the 2007 printing of Ingels.

This is without pointing out all the error in the actual text of Ingels again:

1) "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" despite proof that as late as the 1950s the focal infection theory was still presented as having validity and the US Army considered it valid enough to list in a dental manual of 1971.

2) A definition of focal infection theory at odds with about every other source both before or after.

3) Ignoring the fact that Price himself in a 1925 Journal American Medical Association article stated "[t]he relationships between dental infections and degenerative diseases, if such exist, should be demonstrable by other means than the establishment of simply an association of the two in the same person, or the development of such lesions in experimental animals with cultures taken from focal infections."(Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261))--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Behind the voice actors.com poll(s)

With Wikipedia’s high standards would this website’s poll count as an approved reference?

Here’s the link. I noticed Wikipedia at least uses behindthevoiceactors.com to reference what roles an actor did.

But, would the largely debated topic of Sonic the Hedgehog truly be acceptable? I already contacted BTVA and they confirmed that the current poll results are accurate.

But, they also said that a forum on another website did a campaign to bolster votes for a particular actor. Would that also affect its usability?

Thank you for your time, reader. Viceroy kai (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference for what? On-line polls are never reliable sources. The "author" of this poll posted it under a pseudonym. It looks entirely like reader-supplied content. This cannot be used as a source in a Wikipedia article. Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Reference for what?" For example: If someone were to post these poll results on an actor’s wiki page and used BTVA as reference. I assume it would then be promptly removed, right? Viceroy kai (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not promptly. But eventually it would be removed, as soon as someone with an understanding of WP:RS noticed. Fladrif (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a WP:RS, and I cannot imagine what it could be used for in any Wikipedia article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be removed where ever it is. Tried to do so, but it's not working well. (Even though I have the edit toolbar disabled it is now popping up again and causing my browser to crawl to a halt whenever I try to edit anything.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Admissible material?

An editor and I are in disagreement about the relevance of some sourced material. The matter involves the Al-Shabaab group of Islamist militants that the UN reported some time ago as being linked to one man named Mohamed Said Atom (who is on both UN & US security watchlists and variously described as a "warlord" or "terrorist"). Recent reports from the International Strategic Studies Association have linked Al-Shabaab with the administration of the secessionist Somaliland region in northwestern Somalia, and the neighboring autonomous Puntland region has also formally accused the Somaliland authorities of providing Atom with a safe haven in their region. The present content dispute involves the paragraph below, which the user believes to be "irrelevant" and "overly long" and which he has consequently attempted to remove large parts of (specifically, the parts that are unflattering to the Somaliland region):

In addition, Garowe Online reported in October that Mohamed Said Atom, an arms-smuggler believed to be allied with Al-Shabaab and who is on U.S. and U.N. security watch-lists, was hiding out in Somaliland after being pursued by the neighboring Puntland region's authorities for his role in targeted assassination attempts against Puntland officials as well as bomb plots. Several of Atom's followers were also reportedly receiving medical attention in the region, after having been wounded in a counter-terrorism raid in the Galgala hills by Puntland security personnel. According to Puntland government documents, the Somaliland region's Riyale government in 2006 both financed and offered military assistance to Atom's men as part of a campaign to destabilize the autonomous territory via proxy agents and to distract attention away from the Somaliland government's own attempts at occupying the disputed Sool province. The Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA), a covert organization supported and trained by U.S. counter-terrorism agencies based in Djibouti, also indicated that over 70 salaried Somaliland soldiers had fought alongside Atom's militiamen during the Galgala operation, including one known Somaliland intelligence official who died in the ensuing battle. In January 2011, the Puntland government issued a press release accusing the incumbent Somaliland administration of providing a safe haven for Atom and of attempting to revive remnants of his militia. The Somaliland authorities, which had earlier described Atom as a "terrorist", strenuously denied all of the charges, dismissing them as "baseless" and intended to divert attention away from Puntland's attempt to establish what it described as a "large army". In January 2011, the Hargeisa-based broadsheet Haatuf also published an interview wherein a representative of Atom's denied that his group was affiliated with Al-Shabaab and requested military assistance from the Somaliland administration.

I would like to know if the administrators here believe the material above indeed qualifies as reliable for use on Wikipedia. I have consulted WP:VER, WP:BURDEN and WP:CRV, and they all indicate that as long as the material is on topic and reliably sourced, it is indeed admissible. Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the page, Atom's allegiance to Al-Shabaab dates to July 2010. If there are no sources indicating an earlier date, I think his visits and ties to Somaliland prior to that date are indeed irrelevant to this article. (I'm not an administrator BTW, 'just' a peer.) --Rontombontom (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks at least superficially that Garowe Online is a real news organization, as its reports are picked up by the BBC and UPI (though I have my doubts about UPI being a real news organization itself nowadays - but that's another issue). I'm not so sure about Somailanpress.com. It doesn't appear that its reports are picked up by other news agencies, so I would take that to mean that it hasn't developed a reputation as an accurate news source as yet, and probably shouldn't be used. On balance, I'd say that Garowe Online could be used as a RS, though you should not use the editorial as a source, and that Somalilandpress.com is not a reliable source. I'm not commenting on whether or not the text above accurately reflects the sources or not. Fladrif (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress, have you notified the other editors involved in this dispute of the presence of this discussion by linking them to it? I feel like we've had this discussion before: [31]. You can't post your position here, and not give others involved in the dispute the chance to voice their positions.

After looking through the discussion on the talk page, Middayexpress has rather misrepresented the situation. The dispute isn't over wheter or not this material is admissible. Both editors agree that the material is sourced. The reliability of the sources hasn't been called into question. The dispute is over wheter the content is relavant to the article or not. I'm not sure what the point of bringing this to the RS noticeboard is. TDL (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Atom's allegiance to Al-Shabaab has been reported for several years. The New York Times even quoted him a few months back as saying that he and his men "are members of the Shabab" [32] (though he later back-tracked on this when Puntland began cracking down on his militia), and he has been indentified by the UN as an Al-Shabaab operative [33]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is true that Atom's allegiance to Al-Shabaab has been reported for several years, you need to add more sources in support. The one source in the passage you quoted and the additional two sources from August 2010 you link to above don't support such a claim. The New York Times article with the "members of Shabab" quote writes about "a recently announced alliance between an insurgent commander and Shabab militants". For the UN's claims, use the original source, which is from April 2010, and doesn't identify Atom as a Shabaab operative, merely reports the existence of such claims, without firmig it up: "According to some information, ATOM is aligned with al-Shabaab and may receive instructions from al-Shabaab leader Fu'aad Mohamed Khalaf." That's rather tentative and without a defined time perod. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times's actual July 29, 2010, report on the "members of Shabab" proclamation is here, and it reports it as a new development and an alliance with unclear substance (it doesn't mention the earlier UN report). I couldn't find an earlier mention of ties on Garowe Online. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and advice. Just so it's clear, the actual passage doesn't claim that Atom has been allied with Al-Shabaab for several years; this is something I just mentioned here offhand. The UN Security Council link describes Atom's role in the group as that of an arms smuggler who takes orders from Shabaab's command: "Atom has been identified as one of the principal suppliers of arms and ammunition for al-Shabaab operations in the Puntland region... According to some information, Atom is aligned with al-Shabaab and may receive instructions from al-Shabaab leader Fu'aad Mohamed Khalaf" [34]. The "some information" is probably at least in part a reference to an earlier UN report from the month before [35]. This is in addition to the U.S. government's Executive Order 13536, which identifies Atom, among others, as an Al-Shabaab operative & places sanctions on him [36]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Atom's role in the group as that of an arms smuggler who takes orders from Shabaab's command" is not a correct characterisation of the quoted part: an arms smuggler is not necessarily an integral part of an organisation he supplies, and I indicated that the second part was tentative. I couldn't find a March UN report on the UN site, the allAfrica site article from July is probably in error and refers to the April report. The actual US government executive order 13536, which is here, is not "in addition", as it is the US implementation of the UN resolution issued on the same day as SC/9904, and merely lists the persons and one organisation under the measures, without specifying who they are and why they are sanctioned. The document you link to, a US Congressional Research Service report, mentions those sanctioned by E.O. 13536 in a footnote, characterising Atom as "militia leader and alleged Al Shabaab arms supplier", relativising even the arms supplier part.

Regarding your offhand several years figure, I understood that it is not in the quoted passage but your claim, however, it is relevant to my observation that Atom's however well-sourced pre-2010 exploits in Somaliland are probably irrelevant to the Al-Shabaab article, if no source explicitly supports his Al-Shabaab allegiance in that period. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the links and comments. Although I'm told that this isn't the board to sort out issues of relevance, Atom's pre-2010 exploits in Somaliland aren't mentioned in the passage. What is mentioned is the Somaliland region's then government's alleged support of him. Also, the reference to a UN report released the month prior in March accusing Atom of being allied with Al-Shabaab is not an error; it was issued by the UN Monitoring Group (c.f. [37]). Cheers, Middayexpress (talk)

Indeed this is the board to sort out the reliability of sources for the purpose they are used. Your latest link goes to a short October 2010 article in the Economist Intelligence Unit, which mentions the arms smuggling for Al-Shabaab only. The EIU is generally an RS, so as UN reports are public and uploaded on the UN site, I checked again, and found it listed on the Somalia and Eritrea monitoring group reports page, but with an apparently malformed link, which may be the reason a general search didn't find it. After some trickery I found a working link for S/2010/91. I quote below all passages on connections between Atom and Al-Shabaab.

Page 24, point 67, is about the arms smuggling (which the UN, unlike the CRS, treats as a definite claim): "The Monitoring Group has received credible information indicating that Eritrea continues to send arms to Somalia in small vessels via the northern Somali port of Laasqoray for onward shipment to Shabaab forces in southern Somalia by Mohamed Sa’iid Atom". Arms smuggling is repeated on page 48, in point 160: "Al-Shabaab also receives weapons via Mohamed Sa’iid “Atom” in Puntland, who trans-ships supplies southwards via Gaalkacyo."

Page 45 (all of which deals with Atom), point 147, dates the start of closer ties (which is not the same as being part of) to 2009: "Although he remains essentially a Warsengeli clan warlord, Atom reportedly calls his militia the “Eastern Sanaag Mujahidicen” and has strengthened ties with Al-Shabaab during the course of 2009. A significant number of non-Warsengeli militia are reported to have recently joined his group." ... "Numerous sources indicate that there are several non-Somali instructors at the Galgala camp, and according to eyewitness reports delegations from southern Al-Shabaab groups have been regular visitors."

The report doesn't contain the claim of Atom being under the command of Fu'aad Mohamed Khalaf, that allegation probably arrived in the month until the Security Council decision.

I note that Page 46 of the report details some operations and connections of Al-Shabaab in Somaliland dating as far back as 2003, unrelated to Atom, which you could use in that section of the Al-Shabaab article. I hope the these sources will help in the revision of Al-Shabaab#Somaliland in a way that stays on focus and pleases all editors of the page. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Impressive detective work! I've searched for that paper myself but was unable to find it. The passage in the Shabaab article states that Atom is an arms-smuggler believed to be allied with the group; this paper, among others, confirms that. Those early Shabaab links to Somaliland, however, are definitely a surprise. Middayexpress (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just what I had thought. Garoweonline is a reliable source that even the UN references [38]. Somalilandpress is a pro-secessionist website; the other editor added it ostensibly to reference the Somaliland administration's denials of impropriety. Middayexpress (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that "TDL" above is one of a group of accounts that are open supporters of Somaliland's secession. Hence, why he of course takes exception to the material above. For the record, I also not once but twice indicated on the article's talk page that I would be seeking clarification from admins. Middayexpress (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining where I took exception to the material above? I never voiced an opinion on whether the content belonges in the article or not. I only pointed out that you were missrepresenting Copper's argument, and that this wasn't the appropriate place for such a discussion.

You placed a vague note on the talk page about your intentions to seek the advice of an admin. But you never stated that there was discussion going on at RS/N. As you were warned previously, it's proper to notify all involved editors with a link to the discussion when you are reporting a dispute.

As for your repeated personal attacks about me being an open supporter of Somalialand, either take it to AN/I or drop it. TDL (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because there wasn't an RS/N discussion going on when I twice indicated on the article's talk page that I would seek clarification from admins. And it was purely out of courtesy too that I even mentioned this; RS/N's instruction boxes above do not require editor notification. They do, however, specify that this is not the place to carry on content disputes. Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm the other editor in the dispute. This is not a dispute over reliable sources, so I'm puzzled as to why it has been posted here. I proposed a shorter, more readable version of this paragraph using all the same sources. Middayexpress objected to my omitting some information that I thought added nothing to the article (eg that the Puntland Intelligence Agency is "a covert organization supported and trained by U.S. counter-terrorism agencies based in Djibouti"). The dispute is over which version of the paragraph is better. I'd encourage any interested parties to visit Talk:Al-Shabaab#Somaliland summary. --Copper button 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Reliability and Relevance are distinctly different issues. Material can be cited to a reliable source and still be irrelevant. This sounds like the sort of dispute that should be moved over to the NPOV noticeboard... as it relates more to WP:UNDUE than WP:IRS. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Copper quite plainly described the material as unreliable and in his very first post on the article's page to boot. Whatever the case, the administrator comments are appreciated. Middayexpress (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad we could help (although for the sake of clarity, most of us who reply on this page are not admins... just fellow editors who care about reliability and know the guideline and related policies well). Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks again. Middayexpress (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Magicbox

the magicbox - the site seems to be a news aggregator & translation + sales charts. There is no about page, just contact. They do say where their sales charts come from and do seem to have ongoing sales charts from Media Create (the premiere authority for these sales figures) and several charts from Famitsu (also well regarded source). I'm wanting to know if they'd be viable as a good site since its in English and because Media Create continually refreshes their lists on a weekly basis and the only way to get access to their backlog (that isn't one of the few exceptions archive.org has) is limited to businesses and organization and then only at a hefty price (several hundred USD per book).

Note, while they do seem to regularly get data from media create, Famitsu and others, they do not specifically credit Famitsu or Media Create for their yearly charts, although by looking through it, it appears they just essentially do what we allow with WP:CALC and compile them like that for those special charts.陣内_Jinnai 05:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On the face of it, this source seems acceptable. But see the guidelines at the top of this page. Specifically, you're asked to note the article in which it is being used and the statement in the article that the source is supporting. Is there any controversy surrounding this source? TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's being used for that sales data, specifically one of those derived charts. at Dragon Quest, but the question was raised at WT:VG/S to see if it could be a RS for the charts whether derived or not.陣内_Jinnai 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's a good source for this information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopscotch

I believe that the name of this children's game is widely misunderstood. Learning the Czech language, I found that they have adapted the English word "hop" colloquially to mean a small jump. The word "jump" itself in Czech is "skoč," pronounced roughly as "scotch." So my belief is that the childrens' jumping game was brought to America by slavic immigrants, as "Hop-skoč".

Gene Deitch genedeitch@yahoo.com

Thanks, Gene. You may be correct. If we were to use this information in Wikipedia, we would need a published source that states this. We're not allowed to put original research in the encyclopedia — everything must come from published sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the current Hopscotch article's claim about the origins of the game name in England, not America, is sufficiently sourced. Furthermore, 'hop' in that meaning is not unique to English among Germanic languages, so it may have came to Czech from another source than English. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

sherdog.com as a reliable source for mixed martial arts BLPs

For example, see Brad Burrick. There are a number of MMA fighters which are being sourced to www.sherdog.com. I note that the link only discusses their fighting records, and there doesn't seem to be much else on the page to create a biography from. Corvus cornix_talk 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This site is published by AtomicOnine[39], which operates over 50 premium websites. As such, it seems acceptable as a source for mixed martial arts. I don't know, though, whether it would be enough to meet notability requirements, but I guess that's a question for a different venue. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the publisher also producing other websites is much of a recommendation, but sherdog.com is a content partner of espn.com, according to this. Conceivably it's a reliable source for match statistics, records, etc. but obviously if there's no biographical material, it can't be cited for biographical material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sherdog has often been accepted as a reliable source for general information about MMA fighters, such as height, age, ect, along with information about the fights they have been in and their win/loss ratio. It is considered reliable, as has been stated above, because it is partnered with ESPN.com. Silverseren^C 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Schenck & Birthplace question

Hi, could someone please take a look at Talk:Joseph Schenck#Birthplace question? This .ru website in question was also previously used (has since been reverted) as a source for some info in Marilyn Monroe. Any input on assessing this website as a reliable source would be really helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but based on the description given at the talk page, its not reliable. If you want to ask additional Russian speaking editors for help, you can find some here.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of scribd.com blacklisting

I know that scribd.com has often come up in discussions here. There is currently an ongoing discussion among a group of admins who maintain Wikimedia:Spam-blacklist, regarding the possibility of blacklisting most or all of scribd. See the discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proliferation of scribd links in the blacklist. Perhaps a regular contributor to RSN could chime in there, not to "vote" but rather to describe the history and sentiment toward scribd that has transpired on RSN. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to delete Lord Sri Akshunna / Akshunnath Mahaprabhu

The page on Lord Sri Akshunna / Akshunnath Mahaprabhu is totally nonsense, Please Please dear moderators / editors, check with an expert on religion in South Asia, this whole article is someones self aggrandizing blather, none of the figures mentioned exist at all in any tangible way past or present and the 2 external links are to Hindu sites most definitely not affiliated in any way with the article. Hindu religion is extremely big but if you do a bit of research even just with google you will find that this page does a disservice to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.66.6 (talk • contribs)

• If you want the page Akshunnanath Mahaprabhu deleted, I recommend that you register an account on Wikipedia. This way, you will be able to complete the process of nominating the page for deletion as described at WP:AFDHOWTO. (IP users can't complete the process themselves.) Otherwise, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board or Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and seeing if someone there will nominate the page on your behalf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of a website about John Hunyadi

The source I am asking about is http://web.axelero.hu/kesz/jel/01_12/hunyadiak.htm (Iaaasi (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC))

It looks like a thoroughly-documented article in academic style that could have been published somewhere. But unless we can confirm that, or alternatively unless we have evidence that material undergoes peer review before it appears on that site, we can't count it as reliable. Andrew Dalby 13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since its in a language I don't read, I can't tell if it includes any reference to its place of original publication. Also, have you tried searching on a unique phrase in the article to try and find the original source? If you yourself don't speak the language in question, maybe you can find an editor who does at this page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The text is in Hungarian. I can't find anything about the author (Balassa Zoltán). At the bottom of the text it is provided a list of references, but I don't think if that is relevant. We don't know if the content from the sources is misinterpreted or altered (Iaaasi (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC))

The page offers no evidence or claim of prior publication. I agree with Iaaasi: without any sign of peer review "we don't know if the content from the sources is misinterpreted". NB we haven't been told which Wikipedia article is under discussion here; but, in general, if an editor wanted to cite this page, that editor would need to show e.g. that the work is published (and cite the publication) or maybe that Balassa is an acknowledged expert with reliable publications elsewhere.

If (following the hint in the heading above) we're talking about the article John Hunyadi, I see that Balassa's piece is cited (currently footnote 14) but without a link or any other information. Since there's another footnote citation for the same scrap of information, and it's to a definitely reliable source, the simple answer appears to be to remove this one. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've eliminated the unreliable source (Iaaasi (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

Am I right to doubt fanfiction.net is a reliable source?

Moved from Help Desk

Can someone else please take a look at this edit. I strongly doubt the reference added is a reliable source and therefore should not be used in this context. I would normally revert this myself right away, but considering the extreme reaction I received from Archiver of Records (talk · contribs) last time I reverted one of his edits, I don't really want to provoke him into personally attacking me again if there is doubt about the source's unreliability. Don't get me wrong here; I'm quite happy to take him on again, but just want to be sure the community agrees the source is not reliable. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Fanfiction.net is a user generated site, and the material linked even says that it is an improvement on the plot of the movie, not a straight summary. Not a reliable source, and completely un-needed in a plot summary which can be verified by watching the movie anyway. So possibly WP:SPAM to get the site linked on Wikipedia.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised anyone would even try to use Fanfiction.net as a source. Imdb maybe but not Fanfiction.net. I agree with the WP:SPAM assessment.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes II

Is In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World. published by the State University of New York Press written by Carol Winkler a reliable source for the statement that "An estimated thirty three thousand people were killed in south Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 and a further fifty seven thousand abducted" Tentontunic (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure this is an RS question? Isn't there some sort of established convention for that article about not attributing deaths in war as "mass killings under..."? --FormerIP (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

State university presses are generally accepted as "reliable sources" under WP:RS. Collect (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)User Fifeloo has said the source is not reliable, and some of the editors are saying it does not meet the criteria of mass killing laid out be Valentino. No-one has said mass killings in war time can not be added to the article as yet. Tentontunic (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Except Benjamin Valentino's who's category of dispossessive mass killing we are reliant upon for the topic and scope of that article requires the state to be in control or responsible for the civilians they're killing. Arguing this in the context of the Republic of Vietnam would be difficult in the manner you're doing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mass killing" is a technical sociological term with a specific definition arising out of Benjamin Valentino's work (an accepted scholarly expert on cross cultural causes of mass killing in the 20th century, and the analysis of demographics of mass death).

• Valentino's category of mass killing is defined as caused population losses of at least 50,000 in five years or fewer by the state responsible for the civillians.
• Valentino defines a further technical sociological term "dispossessive mass killing" and then proceeds to give an example of "dispossessive mass killing" in a communist kind, being the common dispossessive features of Soviet, Chinese and Khmer mass killings.
• The article Mass killings under Communist regimes is entirely dependent upon Valentino's definition and example for its existence, the body of the article filled out with Rummell's work, supposition about other mass killings, alternate terms for mass killings, examples of communist mass killings in detail found in Valentino and elsewhere.

Is Carol Winkler's work, a discourse analysis of US presidential media strategy, reliable to:

• Establish that 5000 people died at Hue
• Make a claim not found in the text that this was a "mass killing"
• Make a claim that this was a "dispossessive mass killing of the communist kind"

Carol's text does not appear to contain any information indicating that 50,000 people were killed in under five years at Hue, nor, that the Hue killings were part of a dispossessive strategy, nor that the PAVN/NFL were acting as a government (leading to a reasonable Synthesis). Can Carol's text be used to establish that the Hue killings were an element of a dispossessive mass killing of the communist kind? Is Carol an author reliable for cross cultural comparative demography and the causes of mass death? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure why you are saying 50,000 people were killed in Hue. The source in question is for "An estimated thirty three thousand people were killed in south Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 and a further fifty seven thousand abducted" This refers to actions carried out by communist insurgents all over Southern Vietnam, not just Hue. The Hue source is not even being presented here. Tentontunic (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Also, Valentino makes mention if these types of mass killings in Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century see p86. Tentontunic (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless Carol is a comparative theorist of causes of demographic losses; and proposes a theory of communist causes of comparative demographic losses; then the only relevant issue is "Does Carol describe a situation identical with Valentino's definition of dispossessive mass killing equivalent to his communist example." The numbers and time frame are not identical with Valentino's theory. Carol, a discourse analyst is unreliable for the historical analysis of the dispossessive nature of deaths in Vietnam. Carol is neither a historian of Vietnam, nor a demographic loss analyst. Her work is not reliable to sustain a claim that mass killing occurred in Vietnam, as "mass killing" isn't any old term, it is a defined construct. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Snippets

I have searched through the archives and found a couple of examples where Google Snippets was discussed. Several have focused on Google snippets, where their reliability has been discussed but in those cases editors did in fact have the source to hand. The consensus that I have seen thus far is that provided an editor has the source available then use of Google snippets is perfectly acceptable to illustrate a proposed edit. I've done so myself.

However, when Google snippets is the sole source used to support an edit and the editor does not possess the source, I do not believe this is a reliable or accurate way to source edits. Unless you have the ability to see the source and to discuss it in the whole I do not believe this is a reliable way to source an edit.

As an example:

This was given as justification of an edit to support a claim the British controlled Gibraltar in the period 1704-1713.

"And, most important in the early days, there was the succession of British Governors who recognised that their position as dictators of Gibraltar gave them unprecedented opportunities for plunder." (Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar, Allen Andrews, p 55

The editor who made this claim searched for the name of the Governor who was appointed in 1707, Shrimpton. This is the Google snippet they used [40].

Unfortunately, the editor wasn't in posession of the source, that part of the book is dealing with the period 1713-1727 after Utrecht when Gibraltar was ceded to Britain.

My second concern is that of the potential for confirmation bias. Rather than reading sources and composing a neutral point of view edit, the editor decides the content they wish to write, then looks for sources to justify the text and can all too easily mislead themselves that they've reliably sourced an edit. As shown above, it is far from reliable.

My question for this board, is are Google Snippets, alone suitable for sourcing edits? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say not. Google Snippets give just a sentence or two of material and , as in the example you described, are too easily misunderstood or taken out of context. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We all use snippet view from time to time. It's good for identifying texts that may be of interest, and sometimes you can use it to rule out a source as irrelevant (if you find no mention of the search string at all). In theory, you should read the whole of a work before citing it at all, so that you are certain not to cherry-pick or pull items out of context. But for non-contentious material, the Google Books preview may be sufficient, or if using a paper book copy, it may be OK to read only the introduction, conclusion and one chapter. Some people will have a stricter view than that. You can always ask another editor if he/she has read the whole text, rather than making an assumption. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. First of all we are talking google snippets here, where at most you can see a few sentences and that is all. Sometimes less. I have no problem with using Google Books preview at all. Secondly, I am not making a presumption, the editor in question has stated he has not read the source and is using snippets only. This is what I consider is an unreliable method for sourcing. Finally, we are not talking about non-contentious material, rather material relevant to particular national narratives. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the best thing to do is to delay discussion until editors have been able to access the source. And it is only worth everyone accessing the source if it appears to be relevant and high quality. That can usually be judged by the title, date of publication, author, publisher, but snippet searches can also yield some information. If another editor told me he had the whole text, and I only had snippet view, then I might take it on trust that he was using the book properly, but if no-one editing has access to the whole text, then the book shouldn't be used at all. It can go into Further reading if it seems to be relevant and of quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Things like Google snippets and Google Books are a great tools for finding potential sources... but they should never be used as a source themselves. We always need to read the actual source material and cite that. We need to make sure that we are not taking a snipped material out of context. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, just to avoid misunderstanding coming from your connecting of Google Books more generally into this discussion, in these days of e-books I take it that if someone reads a book properly online that is like reading in any other media. I presume you are referring to cases of people not reading properly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An e-book or scanned copy of a book hosted on a reliable website is fine... as long as the reader can view the entire book in question. My concern with Google books is that it sometimes limits the number of pages that can be viewed. Thus, we can not always be sure that we have been presented with enough material to fully understand the context in which a searched for term or phrase appears. The concern is certainly a lot less than it is with Google snippets, but it is there never the less. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, where sources are in the public domain and there is a complete copy available, it is no different to going down the library. To be precise, where snippets is the only material available it runs the risk of misleading and is unreliable as a source. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see both points here. In the case of the Weston Price article there was the claim that he had been called "Charles Darwin of Nutrition"; a search of google books produced this snippet [41] which was enough to show the actually statement was that he might as well be caused that and it was an option piece. That was enough to clarify a mammoth mistatment that at over 5,000 hits was all over the internet.

On the flip side snippets produce a lot of garbage mishits and unless you can see their context they are worse then useless.

Snippets are like any tool--they can be used or abused. --BruceGrubb (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There should be no hard-and-fast rule. A snippet may contain enough context to unambiguously establish or support a particular point in an article - or it may not. If it does, it should not be excluded from use merely because it was viewed in snippet form. I do not agree with any notion that an editor must have access to an entire book before it can be used as a source. Thparkth (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree with you there. It can appear to establish or support a particular point but unless you have the source you cannot know that for certain and therein lies the problem. Its like looking at a source through a straw, you see fragments of text, you cannot establish for certain you're reflecting the original intent of the author. As a means of research it is contrary to wikipedia's way of working, you start with the edit and look for sources to confirm it, it is therefore vulnerable to confirmation bias and will not reflect the weight of views in the literature. As an example, there is a famous literary review of Lawrence Olivier in the London Standard, which stated "Not one of Olivier's best performances". This was reported on the poster at the theatre as "...one of Olivier's best performances". You see the danger? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Findadeath.com

I see that this source is being used, in some cases as an external link, and in other cases as a source, in about 75 BLP's or, perhaps more accurately BnotLP's. Do others agree with me that this is not a reliable source? According to the website, its just some guys' website. [42] Is it ok as an external link? Thoughts?Fladrif (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would fall under the constraints of WP:SPS. I'd even be cautious about using it as an external link. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Obscure local history book

The book

THROUGH THE MIST OF TIME

Memories of the past from Whitegate, Aghada, Saleen, Roches Point, Guileen etc.

Compiled by Whitegate/Aghada Historical Society

has been proposed as a source for the claim that Aghada is nicknamed "Andrew Meaghers Playboy Mansion". It's unkonwn to the Library of Congress, the Irish National Library and to Amazon. The only indication I could find for the book's existence are two websites,[43][44] neither of which is itself not a reliable source. Any ideas on how to verify the book's existence and whether a book that hard to obtain counts as a reliable source? Huon (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of tiny local historical societies that publish monographs and the like, of purely local interest, largely authored by their members. They're likely reliable, if a bit boosterish, but the bottom line for Wikipedia is that these really aren't established publishers with reputations for editorial oversight. They're more like Self-Published Sources, so they probably don't qualify as a RS. I wouldn't be inclined to use them as a source for a Wikipedia article for anything other than very basic information. That something is known as the local playboy mansion is outside of the scope of anything I'd use a source like this for. Fladrif (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article, and I'd be very uncomfortable if this information were added. I echo Fladrif's reservation, but more importantly, it would give undue weight to a bit of trivia in what is otherwise a short, factual article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cline Austin -- Agnostic Atheism

As far as I can tell Wikipedia owes the definition of "Agnostic Atheism" to one source. The source is Cline Austin, an about.com blogger on atheism. The affected pages are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism (reference 17) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism (reference 1,2). The referenced material is http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm and http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I believe Mr. Austin is an insufficient author to be establishing the definition of philosophical terms. Also, I point out his material lacks peer review.

You may well be right. There are a lot of other more reliable looking sources on Google books referencing this term, use them instead. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though he has a master's degree from Princeton, there is nothing in Austin Cline's bio[45] that says that he's published on this topic. And there's not likely any editorial review at About. I'd agree that he's not the best source, given that WP:SPS stipulates that in order to use a self-published source the author must have previously published work in reliable third-party publications. TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agora and SPS

Agora (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aloha. I promised a new user that I would file a report requesting guidance from the regulars on this noticeboard about interpreting WP:SPS and the use of two potential (expert?) sources and how we can apply SPS to our article on Agora (film): we have two allegedly expert sources, Faith L. Justice and Tim O'Neil, both of whom maintain blogs—Historian's Notebook and Armarium Magnum respectively. Justice (and her blog) appears to meet the definition of an expert, in this instance a known, published expert on the topic of historical fiction[46][47] who has written an extensive, comprehensive three-part critical essay on the film, Agora.[48][49][50] My understanding is that we might be able to use selected portions of this essay carefully, if at all. Like Justice, O'Neill appears to be an expert on the subject as well, but more of an independent scholar,[51] and like Justice, O'Neill has authored two comprehensive essays on the subject of the film.[52][53] Generally, I would be against using self-published sources altogether, but this is a somewhat unique situation, considering that critical essays on the film are hard to find. The film was all but panned in the U.S. due to what was perceived as its alleged "anti-Christian" bias, and received very limited distribution in theaters. For this reason, critical analysis, like the kind offered by Justice and O'Neill, may be important for developing the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

SPS can be used as primary sources for sourcing the person's opinion as I understand. Beyond that it comes down to whether someone's opinion is regarded as notable or not on this subject. If the person has been published in secondary sources in regards to the critical analysis of historical fiction, then there is a strong argument that their opinion is notable in this context i.e. critical analysis. However, if they start questioning historical accuarcy based on their own historical knowledge, then their opinion might not be notable in that regard if they are not published experts on that period of history. Beyond that we'd probably need to see each statement and the accompanying source. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Betty, your feedback would suggest that Justice is acceptable, having been published on the topic of historical fiction, is that correct? It seems, therefore, that the question is O'Neil. Given that this is a controversial film, it might be a good idea, as Betty suggests, to look at the specific statement. (Which is also what the guidelines at the top of this page advise.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS says: " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Although Justice seems to have read and absorbed everything out there on Hypatia, her novel about the era is self published, and I saw no evidence of third party publications confirming her expertise in this field. I found Timothy O'Neill described here as having an "academic background in medieval literature and ancient and medieval history", but his own blog profile describes him as a human resources manager in an Australian firm. Due to the common name, I can't confirm any prior scholarly publications at Google Books or Scholar (there is a Timothy O'Neill who wrote two books about ancient Ireland, but I assume our guy would have mentioned those in his blog profile if they were his). So regretfully, I think neither author passes WP:SPS for our purposes, though they both have done their homework and acquired a lot of knowledge about the subject matter. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this summary. I saw a number of reviews in the Further reading section. Shouldn't they be drawn on for the main body of the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Reports with obvious conflict of interest?

Is this a reliable source for claims about the consistency and reliability of the MBTI?

Schaubhut, Nancy A. (2009). "MBTI Form M Manual Supplement" (PDF). CPP. p. 17. Retrieved 8 May 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Thanks for any help people can give me on this issue. --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is only a reliable source for attributed information about how the rights holders to MBTI view it, and consideration should be given to weight. --FormerIP (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I understand now, and will edit with this in mind. --Aronoel (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wands and Worlds Author Chats

I have previously brought this up (though in a more vague sense) before, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Reliable?, but possibily due to the unclearness of my question, the answer was not entirely satisfactory.

In question is the reliabilty of Wands and Worlds Author Chats, as references. It has been stated that Wands and Worlds is a forum, and thus, not RS. However, it is my belief that the author chats should be considered reliable sources, due to the fact that it is the author who is participating in the author chat. In essence, the author chat is equivalent to any other interview, albeit with a lot of random chatting by chat participants other than the author.

For example, in the article Moonrise (Warriors), various author chats are cited, with only statements made by the authors being used. Sources include:

• "Erin Hunter Chat #2 Transcript—August 19, 2006". Wands and Worlds. Retrieved February 16, 2008.
• "Erin Hunter Chat #1 Transcript—December 11, 2005". Wands and Worlds. Retrieved March 2, 2008.
• "Erin Hunter Chat #4 Transcript—January 19, 2008". Wands and Worlds. Retrieved August 29, 2010.
• "Erin Hunter Chat #3 Transcript Part 2—May 12, 2007". Wands and Worlds. Retrieved February 16, 2008.

As this was one of the issues raised at the article's previous GAN, I feel that it is necessary for me to seek clarification regarding whether these are considered reliable sources. Brambleclawx 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you were given the correct answer when you posted before, and am not sure what wasn't satisfactory. The consensus here seems to be that interviews are governed by WP:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. An interview should be reliable for assertions like "I killed off character X because", "Blue is my favorite color", and "I was born in 1959". They are not RS for "There was a second gunman at the Kennedy assassination" (unless the speaker has been previously published as an expert on this topic by third party sources) or "Living author Y is an alcoholic". I think the uses shown in the Moonrise (Warriors) article are appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize Board announces changes for 2011 journalism competition

The Pulitzer Prize folks are now recognizing newspaper web sites and videos. Magazines and broadcast media web sites are not eligible. [54]

The change announced today places the emphasis on journalistic excellence across all formats and makes clear that submitting news organizations should enter work as their readers saw it -- if multimedia and visual elements were primary pieces of the work as published, they should be primary pieces of the Pulitzer entries.

Prize administrators also are doing several things to ensure the visual and multimedia work is viewed equally by jurors evaluating entries. For example: Those jurors will be asked to bring their laptops to the judging in March so they can more easily view multimedia and visual elements as they were seen originally by readers.

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

movies.yahoo.com

In Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film; used to reference the production countries. I just want to know if it is reliable or not. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Our concerns with film sites such as IMDB tends to be because the content is user-generated. I didn't see any sign that is the case at Yahoo Films, which seems to be a professionally compiled site and would therefore be reliable for matters like country of origin, casting, dates, writing credits and the like. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Student newspapers

In a couple unrelated instances that I've noticed, student newspapers are used as sources. In the article on Warnborough College, this article[55] in the Internet Archive from an unnamed Oxford student publication is being used as a source (but not sole source) for the college's legal troubles back in 1995. And in the article on the Natural Law Party, this edit[56] added information about the party's activities and claims in Ireland sourced to The University Times[57]. But then the editor removed the content to the Talk page when he realized it was from a student newspaper. Are student newspapers reliable sources? Both reports seem credible.TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote at Talk:Natural Law Party#Parking Text and Source, student newspapers, especially established ones at large universities, are usually reliable sources. We do have to be careful that we're talking about official publications sponsored by the institution or a student body association, with a full editorial board, and not just the newsletter of a club or a group blog something like that. They may be the best available source on campus-related topics, but their expertise may not extend much further. I wouldn't consider them reliable about a lot of topics though, starting with anything about their rival schools.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm confused. Here in this talk page entry [58] WBB says "The automatic use of student publications as reliable sources for non-collegiate articles has not, so far as I know, received consensus by the community" but today, he says in his post above "usually they are reliable sources". WBB made the first comment in reference to these two, Feb 2011, edits [59][60]which cite this source [61] which is a student publication that has won the nationwide, "Apple Award", three times in the last 5 years.[62] It would be nice to have a clarification about these sources because at present it seems that regardless of whether I use one or remove one, WBB seems to have an objection. Thanks to all editors who have posted here, for your participation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Languages

Are newspaper reports www.voanews.com and www.dailytimes.com.pk reliable sources for the official language of a Sierra Leone? Kaly99 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)