Add links
Archive 30 ← Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 → Archive 40

Soundbuzz (www.soundbuzz.com)

Apparently they do news bits? Specifically this item is in question from the Race in hip hop article. I'm guessing they're not too reliable, but does that mean everything from them should be considered just a rumor or outright lie? Anyways I'm still left wondering where this quote originated from. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 13:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find who's writing their stuff, but they are probably reliable since they are partners with the big media companies, and yahoo's launch deems them reliable enough to print their articles. If you want to find other sources to corroborate that story, they're easy to find.[1]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Smallbuzz.com doesn't load for me for some reason, but I would think that Yahoo Music News is reliable. If you want a better source, try [2]. Without reading the whole article, it appears the quote originates from this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
So if Yahoo Music News is generally speaking reliable, then MSN Music is reliable, too, generally speaking, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

wolfram alpha-- moving discussion

get the details regarding this 'computational knowledge engine' here: Wolfram Alpha

wolfram alpha raises some interesting questions regarding verifiability. obviously, the overriding one - WA seems to base its info on verifiable sources; does it follow that WA is a verifiable source? --Kaini (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www15.wolframalpha.com/faqs.html and expanding the Education & Research section, they consider themselves to be 'peer reviewed' so they would be reliable. Tra (Talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's peer reviewed in the same sense as a journal, and I also suspect they're using wikipedia for some of their info. They may be using the CIA fact book or something, though. I wouldn't consider them reliable without knowing a lot more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think wolfram-alpha might count as a fairly reliable tertiary source... as such it has limited use. Rather than citing it directly, it would be better is to use it as a medium for finding reliable secondary sources to use (ie we should read and cite the various sources that wolfram-alpha cites, instead of citing wolfram-alpha directly) Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, having looked into this further, I note that they don't always make it clear which bit of information comes from which source... and since they do list Wikipedia as a source, that makes it unreliable for use in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Each individual page has a link to source information. The link specifies primary sources plus background sources and references. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Checked "Mark Twain" and clicked on "sources" -- got the "one size fits all" list including WP. "Related links"? WP. No way it is RS. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There are other entries that instead of listing a source, say "Computed by WolframMathematica" -- for example http://www50.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E2+sin%28x%29b --Pleasantville (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Which is specifically "mathematical computation" and not needed to be "sourced" anyway. Can you provide an example of a text search where it lists a specific reliable source itself? So far, I have not found one. Collect (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's doing its computation on the fly (which I would assume it is), then that means no one has reviewed the output. You might be able to use it as a tool to find a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Except in the case of pure mathematics, the majority of the answers will be hybrids between curated data (curated by Wolfram staff curators) and calculations using Mathematica. Wolfram Alpha parses queries and generates answers. There is no data in the system that does not pass through the curation process except data streams (such as current weather information) which have also been through a vetting process. So the question is (a) whether Wolfram Research is an established and reputable publisher of information, and (b) whether Wolfram Research is a reputable and established source of reliable computation. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
But it's done by an algorithm and the output is produced on the fly. No one has reviewed the output produced. There's no guarentee that a bug hasn't been introduced into the algorithm resulting in flawed output. If software developers could produce applications without issues, Microsoft wouldn't be releasing a gazillion security fixes and updates every week. Not to mention the fact that it uses Wikipedia as a source. Keep in mind that reliable sources are those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Given that the site only went live a few days ago, it doesn't have such a reputation. Not RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup... and here is an example of what you get when you try to produce information by algorithm... They suggest that we "enter a date"... so I tried May 1, 1776... and got lots of information as to the day of the week, the hours of day light, etc. I want to assume that this is all accurate... but then I see the box for "Observances for May 1, 1776 (United States)"... International Labor Day? Huh? .... clicked on "more"... Save the Rhino Day?... in 1776! Who knew? Did the Continental Congress all wear color coordinated ribbons on their lapels to mark these observances? Perhaps Thomas Jefferson took the day off to participate in a walk-a-thon to raise money for such a worthy cause!
Seriously... This obviously was generated by a machine that has been given the input that certain "observences" fall on a given day each year... but apparently no one thought to input a start date, before which the obsevance should not be listed. In other words, for historical data, this site is garbage. If you are trying to find out what happened on any given day in history, you are going to get faulty information. Given this, I have to wonder what programing problems exist in other areas as well.
No, we can not call this site reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And apparently the French Republic was involved in the Battle of Hastings (and this one is the default example they point to for searching "Historical events")... Did anyone check this stuff? (I do have to say that playing "find the error" is sort of fun on this site... but a bit too easy.) Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if the developers had thought of a start date (and end date), there's still no guarentee that the developers have correctly implemented it. Software development is tricky. What I always tell people is that if you ask for a bug-free program and I will show you "Hello World". That is to say that anything of sufficient complexity will have bugs. That's why you need a human being to review the output. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WikiProject:Mathematics where it is most likely to be desirable for use. WikipProject Mathematics already makes extensive use of other Wolfram web resources, and also many of its participants are familiar with the capabilities of Mathematica, which is the calculating engine behind the site. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at WikiProject:Mathematics is here[3]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Our RS guideline tells us to used published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The answers to wolfram queries don't fit the criteria of published, and Wolfram|Alpha does not at this point have a reputation of any kind, good or bad. So I cannot see how it could possibly be considered RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, I can see it wouldn't be reliable, particularly when they base their information on sources such as Wikipedia. I could still see the site being useful, if its output is verified through the sources it cites before being used on Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This Poynter Online column also urges caution: [4] Flowanda | Talk 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Ali

Can the book 'Muhammad The Prophet' written by Maulana Ali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Muhammad_Ali be used as reliable sources for editing Islamic articles related to the prophet Muhammad.The publisher(of Muhammad the prophet) claims that some boooks of Maulana Ali have been declared as authentic Islamic literature by Al Azhar university http://www.muslim.org/books/azhar-cert.htm The foreword of the latest edition of the book was written by Sheikh Tantawi a reputed scholar from the Azhar University.--Firstcome (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, almost certainly not. First, its severely out of date. Secondly, the Ahmadiyya movement is at odds with mainstream Islam, and I would suspect very much at odds with scholarly opinion. It might possibly be used as a source for a notable alternative view, but not as a source for facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Azhar university ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University ) represents mainstream islam.Books passed by this university as authentic literature should be considered as facts.Thank you--Firstcome (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not remotely. At most these books agree with the view of conventional Sunni Islam. And why would a categorization as "authentic Islamic literature" by anyone affect reliability? De la terre à la lune is authentic French literature, but that does not mean that we have or even could shoot people to the moon in a giant canon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol you are quite funny french is a language Islam is a religion I think The book can be used as It has been verified by Al Azhar university .Al Azhar periodically endorses material (Books) as authentic Islamic 'literature' According to wikipedia peer reviewed books can be used Notedgrant (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First, has the book been "verified" and who says so? Up in your original question you said the publisher said that some of the authors books have been declared "authentic Islamic literature". So we don't even have any claim about this particular book. Secondly, we don't know what criteria Al Azhar applies and what they certify if they declare something "authentic literature". I would expect compatibility with a certain interpretation of Islam, but not factual correctness. The Catholic church holds that during the Eucharist the bread is physically transformed into meat. We don't accept that as factually true either. If you really want to push this further, we at least need clear, verifiable source that the book has been accepted, and a reliable source describing what Al Azhar implies by endorsing it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.muslim.org/books/azhar-cert.htm This is the link showing AL Azhar accepts it This is what they say about it "The Department hereby confirms that the above mentioned books contains useful knowledge and do not include anything that contradicts the Religion of Islam" As per wikipedia guidelines In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.The letter sent by Al azhar to the publishers is the only source in English and the foreword written by Sheikh Tantawi confirms it.--Firstcome (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to assume, from reading between the lines here, that Maulana Ali's 'Muhammad The Prophet' is controvercial... that it says things that other scholars or religious leaders disagree with. That is not a reason to declare it unreliable. Scholars disagree all the time.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth"... so it does not matter whether any scholarly source is "officially approved" in terms of religious orthodoxy or not. The key to situations where scholars disagree on facts is to discuss what the different scholars say, by attributing each author's opinion to that author... phrase things in terms of opinion, and don't argue about which is "True". What is Verifiable is that Maulana Ali's book says certain things about Muhammad or Islam or what ever. Discuss this neutrally, and then compare it with what other scholars say on the matter. And don't say which is "right". Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification

I would like some help on whether the source [5] fails the be a reliable source for the statement that "Straights tend to use an approach that focuses on the chiropractor and the treatment model, whereas mixers tend to focus on the patient and the patient's situation". Thanks in advance. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the source says that the entire "Straight vs. Mixer" differentiation is outdated, I would say No, it isn't reliable for that. At best it should be phrased in a historical context... that at one time these factions approached treatment in this way. That said... I am always warry of PDF files. Was this submitted to some sort of peer review or is it just the opinion of the author. If the latter, what is the reputation of the author as far as reliability goes? Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not being used in a histroical context, and is currently being used to support the statement quoted above. It was also not peer-reviewed, but I believe it was released by a government agency, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. It is a good point that it says the straight/mixer dichotomy is outdated, as the abstract of Chiropractic currently mentions this dichotomy without stating that it is outdated. In addition, I tend to believe that nothing in the source supports the actual statement, and that the source is not being represented neutrally. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex - Is a primary source required?

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

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

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."[6]

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[7]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.[8]

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

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


You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.[9] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wait, what? Are you saying that the three sources cited are insufficient to make the claims made in the article? If that is the case, it can be discussed on the article talk page--that isn't specifically an issue for this noticeboard. If you are arguing that access to the primary source is require for editors to verify a claim made by an otherwise reliable secondary source, I would disagree with you most of the time. For some extreme claims or claims where there is doubt as to the reliability of the secondary source (doubt from a source besides a single wp editor), then we can talk about comparing claims about the text to the text itself. But there is a difference between removing material on the claims that it is hearsay (a legal term of art which has no real meaning in wikipedia) and comparing claims in secondary sources which are explicitly falsified by the primary text. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I see that Troubled Memory has won a couple of awards:
  • Winner of the 2000 Lillian Smith Book Award, Southern Regional Council
  • Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
  • A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection
Per the publisher's website.[10]   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph[11]


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

  • Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Powell's book is published by a university press, has won awards, and Powell is a Professor at Tulane specializing in this and related topics[12]. Of course this book is a reliable source. And, but that's by he way, has anybody tried getting a copy of Finder's Keepers via a good academic library with competent staff? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was curious to see whether all BLP articles are handled in a similar manner, so I went to W.H. Auden. Auden wrote plenty of porn, but his bio handles the issue in a way that is delicate in the extreme. I don't anticipate that this will be the case with David Duke. --4.233.125.91 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I will put them up somewhere when I get them, but in my own opinion, sex advice of this kind is not pornographic.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies: I foolishly neglected to send Professor Powell my mailing address. That's the cause of the delay. I have now sent it to him. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

National Enquirer

Is the National Enquirer (in print since 1926 and not known for inventing stories) a reliable source? The issue in contention is material it published about David Copperfield, namely:

  1. Details about the alleged rape of a 19-yr old woman on Copperfield's private island in the Caribbean
  2. Details about his secret children

This is the revision containing the details taken from the National Enquirer [13] (See sections on FBI investigation and Children). ► RATEL ◄ 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not known for inventing stories"? WP:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong Are tabloids often right? Yep. Are they RS by WP standards? Nope. If the material is notable, it should end up in a citable place, until then best to leave tabloids out of BLPs. Collect (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The basic story of Copperfield's rape investigation were reported all over the place, so that is not in contention. The Enquirer published additional details about the case, including details of what the woman in question did on returning to the USA (rape kit, hospital, etc) as per an interview with her friend. In addition, its disclosures about Copperfield's secret children were reprinted by other sources, which quoted the Enquirer, and included a statement by the alleged mother's lawyer. Copperfield did not deny the children story. (To Collect: because of my unhappy history with you, I would appreciate it if you would bow out and allow other editors to comment here please. Thanks!)
Before the Enquirer is condemned as a "tabloid", I think it should be shown that they have a history of unreliability. The word "tabloid" is not pejorative per se, it simply describes a newspaper whose pages, usually five columns wide, are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page.► RATEL ◄ 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No way that the Enquirer should ever be considered a reliable source. They simply do not have a reputation for factual accuracy. To many times that they have gotten the story wrong, printed gossip as if it were news, or simply made something up. Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Curiously enough, wehere I have input to make, I shall make it. Checking out several dozen queries, I have yet to find one where this tabloid is considered a "reliable source" which has absolutely nothing to do with any personal issues you may appear to have. And the NE definitely fits the pejorative use of "tabloid" <g>. [14], [15] and so on. Collect (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Still waiting for a single instance of the National Enquirer being proved to be an unreliable source .... waiting, waiting... ► RATEL ◄ 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Really. Why don't you check the article itself. I'd suggest that out of court settlements over libel and apologies over inaccuracies might constitute evidence. If you like I can look for more. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)An essay and two examples in WP space where it was deemed not RS are not enough? I found, oddly enough, absolutely no discussions on WP where it was deemed reliable. There are 395 WP hits in article talk for "National Enquirer" and "reliable" and in none of the first 80 at least is it considered "reliable." With no WP consensus for it being "reliable" out of more than 80 examined, I would suggest that it is unlikely that it will be considered "reliable" here as defined by WP:RS or WP:V. And, of course, the large number of lawsuits it has lost may be a factor as well. Collect (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You want more stories about "National Enquirer" being unreliable? There aren't that many stories about their reliability "problems" because nobody takes them seriously. I'm astounded that anybody would consider taking them seriously from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Have you read an issue? Bhimaji (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The Enquirer has had a few mistakes, like most papers. However, the wikipedia article on the Enquirer states that "In recent years it has sought to establish a reputation for reliable journalism and had some success, often scooping other media..." I just don't see any evidence so far of the paper having a wilful and reckless disregard for truth, as some tabloid papers obviously do. ► RATEL ◄ 03:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The expectation for sources to be used on BLP articles is not simply that they lack a willful disregard for the truth. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well then, why don't we have a list somewhere of news sources that can or cannot be used in BLPs? ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Because such a list could never be exhaustive and it would be better served by Wikipedia:BLP#Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm not sure what the pressure here is. We aren't in a rush. If wikipedia fails to include tawdry details about Copperfield for a few years, it doesn't matter. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Not reliable. — e. ripley\talk 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As Protonk indicates, such a list could never be exhaustive. What's more, each source still needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If you look at this thread[16], there are certain, very limited cases where otherwise reliable sources such as Time Magazine and the Washington Post are not reliable for certain claims in certain articles.
I hesitate to even mention this, for a variety of different reasons including the potential for misuse, but you can try this.[17] It's purely my own personal project and not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way. It's certainly not exhaustive, tends to be conservative on what is considered reliable, and still requires an editor's judgement to determine if the source is actually reliable for a specific claim. Further, just because it finds a source doesn't necessarily mean that it's reliable and just because it doesn't find a source doesn't mean a claim isn't verifiable. Use it with extreme care. If it's misused, I'll take it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I always thought NE was mainly known as a publisher of ffringe theories. Doesn't sound very reliable to me. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to it's negative reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it is not in my opinion a WP:RS. If NE is actually right about something of signficance, surely other WP:RS will have covered it so just use those as references (assuming they pass WP:BLP). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is possibly the prime example of the negative use of the word "tabloid". Not the physical size of the magazine, but the malicious and unreliable gossip magazine usage. Our own article uses it as such an example. Tabloid#As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper says: "Supermarket tabloids are particularly notorious for the over-the-top sensationalizing of stories, the facts of which can often be called into question. These tabloids - such as The Globe and The National Enquirer - often use aggressive and usually mean-spirited tactics to sell their issues." Want examples of the National Enquirer being called unreliable? Here, the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050802092.html "The reputable media don't traffic in that sort of tenuous speculation about people's lives ... This is why "tabloid journalism" is used as a put-down..." The story is specifically about the rare case when the Enquirer may have gotten it right, but it's also a fine source on the general criticism of the magazine's tactics. Here's another, from the Daily Telegraph (Australia) http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25424888-5001026,00.html "The previously unreliable celebrity gossip tabloid claims it brought in "experts" to review Winfrey's medical history. These anonymous sources say the star's battle with her weight is due to a faulty thyroid that will send her to an "early grave." Reportedly (i.e. not remotely accurately), she's considering surgery to have the thyroid removed." In this case the criticizing paper is similarly a tabloid, of course ... so it goes ... :-)--GRuban (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for the legitimacy of every single photo, but there does seem to be a recurring theme that begs the question - is National Enquirer or Weekly World News for humor/entertainment purposes only? I think so. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Very clearly not a reliable source - National Enquirer has a very poor reputation on fact checking. Quoting from this Newsweek article about The Enquirer [18] (page 4)
Mishlai (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
How dare you question the credibility of my beloved Weekly World News? I'll sic Bat Boy on you!!!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this particular Daily Mail article be used as a WP:RS?

Is the following article reliable An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 for the following claim: "The title of Griffin's bestselling book The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004, makes a reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II."? The part that I am questioning is whether this book is a best seller. This is a book promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories which are popular online but not so much in print. The article cited is being used in World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I searched the archives and the Daily Mail has come up before[19] and the opinions were, shall we say, mixed so I'm just asking about this particular article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you could say "described by the Daily Mail as ...". In general newpapers seem to attach the words 'prize winning' and 'bestseller' at the slightest opportunity.
The Daily Mail should be fine for a book review. However it's our call whether to include "bestselling", unless the Mail has its own bestseller list like the New York Times does. It could have been a reference to Amazon.com's Bestsellers in Books status, where it is currently #76 in the Terrorism and Freedom Fighters category on Amazon UK and #14 in the September 11 category on Amazon US. There's also a conspiracy-oriented site that says the book was on Amazon's Top 100 list for several weeks,. but I don't know how to verify that they mean the global top 100 list which is constantly updated. So while there is some support for the term "bestseller", I don't know how much weight we should attach to bestseller within a category. Wording it as "Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor" should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk)
I agree with Squid... If we were talking about an article about Griffin or his book I could see this being relevant, but within the context of the controlled demo article whether a source is a bestseller or not seems irrelevant (and mentioning it smacks of promotional puffery). Best to omit the word "bestseller". Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Room (2009) vs. Chinese room

In order to check whether the 2009 film The Chinese Room is relevant to the Chinese room article, I contacted the director/writer of the film, and got this response:


Clicking on "pictures" on this webpage starts a slide show, one of the pictures clearly showing a frame from the abovementioned depiction.

I think Rulf can be considered a reliable source for information on what the movie is about, in fact he is the top authority, but that view is not shared universally. Paradoctor (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a personal e-mail is not a reliable source. We have no way to verify that it actually exists and was sent to you by Mr. Rulf. (not saying he didn't... just that we can not verify it). In addition, such corresponcence is considered WP:Original research. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
My question is about reliability, not verifiability. For the sake of discussion, let's assume the mail is available from Wikisource, and attribution is not in doubt. For the OR angle, I'd like an explanation of precisely how you think it applies. I'm not making "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims", neither do I "rely on unclear or inconsistent passages". What I am saying is that Rulf is a reliable source in the context given. Which takes us back the actual subject of this noticeboard, and the reason I came here: What reason is there to believe that the creator of a work is not a reliable source for information about his own work, and which part of WP:RS supports this? Paradoctor (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia goes, reliability and verifiability go hand in hand. WP:RS is a guideline explaining and expanding on one aspect of WP:V. If something isn't verifiable, we don't consider it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I explicitly stipulated verifiability in my previous reply. Can we please concentrate on the reliability question? Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of information. If something can not be discussed on Wikipedia due to our rules, You have the option to discuss it in other venues... and who knows, it may get picked up and get discussed in some thing we can cite. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What has this got to do with anything? The only discussion going on is with Dlabtot about an editorial decision. You're not going to tell me that Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of discussion, are you? Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It won't be easy to get a paragraph about the movie into the article. Pop-culture sections have historically been a headache on WP, and it's especially unlikely you'd get consensus to add one to a tightly-written science article. While I'm a mergist and generally suggest that people thinking of starting an article ( or trying to save one from being deleted ) should find an article on a parent topic and start a paragraph first, I'd have to suggest the opposite in this case as the topics are too far apart. If you can get multiple sources about the movie, then go ahead and create an article. Then you can add a hatnote to the Chinese Room article showing that Chinese Room (film) exists. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. "won't be easy": I like tough nuts. After all, I am the Paradoctor. ;) "culture sections" ... "headache on WP": If the argumentative style displayed by Dlabtot and Blueboar is representative, then I'm not surprised. Anyway, this is off-topic, I'd like to concentrate here on either getting useful arguments/facts, or establishing to my satisfaction that this noticeboard can't deliver on its promise in this case. Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From reading the talk page discussion, Talk:Chinese room#Chinese Room in popular culture, it looks like your main problem isn't showing that this film is about the Chinese room puzzle, it's that the other editors of the article don't think the film is notable enough to be mentioned. In fact, I suspect that if you could show the film were notable, that you wouldn't even need the source that said that "this film is based on this puzzle", the film title and subject would be enough to make it clear that it was, unless reliable sources specifically said that it wasn't. So it's not that this noticeboard can't deliver on its promise, it's that you're asking the wrong question, you don't want to meet WP:RS, you want to meet WP:N. For that you want to show multiple unrelated reliable sources writing about the movie. Roger Ebert would be a great start, he seems to be the standard most other film critics are measured by ...--GRuban (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if the movie was notable on its own, we probably wouldn't be discussing this. But as I stated in the discussion, notability is about articles, and it is too narrow as criterion in this situation. Anyway, I came here not just because of the Chinese room discussion. Dlabtot raised the issue of whether a creator is a reliable source for information about his own work, and pointed me here. That's why I came here, to get either a good argument or a pointer to the relevant bit of policy. Regrettably, I've come up dry so far. How can anyone seriously think that the creator is not a reliable source regarding the inspiration for his work, its interpretation, or a summary of it? Anyone gives me a good answer to that one, and I'll be one happy camper. Paradoctor (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaving the notability issue asside... The creator of a work is certainly reliable (small r) when it comes to a statement about the inspiration for his work... but for us to call it a Reliable Source (with a capital R) it has to appear in a published form. That's what I was getting at when I discussed WP:V being more important than WP:RS. A personal email is not considered published. If Mr. Rulf states his inspiration in some venue that we can equate with publication (in a published interview, for example, or even on his website) then we would be able to call it RS. But not in the form of a personal e-mail. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you've just reduced my WikiStress level quite a bit. I was almost ready for another reading of Desiderata. ;)
Regarding the verifiability issue, I assure you that it will be adequately addressed. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for a not so controversial claim

Is this a reliable source for documenting the location a Michael Jackson music video was shot in, the main page of the site being this. I'm concerned that it cannot be used, particularly when the article in question is already a GA and the source might not be brilliant. — R2 00:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, as you suspect, it is not a reliable source. The website accepts submitted articles and asks contributors to "And naturally check your facts and the spelling of proper names and foreign or trickier words." [20] No indication that there is any editorial fact-checking or oversight. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
They don't even get the name of the song right. It's They Don't Care About Us. These are academic journals which require a login, however, a Google search engine indicates that it might contain the information that you are looking for.[21] [22] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, here is the only relevant bit about the song in the first reference A Quest For Knowledge found:

Yet, each time the savage is held against the civilised, some kind of counter force is unleashed and the primitive falls prey to romanticism and commercial consumerism which turn rebellious savagery into banality, neutralising its power of denunciation, as in Michael Jackson’s 1996 music video clip They Don’t Care about Us (directed by Spike Lee), shot in the Dona Marta favela of Rio.

Use it if it helps, although I would expect better refs to be available. Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Abecedare. I don't have subscriptions to those journals so I can't read them myself. All I know is that they matched my search terms. That's why I said "might". For all I know, they say "contrary to popular misconception, They Don't Care About Us was NOT filmed in Rio de Janeiro." Anyway, I did another search and found articles from MSNBC, USA Today and The Guardian none of which require a login. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. — R2 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook or Twitter?

Can a post on Facebook or Twitter ever be a WP:RS? There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Tea Party protests#Mike Huckabee. The background (at least from my possibly slanted POV) is that on April 29 President Obama commented on the Tea Party protests. On the same day, former Governor Huckabee posted on Facebook and Twitter "Astounded Pres. Obama still doesn't know tea parties were led by moms, dads worried about future...that's serious and no game!" Huckabee's official website links to both, so I assume they aren't fake accounts. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter accounts might pass muster as Self-published primary sources for use in an article on the account holder (ie Huckabee's Facebook page might be used as a source on the Mike Huckabee bio article), but not in other articles. If Gov. Huckabee's comment is notable enough for inclusion, a secondary source will have picked up on it and reported it. No need to quote from Facebook or Twitter. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If a publiched news source quoted the Twitter, then the Twitter becomes a primary source and doesn't need to pass SPS. Whether it's useful to our article to quote Twitter is up for debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Huckabee's Twitter post was cited by Think Progress, but unfortunately that's not an RS because of Wikipedia's bright-line rule against blogs. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That "bright-line" rule against blogs isnt so bright-line per discussions going on in many places. IF the twitter or facebook quote is useful and needed, ignore all rules comes to mind. I think we see community consensus going against a clear cut line against all blogs.Camelbinky (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Depending on how they are used. Still problematic in WP:BLP unless published by a good WP:RS and usually best only for opinion unless it is an individuals whose grasp of facts is impeccable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Twitter is a micro-blogging service, and as such, anything there can be used in line with WP:SPS. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedia.jrank.org and "contributed articles"

Does anyone here know what the story is with the "contributed articles" at the http://encyclopedia.jrank.org website? That seems to host Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 stuff, but also some more recent "contributed" articles. See here for examples of uses of this link. An example of an article is here. The disclaimer says "Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.", but I would like to have more information than that. The main page says: "NEW Contributed articles – Articles from professional writers on a wide variety of topics." Should we need more details than that before using their articles as sources for ours? Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the Encyclopedia's articles for Danny Elfman and Dante Alighieri, I'd say not an RS. Since the author of the text is not identified, and its original source is not stated, there is no way to tell how reliable any particular article is. (The Elfman article appears to be original text of unknown accuracy; the Dante article is taken from Medieval art: a topical dictionary By Leslie Ross without attribution).
Disclaimer? Just what is it disclaiming? Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Genetically modified food controversies

The writings of Jeffery M. Smith were used as a prominent source for this article, for example the book/website "seeds of deception" published by Yes! books and this news article

Are these appropriate sources for this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble thinking that Smith being used as a reference twice out of the 55 sources used for the article would make him a "prominent source". Smith is a leading GMO critic and investigative journalist/author so his critism is relevant to the topic. Smith's seedsofdeception.com link is used because his best selling book that details the same events is not available online. The book, which you need to buy to read, is a RS so I see no problem with book extracts from the authors website that you can read free. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither of these sources are reliable. The book, on the other hand, may be a reliable source. If the extracts on the website accurately reflect the book, and the book was both published by a major publisher and not used for statements of bald fact (as opposed to opinion), and said opinions are notable ("Smith is a leading GMO critic," if true, would make his opinions notable), then the book would be a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Cite the book, not the website. Non-free sources are OK. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so if I understand correctly Smith's book is OK as a source of opinion as a notable critic of GMOs, but should not be used as a source for either factual statements about genetic modification, or a source for statements about other people's beliefs? As an alternative, would it be preferable to replace citations of this particular person's views with citations to statements from prominent non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, The Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
These sources can be used the same way... as citations for statements as to the opinions of each group. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is The Bible (or other religious scripture) a reliable source?

I think the answer to this question is an obvious "No!" but that hasn't changed the content of Ammon, which cites nothing except the Old Testament and Webster's dictionary to establish the authentic historicity of this mythological nation. Apparently there are a great many other articles on Old Testament topics that need authentic sourcing, but I'm unaware of there being any reliable sources on this. If some could be produced, there'd be no problem of course, but I'm not happy with Wikipedia articles reflecting Old Testament mythology as if it were a source for history. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source, which are reliable for what they specifically say, but interpretations of primary sources require reliable secondary sources. In the case of Ammon, it's clear that the Hebrew scriptures refer to such a location, and the relevant passages can be cited, but beyond that... so what? The historicity of religious documents in general are questioned, so using it to establish anything other than "Yup, it references it" is simply not possible. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you here. Do you mean "Yes, of course the Bible can't establish the historicity of its own claims" or "Who cares if someone uses the Bible to establish the historicity of its own claims, because everybody doubts the authenticity of Bible history anyway"? --Ryan Delaney talk 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want a one liner, how about "The Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says (with a few caveats), and nothing else for purposes of Wikipedia usage", Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Bible is a reliable source for discussing Christian and Jewish mythology and oral history (though I'd add in the additional Jewish interpretive works to the Jewish view), and is a notable view worth mentioning. However, it shouldn't be presented as the only view or as undisputed fact, unless archaeology and so on agree with the Biblical views. Also, the Hebrew names usually do not resemble the more correct names very well (e.g. Hittites v.s. People of Hatti.) In short, the Bible should be used, but should be clearly identified when used, and not be used exclusively. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, I think we agree about this. So the second question is: Am I right to think there is a problem with Ammon, Kurkh Monolith, and a lot of other articles on Old Testament mythology like those in Category:Assyria and so on? What should be done about this? --Ryan Delaney talk 19:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With uncertain oversight by any scholarly body, it certainly doesn't count as a reliable source under our rules. Google books has a variety of sources and they would almost certainly be more fruitful sources of the significance of Ammon outside of the Bible. Right now it looks like a lot of original research is happening - "The latter statement can be reconciled with...This explains, in part, the claim mentioned above..." with no references except biblical passages. I'd say the page should be trimmed with extreme prejudice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I've done considerable trimming - the page was rife with original research, improper tone, and very few sources beyond the bible itself. I've integrated a couple claims to the Jordanian website with information about the Ammonites, but the page needs considerable expansion with real sources. Assyrology might have something to say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the website of the Jordanian government is particularly reliable either. They are probably accepting Old Testament stories as they were passed through Islamic scripture. They don't cite their sources, so we don't know whether their claims are based on authentic, empirical historical research or blind acceptance of religious doctrine. Notice that the claim attributed to the website of the King of Jordan is that "Its capital was located in what is now the Citadel of Amman", which is the capital city of Jordan. The political motivation for identifying the seat of your government with the location of an ancient religious story should be obvious, so this seems like a serious conflict of interest. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A specific translation of the Bible is only reliable for what that particular translation says. Not what it means, not for historical accuracy, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's even sticker than that, DreamGuy. Different translations are based on different manuscripts, fragments, and whatnot, and every modern translation is an amalgamation of such transcripts, since the oldest (and presumably the most reliable) are the most fragmentary. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, different translations (since the KJV) are based on the same manuscripts, and are not based on manuscript "fragments." They are based on the manuscripts evidence as a whole— which typically does give greatest weight to the earliest and best preserved (non-fragmentary) manuscripts. What is more, none of the issues under discussion here even have a relivant "variant reading" in the manuscripts. Dispite efforts to paint the Bible manuscripts to the contrary, for most pratical purposes, they are much like each other. --Carlaude (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an old Biblical Archaeology Review article on the Ammonites here that might be useful. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If the website of the Jordanian government is deemed unreliable on account of them "accepting Old Testament stories" I can not really see how a Biblical Archaeology site should be more reliable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of taking Chronology of Babylonia and Assyria/1911 as it's just a chunk from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, nothing else - it wouldn't be a useful redirect, and there's no justification for it as an article that I can see. Any comments before I do it? Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you planning to do exactly? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As a government website that has not-really-very-contentious information on it, I think it's certainly better than the Bible. Irrespective, the Bible (and flurry of WP:OR that derived from it on the page) was certainly not an appropriate source, and has been for the most part removed. Further discussion about the Ammonites should really take place on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we don't need to remove -every- Biblical quote. Even though such quotes are subject to overinterpretation, the Bible is still a primary source, historical as well as religious, and uncontroversial descriptions like "people X lived over by river Y" should be OK. PS: WLU I ountdented our discussion so it doesnt appear in response to a different question I was asking Doug. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no worries. You may be pleased to see I did in fact leave a couple bible passages on the page, primarily as "in Judges the Bible says..." which I think is appropriate It'd be nice if google had some sort of "google archeology" option for cases like this. I'm sure there's a bunch of useful information if you can parse it out of the exegesis discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The Bible is not a primary source for authentic history. It is a primary source for its own contents. That's it. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, in case I wasn't clear before, I agree completely and edited accordingly. The passages I left were clearly "in the Bible the Ammonites are referred to as..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a primary source for history in the sense that, say, the Icelandic sagas are. A set of ancient documents. The places and peoples described in the Bible generally check out. We rely on secondary sources to do the checking out. But it's appropriate do do what WLU has, "in Judges the Bible says ..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to return to an issue mentioned above, most modern translations of the Hebrew scriptures translate the same text, the Masoretic text, except where they think it's obviously wrong or unintelligible. This text is based on manuscripts about a thousand years old. The much older Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek manuscripts are gernally ignored. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some modern translations - esp. Roman Catholic ones - actually use the Septuagint instead for some passages (incl. the Septuagint's verse/chapter numbering, particularly noticeable for the psalms).

With regards to Ammon, etc. there are plenty of fairly reliable public domain encyclopedias that can be used as sources (as long as you take into account that they don't take into consideration archaeology discovered in the last 100 years or so - as they were written before this).

Newman Luke (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

http://chucknorris2012.com

Just wondering if http://chucknorris2012.com would be a reliable resource in refrencing that specifi site's desire and attempt to get Chuck Norris on the next presidential ticket? It seems like that site is specially suited to getting the point across that the site in question does want to work towards getting Chuck Norris on the ticket, yet the TALK page, not the main page, is being edited to remove the link so that it cannot be discussed, talked about or mentioned - it was not reqeusted that the link be put on the main page due to its being a newer site, but I felt discussion was worth it Chucknorris2012 (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But is this notable, or is this just some fans joking around? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no evidence of notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a petition vehicle. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless a newspaper or magazine mentions it, we shouldn't - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The site is completly serious about Chuck Norris and his ability to lead the country, if you go to the site and review the "issues" page you will see where his views match our founding fathers views when forging the Constitution. While there have been no "mass media" news articles about this you would have to agree that the media is generally biased in its views and I would expect only Fox to even whisper about it as the other news outlets are so far up the current administrations rears that the reports are slightly tinged Chucknorris2012 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But is he himself considering running for President of the United States? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the connection between the site, and your username? Newman Luke (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic web

Is this site a reliable source for citing population data? My inclination is no since it says that some of the data is gathered from independent sources, but makes no mention of what the sources are (I assume by British Encyclopedia they mean Encyclopedia Britannica). Copana2002 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. There are better sources. What population data do you need? Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not reliable. No "about us" to indicate that this is anything but a personal web-page. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading Pakistan and noticed that this particular source used to cite Shi'a and Sunni populations of different countries seemed unreliable. Copana2002 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources published in Communist Poland

A user recently added information to Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany based on this source:

Czesław Madajczyk. Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1970

...and to the Szczecin article based on this source (related talk here):

Polonia szczecińska 1890-1939 Anna Poniatowska Bogusław Drewniak, Poznań 1961

I say sources published in Communist Poland are unreliable, at least in regard to all aspects of politics and history which were likely politically abused by the regime. Though of course the scholars were not all dumb nor solely politically motivated, it has to be taken into acount that free research did not take place under Communist regimes, and that censorship ensured that noone could publish something not in line with the contemporary political agenda - furthermore, one was unlikely to even become a scholar if one was in any conflict with the stance of the regime. Since German-Polish relations and Polish territorial claims were of central importance to the regime, no Communist Polish sources should be used for these topics, if at all on wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to discount Communist era sources, and certainly not as a class. Yes, we should use caution (because of the potential for political influence and spin), but not all Communist era sources were bad. If nothing else, we can use the material with attribution for a historiographical statement (ie a statement as to what was thought about the topic during the Communist era), to be compared to more modern (post-Communist) sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar; we shouldn't throw those out. They should be used with attribution, and they should likely be treated either as we would treat a political watchdog group ( because of political bias ) or as a primary source ( on opinion during the Communist era ), but still RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Sources published in one country relating to that country's negative relations to another country are almost always biased, whether due to censorship or just systemic bias and self-censorship. This requires careful reading between the lines, double-checking as far as practicable, attribution etc., not discarding of sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Proper attribution when used as a source for what was thought in Communist times - ok. But the problem I referred to is the sourcing of "facts". Eg in the article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, the following sources are used abundantly to back up statements in the narrative:
  • 46 times: "Położenie ludności polskiej w Kraju Warty 1939-1945. Dokumenty niemieckie", Poznań 1987, pages V-XIII
  • 51 times: Czesław Madajczyk. Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1970
I do not say that the statements sourced to the above authors are necessarily false, but I strongly object to using these sources to back them up. What I do not object is the use of sources from the Communist era or before as cited in modern sources,
  • e.g. Maly Rocznik Statystyczny (wrzesien 1939 - czerwiec 1941), Ministerstwo Informacji i Documentacji, London 1941, p.5, as cited in Piotr Eberhardt, Political Migrations in Poland, 1939-1948, Warsaw 2006,
as this includes an assessment by a non-censored "free" scholar. But unassessed Communist era sources used to back up statements in wikipedia? Given the abundant use of such sources, it is impossible to properly in-text attribute them without turning the narrative into a complete mess. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Any Soviet era "scholarship" on history is suspect until independently (non-Soviet, non-Soviet based) proven otherwise. Recall, "history serves politics." PetersV       TALK 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, when dealing with this particular topic, the alternative to Communist sources may well be Nazi sources... which I think we would all agree have their own bias problems. I do disagree with saying that any soviet era scholarship is suspect until independently proven otherwise. I would say we should lean slightly the other way... Cautiously accept it unless proven otherwise by post-Communist sources. That said, I think the problem here is one of neutral wording of the text, not of reliability. Instead of focusing on criticizing the source, we should simply edit the text so that it is phrased from a historiographical/opinon perspective. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with some Blueboar said in the above post. First, in this topic area the alternative is not Nazi sources, but independent scholars publishing in a free country, including of course modern Poland. Second, not every bullshit uttered by Communist propaganda and not every information given by a scholar during the Communist era was later evaluated by independent scholarship. If we make it a rule that all that was said during the Communist era is acceptable (i.e. treated as "fact" that we can rely on) until proven wrong, we are in hell's kitchen. I still remember very well how every day we were told how everything was not just fine, but extraordinarily precious in our Socialist world, and that was backed up every day by lots of data in literature and media. And of course everyone, even Communist hardliners, knew that the data was very likely to be faked or lacking the necessary contextual information. I cannot imagine that all this bullshit ever underwent an analysis from a modern perspective.
Rephrasing as an "historiographical/opinon perspective" - how would one accomplish that? As shown above, there are more than a hundred statements like "foo happened that way and then foo went foo". How would you present this kind of information instead? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I commented on the general question of reliability of communist era sources, not on the specific problems of the article. E.g. Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Segregation seems to be based almost completely on one such source. What the section says is plausible, but a bit surprising in its full extent. I would expect that for every single claim, such as Poles not being allowed to use public phones, there is at least a grain of truth, and possibly but not necessarily much more than that. Was it true in practical terms for the full time of the annexion? Or was it true only theoretically because of a law that wasn't widely followed? I guess the truth is somewhere in between.

I still think that what I wrote above holds as a general principle; but I am not at all sure that this general principle of double-checking etc. has been followed here. It seems that the large number of facts cited to the sources in question amounts to embracing its opinion, in a situation where it would be best to compare the opinions of present-day Polish, German, and other scholars to get the current state of the discussion, and then perhaps use the old sources to provide specific details that support this. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for unbiasedness in WP:RS. The requirement is on editorial procedure. The reason for this is that most sources can be assumed to be somewhat biased. So the fact that communist publications operate under censorship does not in itself mean that they are unreliable. The issue of proper fact checking might come into play, but will depend on specific sources. In addition, when dealing with biased sources, we should use proper attribution, so that readers are aware that bias might exist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly we should adhere to WP:Undue which is problematic if an article or section of article is based entirely on communistic writing. Taemyr (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Having written the article on Soviet historiography, I tend to be cautious when it comes to communist-era sources. That said, they should not be treated a biased by default; a lot of them were correct, and Poland, as most Soviet satellites, was more liberal then SU itself. We need articles on Polish historiography and German historiography, and on average, any Polish or German source about Polish-German relations is going to be somewhat biased, but Polityka... by Czesław Madajczyk is, for example, still seen as the best comprehensive overviw of German Nazi policies in occupied Poland, and widely cited. Unless specific reviews can be presented that would dispute reliability of those works (or authors), I think they should be accepted. If info cited is controversial, full atrribution (ex. Polish historian Czesław Madajczyk wrote...) should be enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true that totalitarian countries' sources tend to lie. However, they don't always lie, which means that they can be used, with caution. In general, it is best to back up claims derived from a totalitarian source with other, more independent sources. Also, matching the claims against two basic criteria: Does this make sense? and What reasons would these propagandists have had to lie about this topic? is useful. For example, should Stalin have said that the sky is blue, it should not be discounted in a swift knee-jerk motion merely because he was Stalin. But if Stalin were to claim that the Red Army has painted the sky blue, any reasonably calibrated bullshit meter should take notice. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As the scholar and historian Andrzej Friszke noted in IPN Bulletin fom 4th May of 2004 Czesław Madajczyk remains the best author and scholar in regards to studies on Nazi Germany's policies in Poland[23]. Also Friszke did write that most of Polish research on Nazi Germany is based on publications before 1989 as post-1989 researches focused on Soviet era and territories, amd there is no doubt that this sources are considered reliable. In fact even modern historians from Germany use Madajczyk's works and praise him which can be sourced. --Molobo (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The obvious criteria here concerning sources published in Communist Poland (and other Communist countries) is how they are viewed by sources not published in Communist Poland (or associated regimes). If a post-1989 scholar, or a Western scholar, says that a source is reliable (not necessarily using that exact terminology) then that source should be treated as reliable. A mark of reliability could be just the fact the original source is quoted or cited without criticism or major qualification in later and/or Western work. By that standard Madajczyk definietly passes the test. I don't know about Drewniak.radek (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

How to properly use and attribute these sources and apply the suggestions above is now subject to an RfC:

Skäpperöd (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times

The Chicago Sun-Times is being disputed as a reliable source by Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who removed it from the article Ma Anand Sheela [24], and stated I also dispute this Chicago_Sun-Timesis the kind of source that is reliable , verifiable or that it could claim to have a neutral point of view.

I would like to hear some feedback from previously uninvolved editors as to the reliability of the source the Chicago Sun-Times. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as with any news source, you need to take things on a somewhat case-by-case basis. That said, the Sun-Times is a major newspaper for the Chicago metro area. As with any newspaper, it has its political bias, but otherwise, it's on the same footing as any other major edited newspaper, and probably just as good as the Chicago Tribune. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The source is being used to support the fact that the then-husband of Ma Anand Sheela resided in Highland Park, Illinois. As this is information local to the Chicago area, and the paper is a major edited newspaper for the Chicago metro area - would this be considered a WP:RS source for this info? Cirt (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Very likely reliable for that sort of information; seems non-controversial. The sort of thing you'd find in the Tempo section of the Chicago Tribune, which I doubt would be contested. And by the way, the only real complaint I've heard about the Sun Times was from my grandfather, who canceled his subscription in the '70s when the cover photo was an American flag lying soiled in a gutter. They're as reliable as any other newspaper, if politically charged. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I am disputing this source as weak on a page that is a biography of a living person and the information it is adding is nothing or next to nothing and can easily be found and a stronger source. Is the article available to access on line? I notice by reading wikipedia article Chicago Sun that the tabloid has a controversial history and is currently in bankruptcy . (Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC))'
Let me get this straight: You are claiming that the Chicago Sun-Times is not a reliable source? Why not? It seems like a pretty ludicrous claim, but if you want to make your case, this would be the place to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the current bankruptcy of a newspaper affects reporting from years ago. If there are "better" sources then that's fine, but I don't see anythig wrong with this as a source for factual information, especially as related to the Chicago area.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The bankruptcy is a reflection on the paper..and reading the wikipedia article the paper does have a controversial history, with some history of article falsification . I would say someone who was bankrupt would have less trust at least in my eyes . I have asked where the article is available for viewing and as yet got no reply. We have a responsibility with BLP to find the best sources available. I feel the source is weak and would prefer a stronger one. The information that the cite supposedly supports is next to nothing. I just explained my action and removed the cite , no information was disputed or removed from the article. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
Bankruptcy reflects on the financial climate for all newspapers currently, and does not reflect one whit on the RS-ness of a newspaper. The material does not appear contentious to anyone, and thus unless consensus oposes nclusion, it likely would be fine with the CST as a source. Collect (talk)
In most newspapers, the reporting is kept separate from the advertising and other business aspects of the publication. I don't see any reason to discount the reliability of the source and its deletion does not appear to be warranted.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
{EC}Of course the Chicago Sun-Time is a WP:RS. Bankruptcy is a reflection of its finances only. Wait a second. This dispute is about whether someone lived in Highland Park? Are you honestly trying to tell us that they can't figure out where someone lived? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable source. It is a mainstream newspaper. Its history is no more controversial than any other major newspaper. The fact that it filed for bankruptcy protection more than 20 years after the article in question was published does not reflect negatively back on its past reporting. (For that matter, its recent bankruptcy filing should not necessarily reflect negatively on its current reporting; several other major newspapers or their parent companies have also filed for bankruptcy protection in the recent past.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I would note that a source does not have to be viewable online to be reliable. Even if one had to go to a library and look up the article on microfilm to view the article, that would not affect reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

T.V. Serial

I would like to know if a T.V. serial (which is not a fiction and is totally based on facts, with contribution by noted historians associated with it) based on history could be provided as a reference for an article. Can you please tell me how to write such a reference in terms of its layout, syntax? Also tell me how to find the publisher, year of pubication for a particular edition of a book if i currently don't possess that book. Kindly help. ThanksKesangh (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Without knowing the specifics of the television show, I am not going to take an opinion as to whether it would be a proper reference for an article. However, we do have a citation template to format references to television and radio programs: Template:Cite episode. In regard to identifying the publication data for a book, you can try looking on a library catalog such as Worldcat.org (which actually covers thousands of libraries worldwide), although in many cases you might not be able to confirm which edition was the correct one if you didn't have the book in hand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

BNR metal

User:A Sniper has been consistantly readding a link to this webpage on the wikipedia page for Death (band) despite my objections. I have pointined out many times that this page is clearly in violation of WP:R, but he states that this is just my opinion. You can see the about page here[1]. Please get back to me soon.75.159.18.67 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, other editors and myself familiar with the topic have re-inserted BNR Metal as a reliable heavy metal ezine. Despite having one editor, this reference acts as a neutral, reliable non-self-reviewing internet publication, often cited accurately at Wikipedia: Mind over Four, Grand Declaration of War, Neurosis, Kill II This, Unorthodox, Mayhem, Motörhead, Arch Enemy, Chuck Schuldiner and literally dozens and dozens more articles. Just search and you'll find that BNR Metal is used by many established editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Easley

An editor has added a somewhat controversial claim to a BLP, citing this website. The original article can be found here. My question is whether or not the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald source is an editorial/opinion piece (example: the opening sentence states "What the prosecutors did in the first Alan Gell trial is criminal."). The claim may be true (I don't know anything about the case), but the 'Controversies' section already accounts for ~40% of the BLP. APK straight up now tell me 02:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It is an editorial/opinion piece, and if used, should only be used as such and attributed as such. The latter part of your comment seems more something for WP:BLPN than here. Cirt (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Gracias. APK straight up now tell me 04:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Youtube References

Need verification of something. Assume a wiki uses a nightclub's Myspace page as a particular reference. On that Myspace page, there is an embedded video hosted on Youtube. The Youtube video was not filmed, uploaded nor owned by the nightclub. There's no way of confirming how the video has been edited, or where it was shot. Is the video thus a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article? 74.248.89.150 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No Wikireader41 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Youtube videos are never reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not quite true... for example, the BBC has its own YouTube page where it posts news clips from it's broadcast. These can be used as sources because they are verifiably posted to YouTube by a reliable media outlet, who has released them to the public Domain, and we can be assured that they have not manipulated them from the original. So... while the vast majority of YouTube videos (definitely including the one under discussion) are not reliable sources... there are some exceptions. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar - you are correct that a video uploaded by the official BBC account is a valid reference. But when a video is uploaded by a random Youtube member, it's irrelevant as to whether some blog or Myspace page embeds the video into their page, it's not a valid reference. An example of precedence is the removal of all of the Youtube videos related to the Michael Richards "Kramer Incident", and only TMZ's video was a valid reference. 74.248.89.150 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to above

Unregistered user 74.248.89.150 has abandoned his original claim that the linked video on the Jägerbomb article is a copyright violation and now attempts to claim that the video is an unreliable source.

A second link to the video in question has since been supplied; this one goes to the website of KETV channel 7 in Omaha. This website provides additional information about the event recorded in the video.

Full information about the ownership and production of the video is found on the video at its end.

The video is a legitimate and reliable source, and furthermore it provides verification for the world-record claim that is made in the Jägerbomb article.

Are we all expected to believe that the management of a trendy bar, KETV of Omaha, and everybody else were completely suckered and taken in by a fake video that was made about an event that never actually happened? The video appears on the bar's own MySpace page!

Whatever happened to common sense in editing? Wahrmund (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To which Wikipedia article are we referring? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The two links appear in the Jägerbomb article at the bottom of the subsection titled "Jäger-trains." Wahrmund (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

nxtbook.com

I don't know anything about nxtbook, except it seems to be just some way for print material to get posted onto the web. Is it a reliable source for Awake (Skillet album)? I'm thinking not... Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you post a link? Also, what statement are we trying to source? Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
They're probably referring to this. It's the only cite in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Right. Sorry I wasn't clear. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has said whether or not this source is reliable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look great. The writer and editor are the same person, Lindsay Williams. If she's and expert, then it may be reliable as a self-published source. The format of the page makes it kinda confusing. It looks like a real magazine, but I think it's basically a fancy website. "lindsay+williams"+christian&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= A search for info on the author turn up a lot of hits, but it would take more time than I want to spend to see if she's considered a real journalist or academic or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An Argentine battleship

Hi all. I asked this a little bit ago and didn't get an answer on whether it qualified as an RS or not. So, here it is again. :) It's the only really good source I have found online.

There's a very good Spanish source for Rivadavia on this site, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it is a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? (Google Translate link) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say, since I don't know Spanish, but it looks like a self published source. That means its reliability is dependant on whether Carlos Mey, Martinez is an expert on the subject. If you find that he's published books or scholarly papers on the subject, or is used by some reliable media outlet as an expert on the subject, then it's a reliable source. Otherwise, probably not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

This article was deleted on the grounds of insuffient reliable sources in the refernces. In respect to the closing admin and the Wikipedia users who have opposed this article, there were also many who wholeheartedly disagreed with this decision. However the closing admin has stated that if even 2 of this articles references can be established as reliabe sourses this article will be un-deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xymmax. Many of the refernces listed are Low Power FM, College & SHOUTcast listed Internet Radio Stations. Definately not the "Cream of the Crop" in corporate radio, but listed on Wikipedia, Radio Locator http://www.radio-locator.com/ and SHOUTcast. The deletion consensus was that a mere listing on a radio station's program schedule did not constitute a reliable source, however this article displayed more references than other syndicated Christian Radio programs on wikipedia. So is it possible that there has been an oversight in the deletion of this page? Is it possible that there are sufficient refernces for this article to stand? If not, specifically how would the references need to be better to qualify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God#References

Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question is kinda beyond the scope of this page, but it doesn't look good. I don't know much about Christian internet radio, but the refs used don't appear (without looking closely) to have high editorial standards. From ref 10 on the refs seem to be from the shows website (again without looking closely), so they are reliable (for info about the show), but don't help with notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a valid WP:SELFPUB source?

Is the following source admissible for this statement, per WP:SELFPUB?

The organization claims to have received the support of Edward Asner, the actor and political activist, in a letter dated Oct. 6, 2008. (Gage, Richard (Nov. 18, 2008). "Ed Asner is an AE911Truth Supporter". Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Retrieved May 23, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))

Any advice is welcome!  Cs32en  21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. The only evidence he wrote it was an unreliable source, not him publishing it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FindArticles

is FindArticles a reliable source? Showtime2009 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends. It is almost certainly a reliable source on which article appeared where and when, and I would also accept the articles they point to as faithful to the original work. But if a publication found via FindArticles is a reliable source is a separate question - the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine or 21st Century Science and Technology do not become more reliable if they are accessed indirectly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources contradicted by primary document

A number of secondary sources assert that the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge described Hitler as "an insane and arrogant prophet' but the official English translation Mit brennender Sorge in English on Vatican.va contains nothing like this. I deleted it (as another editor did previously) but another editor has restored it, citing WP:RS. How should a situation like this be handled?JQ (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original German text of the encyclica has a corresponding passage (Wer in sakrilegischer Verkennung der zwischen Gott und Geschöpf, zwischen dem Gottmenschen und den Menschenkindern klaffenden Wesensunterschiede irgend einen Sterblichen, und wäre er der Größte aller Zeiten, neben Christus zu stellen wagt, oder gar über Ihn und gegen Ihn, der muß sich sagen lassen, daß er ein Wahnprophet ist, auf den das Schriftwort erschütternde Anwendung findet: „Der im Himmel wohnt, lachet ihrer“). The English translation is rendered as Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them" (Psalms ii. 3). Unfortunately, not even the numbering of paragraphs is consistent - it 20 in the German version, 17 in the English one. "Wahnprophet", translated as "prophet of nothingness", can be more literally translated as "insane prohpet" or "delusional prophet". So the conflict is not really there. In general, I would say that for the interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors. If there are obvious problems, we should, as always, qualify the statements with an "according to" clause. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The primary document does not contradict the secondary sources... but there is a discrepancy in translation. The best, most NPOV way to deal with this is to mention this discrepancy in translation, and discuss who translates it which way. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


How can you prove that the original text contains that ? I think on wiki en We should consider any source available in english your translation of the passage can be termed as original research --Notedgrant (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're free to use a dictionary or learn German if you doubt my translation of that one phrase. Try [25] and [26] (and know that German has compound nouns). The encyclica was originally published in German and is available in the original language directly from the Vatican. I would assume that the authors of the reliable sources also worked off the original version. There is more original research in the interpretation of the English translation than in the confirmation of what reliable sources say about the original version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion, but if the translation is in dispute, you can try asking for confirmation at WP:RD/L. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Your translation is correct I used google translator and got the same result
You can use the following link to source your argument [27]
--Notedgrant (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I would trust scholars more than Google translator. If several reliable sources are translating it as "an insane and arrogant prophet" I think we can accept their scholarly opinion. If different scholars disagree, then we should mention that disagreement. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Schulz, that for "interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors" ... or even literal translations of primary documents. Note that the primary document does not even mention Hitler by name, and we need to rely on secondary sources to even say that the extract refers to him. Of course, if reliable secondary sources disagree, we can mention that (keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind). Finally, Google translations (and translations by Schulz :) ) are useful for talk-page discussions, but should not be used in the article itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree very much. I'm not offering my translation as the one and only correct one - I just wanted to point out that the perceived conflict between the primary source and the secondary sources is not stringent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Stephan, We do agree! Your translation on this noticeboard was perfectly appropriate and very useful for non-German speakers like me. I know that you were not proposing its inclusion in any article, and I was only trying to make the broader point in case someone else thought that google/wikipedian translations of such texts was considered reliable. I tried to indicate that with the smiley ":)"; sorry, if I was not clear enough. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Also, translations are not static over time. The word as used in German should be translated as it would have been translated at the time it was written, IMHO, which makes Google translations a bit useless. The Vatican translation, which was done at the same time as the wrk was released, is likely the best available translation (not least because the Vatican is known for diplomatic skill in word usage). Collect (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, everybody. I changed the text to read "It include criticism of "an insane and arrogant prophet" ("Wahnprophet"), taken by some scholars to be a reference to Hitler", with citations to Botenkotter following. My impression is that, while no one has explicitly disagreed with Botenkotter, and some subsequent writers (general church histories rather than specialists) have followed him, the absence of anything like this in other writers and the differences with the Vatican translation suggest that this is a rather tendentious and polemical interpretation. I think the phrasing covers this, and avoids OR.JQ (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification should be made in WP policy

First of all, Stephan's translation of Wahnprophet as "delusional prophet" instead of "insane and arrogant prophet" is an improvement, no question about that. However, I have not researched whether it would be appropriate to use it instead of, or in addition to, the Vatican's translation.
As it happens, I was involved in a dispute about Primary Source vs. Secondary Source only recently at Richard Williamson (bishop). An IP made an edit which initially I reverted as vandalism. The IP editor then edit warred with myself and a number of editors on that point. (Click on the "History" tab of the article). However, I then examined the primary source – the interview with Swedish television conducted in English and available on a variety of websites including youtube – and found that the subject of this WP:BLP article had been misquoted in some of the media articles reporting on the interview.
Next I explained my change of mind on the Talk page and tried to gain consensus for implementing a change in the article to better reflect the evident truth and stay clear of WP:BLP Libel violations.
The discussion, mostly between myself and two editors, went on and on and despite my best efforts seemed to make no headway. They kept quoting policy at me in a robotic manner ("verifiability not truth") and refused to acknowledge that once the misquote had been pointed out to us (by the IP editor on May 9) we were obligated to stop republishing it as fact.
I believe that, as a minimum, changes should be made in the appropriate places in WP's Policy pages to make it clear that Wikipedia does not republish demonstrably false claims about living persons. Editors more conversant in the policy pages of WP than I are hereby requested to make these changes. More generally, I believe the mantra "verifiability before truth" should be modified to accommodate all cases in which the truth – the facts as evidenced by a Primary Source – require no translation or interpretation and are clear as daylight, as in the case of the TV interview with Williamson.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to WP:GREATWRONGS, there should be a guideline like WP:MINORNONSENSE, stating that assertions from a single WP:RS sources must be attributed to the source if there are WP:RS sources that contradict the statement. For example, if Reliable Source 1 say "A is always B." and Reliable Sources 2, 3 and 4 provide examples that some As are not B, the statement from source 1 should be either left out or be attributed to the source. It should not be necessary to find another reliable source that explicitly says "A is not always B."  Cs32en  15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [I withdraw the second sentence of my comment as it might be misunderstood as referring to the particular discussion that is going on on the talk page of the Richard Williamson (bishop) article. I didn't read the (rather long) discussion there before posting the comment.  Cs32en  17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)]
Interesting but I do not see the connection to my posting above. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I admit I have not read the discussions at Talk:Richard_Williamson, but it seems to me that in such a case, editors must use common sense and not republish claims they know to be inaccurate, but, due to our no original research policy, neither can they use Wikipedia to 'correct the record'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Dlabtot. If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. Verifiability not truth is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all. لennavecia 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Symantec KB Article

Is this a reliable article? [28] 68.218.165.238 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The link didn't work for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Didn't work for me, and an editor tries to use it as a reference, claiming it was repeatedly moved. The editor never converted the external link to the cite web format when it supposedly did work. Valid as a reference? 68.218.165.238 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If we can't veiw the link, I would have to say it can't be used to back any claims up as we do not even know what is on that page.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS Statements of Opinion

WP:RS Statements of Opinion allows news organization publishing in a "blog" style format to be considered equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. What about a credible published author who publishes a monograph on his own blog site? Example: Witherington, Ben. "The Lazarus Effect," http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/03/lazarus-effect-part-one.html I suggest this contemporary 21st-century format should be allowed as a blog exception in addition to news organizations.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There already is a mechanism to allow self-published blogs by recognized experts, if it's for a field they are an expert in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is it, please?Afaprof01 (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
see WP:SPSMartinlc (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gang Land News

Gang Land News run by Jerry Capeci is cited quite a bit on organized crimes sites, as seen here (mostly it's still a source for mug shot photos). While Capeci is cited and could be an authority, I'm a little disturbed about using a pay-per-view site like this. At Joseph Sclafani, a WP:BLP, it's the only source, naming a lot of other living people, even if they are all members of organized crime. More concerning, at Gaspare Mutolo, it's used for this NY Daily News piece but I cannot find its existence in either Google News or via my LexisNexis subscription. Really not good. Most of those articles are a pure mess in my opinion anyways, especially the WP:BLPs, since people seem to assume that because they have been called gangsters, anything goes in terms of language and sourcing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the website must still be used as reference, due to lack of any alternative reliable sources on the Mafia articles. If we discontinue using gangland as a reliable source, then a vast amount of info in a lot of articles will have to be removed. This will invariably depreciate the qualities of these articles and reduce them to stubs. So, here is my solution to the problem. Since Capeci also writes for the NY daily news, replace those gangland links with NY daily news links in the case in which the same articles being found there. The remaining inactive links can simply be converted to offline references.Joyson Noel (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a question about convenience links. Most of these articles appear to have been in the Daily News like you say, or in the New York Sun after a little looking around. For a BLP you want to be doing the newpaper citation. The linksearch shows it's only used in a few articles as a document source; almost all the linksearch results are image description pages for mugshots or talk pages. It looks like there's been some edit-warring, and someone may be pushing an overinterpretation of "links to avoid", which I believe only applies to the "external links" section at the bottom of an article. There's nothing that says all sources must be freely available on the web. Another result of the edit-warring is that in some places the specific Gang Land article links have been replaced with links to their main page, which doesn't help anybody with anything. I'd say use the newspaper citation, use links to the Daily News or Sun websites if available, otherwise link to the Gang Land News articles, paywall or no paywall. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Correction to mine: A Gang Land article link wasn't replaced by a link to its main page. There was a sentence which had links to both and the article link was ( IMO mistakenly ) removed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Jerry Capeci is a good source on organized crime, in particular about the New York situation. He has been a crime reporter for the NY Daily News and NY Sun for many years, before he started his own website. Gangland News used to be a free site and only recently has been changed into a pay-per-view site. That is why some of the links that were put there in the past when it was still free, link to the main page now. However, I think once you pay per view it should still link to the original free page. I don't know if all Gangland News articles used to be in the above mentioned newspaper, but Capeci on its own is a very reliable source. I agree that most articles on American gangsters are flawed and unreferenced, but that is not the case with articles about Sicilian Mafiosi, which generally are well referenced. I know, because I have been referencing them. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gangland News is a gossip site for gangsters. It uses a lot of words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" And "according to anonymous sources" As Joyson Noel states there are no "alternative reliable sources on the Mafia articles" This proves that most of the information on Gangland News is simply not noteworthy nor to be used as a reliable source. Persistent Organic Pollutants

Using words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" and even "according to anonymous sources" do not necessarily make a source uncredible. You claim that since there are no alternative sources on the Mafia articles, most of the information by the site automatically becomes un-notable and unreliable. How does that happen? What possible relation exists between the lack of alternative reliable links to the reliability of content provided by ganglandnews? Moreover, how does the research by a notable recognized expert on the field become insignificant, simply because the website became pay-per-view? Please elaborate. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Gangland news is not a gossip site or forum, but a credible news source. In fact, Mafioso's and law enforcement themselves use it for reference and daily updates. In one interesting incident, the New York Daily falsely reported that a Mafia Capo Ralph Galione (who was in jail at that time) had become an informant. Shortly after, his mother phoned Jerry Capeci and informed him that this was false and requested him to state that it was false in his website, since she knew that it was frequently visited by law enforcement and mobsters alike. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If a source says that something is alleged to have happened, then they are claiming that something was alleged, not that something happened. So obviously the reporting of allegations has nothing to do with whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And I think for WP:BLP, we really should require more than a single source that alleges things like serious criminal behavior. Just because they have been convicted for one crime doesn't give us free reign. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That is assuming that such alternative sources exist. Ricky. Plus, it's not compulsory that such things be referenced by two sources, albeit recommended. Please correct me if i am wrong. I agree with Mafia Expert that Capeci on his own itself is a very reliable authority. So, i suggest that the solutions i put forward be implemented. Also, none of these mafioso's are habitual offenders. They are career criminals. So obviously all of them without exception have been convicted of more than one crimes. Joyson Noel (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry i did not get you, Dlabtot. Are you stating that the use of words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" and even "according to anonymous sources" diminishes it's reliability or not? Joyson Noel (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
We don't look at the content of a source and judge reliability based on our opinion of the content. Rather, we look to a source's reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, all right! Thanks for clarifying that. Joyson Noel (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If there isn't a reliable source, I say take it out. For living people, we need a source that's reliable in accordance with policy. Period. Policy is completely different for living people. The fact that you consider them career criminals doesn't mean we can ignore all our policies and just say what we want. You say they have been convicted of more than one crime but all we have for Joseph Sclafani, again a BLP, is a guilty plea for loansharking and extortion, "reportedly" (great). The rest is unsourced or sourced to a paywalled site which nobody can verify now (which is why we generally don't use those as references): bodyguard work, loansharking elsewhere, contract killing, conspiracy to commit murder, everything. I'm debating whether to stub it and make a note at the BLP noticeboard about these articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You guys are missing the point. The articles we are debating, AFAIK, were all published in either the New York Daily News or the New York Sun. If there's any essays that are unique to Gang Land, then we can restart the debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If they're all published elsewhere and just convenience links on the gangland news page, the citation is to the original news article, and linking is with care (better to link to the original source if possible). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best solution, taking WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT into account, is to do a news cite to the newspaper, then the word "via", and then a cite to Gang Land News. This would provide the best traceability as far as where the source material came from, as well as allowing two convenience links, to the newspaper as well as GLN, paywall or no paywall. Furthermore the GLN cite could contain a wikilink to our article on Capeci so readers understand why GLN is important. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comics review/news prove notability for said comic?

In both these AFDs on Spider-Man comics, a user has pulled out reviews and news articles from sites like comicbookresources as to prove the subject's notability. I was wondering if someone well-versed in this area could tell me if these count as reliable sources that alone prove notability. Thanks.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the site, it appears to have a genre-specific focus. I'd call it an RS for comic-book discussions. The issue would remain, however, whether that mention was sufficient coverage, which should be evaluated by looking at the totality of the coverage found. That is, it likely meets WP:V, but WP:N is a separate issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
They're reliable, but you need two of them that cover the topic in significant way to easily pass NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Huffington Post Again

Could this [29] be a RS for Rick Warren? Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't see that author as generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely a reliable source with respect to the opinion of Leah McElrath Renna. If there is any argument to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.
Is the opinion of Leah McElrath Renna appropriate for inclusion in the Rick Warren article? That's a different question that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually what I think about adding into Warren's own article is Warren's own words in an interview. See: Talk:Rick_Warren#Civil_Unions. Source: [30]
An editor is claiming that this doesnt reach the treshold of notability. In this context, do this Huffington Post article help? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note that Leah Mcelrath Renna was in Newsweek with respect to Rick Warren. [31] Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It helps, but it's still an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add a site as a reliable source for music reviews

I keep trying to add Stereo Subversion (http://www.stereosubversion.com) as a reliable source for album reviews, due to the fact that: 1) the site has a staff of writers who are the only people to post content; 2) the site is edited -- all reviews go through editors and are posted BY editors, so nothing gets posted without total approval. But every time I post anything regarding the site, it tends to eventually get deleted, often quite quickly. Can I get a consensus as to whether I've followed the rules? Because it would seem I have, and the quick deletions without explanation have served to confuse, violating the idea of not biting newcomers.

I was told on the WikiChat program to post here. I certainly appreciate responses. (Kroessman (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, they have a 'staff' of 113 editors, none of them with a job description.[32] Google Maps tells me this is where their office is.[33]. Also, I couldn't find any other WP:RS that even mentions this web site. Not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree... this seems to be little more than a fan site. I does not seem reliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Mental Health

I'm trying to find Song, S (2005). "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS" (pdf). Journal of Mental Health. 14 (3): 277–289. doi:10.1080/09638230500076165. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) on pubmed, but am having no luck. With such an explicit search term, it should be easy. Am I missing something? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the Jorunal is not included in pubmed central and is only available through subscription via Informa. [34] Martinlc (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll put a pointer in at MEDRS to this section and see if anything turns up there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It's indexed in EBSCOhost's Academic Search Premier. I have access if you'd like me to shoot you a copy of the article (let me know via Talk or e-mail, please). --ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll ping you, but what I'm most interested in is if it's really reliable, should it be used. What I'd really like is a comment on the journal or article itself saying "this is crap" or "this has been renamed" or "this is revolutionary". It's only been cited twice that I can see, yet it's been used to cite a fairly strong statement on a page linked to the very controversial chronic fatigue syndrome set. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It's completely outside of my field so I'm afraid that I can't really help answer those questions. It hasn't been cited by anything else in this particular database but I don't know if that it is at all meaningful as there appear to be many articles in the same boat and without knowing the field intimately it's impossible to make a judgment based on that datum. That the journal is indexed in a few databases - Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Academic Search Premier, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text - seems to speak favorably for the journal. Academic Search Premier has issues online back to 1992 so it doesn't appear to be a brand new journal although it certainly isn't venerable. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) PubMed is for biomedical journals. A claim about biomedical topics supported by a non-PubMed source is therefore somewhat suspect. The claim in Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome #Etiology, diagnosis and treatment is written weirdly, but the cited source is primarily making the claim that CFS can't be explained by psychological mechanisms, and must be biomedical. It is somewhat worrisome that such a claim is in a source that isn't PubMed-indexed, and that raises a red flag. More generally, the containing paragraph is weakly sourced. It cites primary studies, such as the source in question, in an area where there is a plethora of reliable reviews. As per WP:MEDRS, that paragraph should be using those reviews instead. Possible reviews include Griffith & Zarrouf 2008 (PMID 18458765), Afari & Buchwald 2003 (PMID 12562565), Prins et al. 2006 (PMID 16443043), and Cho et al. 2006 (PMID 16612182). The fact that none of these reviews (all easily findable, and many of them freely readable) are used in the article suggests that the article is using weak sources when stronger sources on the same topic are available, which is a worrisome sign. Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Publisher is T&F, a respectable but second level academic publisher. The editor in chief and about half the editors come from a single department, often a danger sign, but it's the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London, which is rather well known. . However, although indexed by Web of Science, it is not in JCR, and has published an article trying to explain why its important anyway. It is indeed not in Medline, (but it is in Excerpta Medica and PsychInfo). Thus there are some indications that there are problems about it. DGG (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aspartame controversy#Air Force alert needs verifiable & reliable source

I have concerns about the way a source is being used. The way it is being used is consistent with the way it has been used in internet conspiracy theories regarding the supposed myriad dangers of aspartame, but I believe it grossly misrepresents the nature of the original source. I would appreciate more eyes on the matter. This is a medical and scientific matter, so to some degree WP:MEDRS would apply to any interpretation of the scientific matters discussed in the source. The original source seems to bear evidence of being influenced by the fringe conspiracy theories, while fortunately noting the mainstream POV from governmental and medical sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular source, but I would understand a recommendation of not to use aspartame at high altitudes or (from personal experience) whenever blood circulation is an issue. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is an article about an aspartame controversy, so some of these opinions are going to be important here. People are going to hear stories like this on the internet, and theyre going to come to Wikipedia to see what the whole story is. We should quote the "heads-up" warning, but we should emphasize that this was something from the past, i.e. "the Air Force Safety Center -once- warned about a -potential- problem...". The "once" wording allows us to show that the warning is not current, while not requiring us to source a retraction. The other qualifiers show that this was an informal safety tip instead of an official announcement, and that this was only a potential problem. At any rate, Flying Safety is RS so we shouldnt have people censoring it entirely. The problem was never the article tiself, but the way it was summarized tilted too far to the anti-aspartame camp.
We can add a block quote to the footnote quoting about how the USAF felt there was not sufficient evidence to prohibit the use of aspartame ( quote is on the article talk page ). If the USAF magazine was quoted selectively by those opposed to aspartame, it would be proper for us to quote an opponent, as long as it's WP:V even if non-MEDRS, to point out the differences, as the controversy is notable. Also it looks like Eubilides on the talk page found a MEDRS study on anecdotal reports on aspartame and pilots, so it looks like we may have three sources to quote and explain the matter to our readers. Just quote carefully and stay away from undue weight and you'll do fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Software review sites

Hi - I brought to AfD an article about a piece of free software, and the author has produced a list of software review sites as evidence that the subject has received substantial independent coverage. I'm quite prepared to be convinced that it has, but I'm not sure about some of these sites. At least one is a blog without editorial oversight, and I'm assuming that our WP:SPS guidelines rule these out. But what kind of traits should I be looking at when assessing the rest for reliability? Is there a point at which providing download links for the software under review crosses over into promotional territory? I'm not familiar with the area, and would very much appreciate more opinions. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blurbs from download sites are usually not independant. You'd have to find out more about what an editor review from freedownlaodcent.com means, but it doesn't look like that site is a reliable source. 3D2F.com doesn't have anything that makes it look reliable that I can see at a quick glance, either. For sites that arent automatically reliable, you have to see if the writer is an expert on the subject. Basically, do they write for reliable sources on the same subject as well. For the softpedia one, for instance, you'd have to check if Codrut Nistor is an expert who's a professor or writes for PC mags or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe there is anything about a download link disqualifying a review site as promotional. Links to freeware/shareware/evaluation versions are pretty much par for the course. I can't vouch for all those links as RS but the Softpedia one looks good. I believe the Softpedia review could be considered "published" so there won't be a need to invoke SPS and check if the author is a recognized expert. Whether these sources are strong enough to show notability is an editorial decision the people in the AFD will have to reach. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe Capilano

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Capilano is not referenced and has not been verified for several years, and I am wondering what the historical implications could be if information like this is never challenged and verified. What are the steps to take, and should this be taken given the information is simply many peoples opinions or stories they have been told. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced, it just lacks inline citations. I don't know about verification since I lack access to the sources. Taemyr (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically someone pulled them out of a book and they cannot be verified? Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
They can be verified, but only by finding the book. What statements do you object to? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The 1st objection is that this man is not a Capilano at all. There is no lineage and his family who has seen the photo, denies that this man is a Capilano blood line. In those times, someone from an area would be called, Joe from Capilano country, and the confusion made him "Joe Capilano". The 2nd is that if this man was not of the Capilano blood line, then he was not "a leader of the Sḵwxwú7mesh (Squamish)". Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can only go by what the various reliable sources say. A google book search turns up a bunch of info on him. They seem to say he was a Squamish chief.[35][36][37] You might want to look through some of those sources and see if one explains the discrepancy you're describing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says that he was given the title "Kiyapalanexw" when he was about 56 years old, which was anglicized to "Capilano". The article doesn't imply that "Capilano" was the surname of any of his ancestors, and so I don't see the relevance of whether he was or wasn't of the Capilano blood line. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The article implies the surname as being listed as "Joe Capilano", in the format of a firstname surname format. Who gave him the name? Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is vague on that point (it says that "many local white settlers" called him Joe Capilano). I guess we would have to refer to the sources that the article claims to be based on. But I'm not sure why this is of particular concern; as long as the subject did become known as Joe Capilano, that is how he can be referred to in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The true Squamish Capilano family claims that there is no Joe Capilano in their lineage or family tree and to list his name on Wikipedia as "Joe Capilano" is to imply a firstname, lastname individual existed within the Capilano family. There is no evidence of anyone giving him the name - during these times names were taken and changed quite frequently by the Canadian Governments Indian assimilation departments, names were also taken by transients who attempted to create a place for themselves by using other family names. If a true identity for this individual cannot be found, and without a reliable source as to who gave him the name, we request this posting to be deleted from the system or at a minimum all references of the Capilano family name be removed. The Province newspaper reported on August 30th 1906 "Capilano Joe visits King Edward VII", this article states the following " He was "Capilano Joe" before he went, after he came back he was Chief Joe Capilano". Actually he was not a "Capilano" at all - not by blood." This is similar to Mike from the city of Seattle calling himself Mike Seattle. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • If the Capilano family had an objection to Sa7plek (as he was originally known) calling himself "Joe Capilano", they should have taken that up directly with Sa7plek, although he has been dead for 99 years so they may have waited too long. Or if he has any descendants who use the Capilano name, they could complain to those descendants (although they might not get a favorable response, since the descendants could have been using the surname for 100 years or more). But I don't see what that has to do with Wikipedia. If Mike from the city of Seattle chooses to adopt the name "Mike Seattle", and he becomes famous under the name "Mike Seattle", then Wikipedia can have an article titled Mike Seattle about him. That is true even if his original name was "Michael Kowalski" or "Michael Petropoulos" or "Michael Shapiro". We don't require Mike to get permission from anyone else with the surname "Seattle" before he can call himself "Mike Seattle". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the point precisely. He was only famous because he "took" the Capilano name and tried to use it to his advantage to be admitted to see King Edward VII, however he was refused to see him but when he returned he was somehow then a Chief. Historically and traditionally, this does not add up. “Apparently, he received the title of ‘Chief” (via recieving the name Kiyapalanexw (Capilano), in order to facilitate his trip to Ottawa and to London, to meet King Edward VII.” One blogger writes from past information listed in Wikipedia http://qmackie.wordpress.com/ The Capilano name is a sacred name and as tradition goes is only passed along from father to son throughout the Capilano bloodline, it is not given for the convenience of meeting arrangements as done with Sa7plek by unconfirmed sources. The tradition of passing the name down to the son is common among all patriarchal societies. There are people with an interest in distorting this families true history because they have never signed a treaty or amalgamated into any of the Canadian Government's Indian Band corporations. If Sa7plek is was his name, then this page should be changed from “Joe Capilano” to “Sa7plek”, otherwise the name is used in fraud and Wikipedia continues to regurgitate a historically incorrect fact. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to the facts, the article written in The Province newspaper on August 30th 1906 (Vancouver City Archives) "Capilano Joe visits King Edward VII", this article states the following " He was "Capilano Joe" before he went, after he came back he was Chief Joe Capilano". Actually he was not a "Capilano" at all - not by blood." Was in fact written by J.S. Mathews - the City of Vancouver's first archivist and an early historian and chronicler of the city.
You can pontificate about his "blood" as much as you like, but it will make no difference. According to policy we use the most common name, which this appears to be. See WP:NAME. There is nothing stopping you from adding material to the article, but you have so far provided no relevant sources for your repeated dogmatic utterances. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul B you seem to take this personally. I am simply trying to correct historical inacuracies. If J.S. Mathews is not a "relevant source", considering he was a historian for the area, then what would be? Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says it's not a relevant source? That material can be added to the article, but the title should still give his most common name. That's the policy. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to change the page name to Capilano Joe, rather than Joe Capilano, as to show he was a man named Joe from the Capilano area. Several references actually use this naming convention for the individual. Please advise as to your thoughts. Sovereign Squamish Nation (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • At this point, it would not be acceptable to me, given that there are more than 10 times as many Google hits for "Joe Capilano" compared to "Capilano Joe." If you can find evidence that the subject is more commonly referred to (say, in books written in recent years) by some other name than "Joe Capilano", I would reconsider. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On ghosts at Fort Mifflin

A section has been readded several times over several months on ghosts at Fort Mifflin. The Fort is a national landmark near Philadelphia. The rational for including the material is that it appears in the sources:

I don't see anything in the website to suggest that it is a reliable source, and it certainly uses a lot of weasel words in making its completely bizarre claims. The book is obviously self-published. Please leave comments here or at Talk:Fort Mifflin.

Smallbones (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar material, similar complaints about Clifton Hall, Nottingham which includes the sources http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/devil-worship-Clifton-Hall/article-344872-detail/article.html in which there is nothing in the article about the building (only in the reader comments below), and http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Clifton-Hall-Creepy/article-345680-detail/article.html in which the strongest claim is that
BANK worker Tracey Collins was a pupil at Clifton Hall in the 1970s when it was a girls' grammar school and recalls numerous tales of ghostly goings-on.
"I never saw anything myself but everybody used to talk about it," she said.
See Talk:Clifton Hall, Nottingham for details. Smallbones (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Under WP:FRINGE such claims would need to be Notable and backed by RS.Martinlc (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Clifton Hall. First of all, let's make it clear that the article covers the matter neutrally, and does not make assertions as to the veracity of the claims of hauntings. Secondly, "Clifton Hall: So Creepy". ThisisNottingham.co.uk. 23 September 2008. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Clifton-Hall-Creepy/article-345680-detail/article.html. Retrieved on 23 September 2008 is used to establish that the hall has a reputation for being haunted at least since it was a school. How does it fail as a reliable source? There is something wrong with "Was there devil worship at Clifton Hall?". ThisisNottingham.co.uk. 23 September 2008. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/devil-worship-Clifton-Hall/article-344872-detail/article.html. Retrieved on 23 September 2008 as it no longer links to the correct article. The url has not been changed, but for some reason it links to an article on football; unfortunately the wayback machine doesn't have an old version of the page. Despite the sensationalist title of the article, it was in fact used to back up a statement to the effect that there have been no "hauntings" since the Rashids left. Martinlc, I agree with you that fringe theories etc must be scrupulously sourced, and I believe the Clifton Hall article is. Moreover, the case of Clifton Hall is notable as it received national news coverage (eg: the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent). Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And it's pretty clear that a book written by someone named Selletti and published by a press named after the author is sel-published and not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not automatic. Has the author published elsewhere, too, or are these publications cited in reliable sources? What is the quality of the research? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It may not technically be automatic, but for all practical purposes here it is. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear - there are some reliable sources on Clifton Hall - the local BBC, Telegraph and Independent. I had left those in, summarized them, and trimmed the rest. I think three good sources on one event is fine, but any part of the article that relies on "I never saw anything myself but everybody used to talk about it," is akin to rumor mongering and has to go. Fort Mifflin was worse, and I like the way it's been trimmed to a couple of lines. Smallbones (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "A representative of Bridge Gate Security, which is now looking after Clifton Hall, said "we have had guys on several shifts and haven't had any scary feedback from them"" as the source the information was taken from has changed. The only other complaint you've mentioned here that is related to the reliability of sources is whether ThisisNottingham.co.uk is suitable to establish that the hall had a reputation for being haunted prior to 2008. I believe the answer is yes: it's a newspaper article and the editor felt it was worth noting that pupils at the school used to think the hall. It's not a particularly controversial statement as many old houses have a reputation for having some resident spook. Importantly, the statement adds context to the article.
The Fort Mifflin article in its current state is indeed superior to the previous version. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the entry to reflect the fact that the Fort Mifflin official website supports (to some extent) the paranormal angle; a secondary if not reliable source. Martinlc (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism

An article by Bill White (neo-nazi) about neo-fascism originally published in Pravda Online was included in an anthology of writings about neo-fascism, Fascism: Post-war fascisms (2004) edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman.[38]. Does this make it a reliable secondary source because "A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source." or should it be considered only as a primary source for neo-fascism? See: Talk:Fascism#OED. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An odd misstatement of the issue at hand. One editor asserted that the OED is a secondary source and should be used to define Fascism as being "right wing." An earlier sentence, with 12 cites (not just the one being mentioned here) stated that, basically, historians differ on the position of fascism in the political spectrum. The issue now is that one editor says a source whoch quotes Mussolini can not be used because Mussolini was a "primary source" (of all things). The cite here questioned, which actually is an article within a book on fascism edited by noted historians, was written while Bill White was a Communist, of all things. Thus the issue at RSN now. Thanks! Collect (talk)
It is incorrect to state that "Bill White was a Communist" both from the WP article and from reading his article, but in any case is irrelevant to his article's use as a secondary source. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Try NPA. The fact is that Bill white was working for Pravda and was a Communist. "White says that in 1997-8 he became briefly involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party's (RCP) Refuse and Resist and Coalition against Police Brutality, as well as the International Socialist Organization (ISO).[1]" seems rather to say as much. In 2000 he briefly supported Perot, but there is no indication he ever dropped his faith in communism while he was an employee of Pravda Online. SPL does not link him personally to anything "right wing" until after he left PO. So saying he was a communist at the time is supported by SPL. Seems enough for me. And since I read the articles and cites I give, I fear your comments are not precisely helpful in this discussion. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And please indicate when you emend your post - someone might not realize you added to it after my reply. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not as experienced as you are in this and do not know how this should be done - please post a message on my talk page explaining how to indicate emends (a term with which I am unfamiliar) and I shall do this in future. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to change your position on something, usually people use "strikeout" on the deleted text, and a note clearly identifying the added text. Fixing typos is not generally important unless a "sic patroller" comments. Spelling perfection in a post is rather unimportant. And be sure to sign the change so that people know when it was done. Alternatively, just reply with your new opinion and don't touch the old post. That way, there is no chance of confusion about when the post was made. Hope this helps! And since this is a matter of continuing interest, I posted here. Collect (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ARAcontent

I came upon several articles by these people recently and have become suspicious that they may be PR in disguise. Take a look at this one, for instance. There were several articles by this group, and they didn't strike me as particularly critical. They also were contradictory to some more routine newspaper publications. Anybody familiar with them? Have they been discussed before? (For more on them, see [39]) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a PR firm, and not really in much disguise. Here's a press release they put on a blog for press releases. Their website http://www.aranetonline.com/ lets clients "Access reports to measure your results". And everything I've seen written by them on a quick glance through maybe 15 articles elsewhere all have a promotional/advertising tone instead of balanced and informative. As press releases of course they wouldn't be reliable sources for much of anything, and I'd be hard pressed to even come up with a hypothetical example of what they could be used as reliable sources for. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I thought they smelled fishy. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

IBDB

Perhaps this has been brought up before, but the archive search didn't turn up anything: is the Internet Broadway Database a reliable source, particularly for BLP information (DOBs, etc)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per this, they appear to collect primary sources, and not accept direct user contributions like IMDB. I'd say they'd be ok for non-controversial BLP data like DOBs unless proven otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Vator.tv

Is this a reliable source? Seems like little more than a collection of self-published promotional material. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. It looks like Twitter for businesses with added video (talks about getting people to follow you). The front page clearly says "The place for emerging companies to showcase and market themselves, and share their news", so yes, self-published. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Elite Forces UK

Can I ask for a review of Elite forces UK used as a reference for The Increment please. I have concerns in the articles at the moment over single sourcing, circular reporting and speculation being reported as authoritative. Other sources used that bear similar concerns are The Ops Room and a report by something called AFI Research, that appears to be a group of private individuals conducting open source investigation. The only contact is a supanet (domestic UK ISP) email address.

The diff where the dubious material starts being inserted is here

ETA - AFI Research appears to be Allan Turnbull, same principles - civilian, no credible experience and open source research.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have extreme concerns about the sourcing on that article. The Chris Ryan book is a work of fiction, the "Spooks: Behind the Scenes" book is a book about the making of fictional TV show Spooks featuring interviews with the cast and writers. While it is possible, albeit unlikely, it may mention the "Increment" it would not be an authoritative source. These only seem to source the horrendous "Popular Culture" section though, but their presence in a section titled "Sources" at the bottom is misleading. The Daily Telegraph article is not 13 February 2008 but 17 February 2008 (as it is reporting what he said at a very high profile inquest, it's a certainty it was reported as soon as it happened). Some of what was said was half-confirmed a week later by the head of MI6, without using the term "increment" though. The Guardian aticle cited can be seen here and while mentioning the "increment" it does not really source the sentence in the article that it is cited for. As for the site being asked about, it is doing nothing except publishing unattributed rumours and is next to useless as a source. What really needs to be done, short of deletion, is someone needs to track down the actual published sources, such as Tomlinson's book mentioned in the Guardian article or "How to Make War" by James Dunnigan mentioned in the Asia Times article. None of this use of questionable websites or second hand reporting, see what the original sources say. O Fenian (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Correction - AFI Research is Richard M. Bennett - a journalist with over 40 years' experience. He acts as a consultant to www.secret-bases.co.uk and that is the only reason the "afi-research.htm" page is there on my site. You can use it to get in touch with Richard and his team of international researchers whom I'm sure will explain things to you all.

Alan Turnbull

www.secret-bases.co.uk

Thanks for the confirmation, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't indicate authoritative with respect to the topic. Open Source research on potentially sensitive topics can lead to a number of wild goose chases.
ALR (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've redirected the article to Richard Tomlinson, since his allegations seem the only real source for this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like self-published, editor claims it's scholarly

Please see [40] where I reverted two links as not academic sources for an article on a Haplogroup. All I can find about this Rodney Jowett is at [41] and [42] -- I don't think these links belong in any DNA article myself. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be scholarly, but the only way we verify that is having it published in reliable sources. I'm sure you already know and were just asking to get confirmation, but that doesn't apply here because it's just a personal page. I've removed those sources myself. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary and Fascism

Oxford English Dictionary is a RS, right? A reliable tertiary source and can be used in LEAD's? Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor is Editors are using the OED as a source for stating that Fascism is "right wing" in the lede, despite many cites (a dozen of which he they removed) saying it is not specifically right wing. And he they also removed all cites saying that "keft wing fascism" exists as well. He has They have refused to consider any possibility that the OED is not a proper source here saying "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous."

As I understand it, dictionaries are "tertiary sources" and those secondary sources he removed are preferable. Is the OED a "reliable source" for the absolute statement he is using it for? Were all the other twenty sources he has they have removed (all of which were secondary sources) better sources for statements about Fascism? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations, I have removed nothing. Feel free to go to edit history. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The OED is a reliable source for definitions of words. It probably doesn't have the nuance needed for an encyclopedic article, so if the other sources were reliable and of high quality, then they should be included in the article as well. Facism is a hard to pin down word and concept, so including multiple views is probably what's best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: Further discussion can be found here: Talk:Fascism#First_sentence_of_.22Fascism_in_the_political_spectrum.22 and Talk:Fascism#OED Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, talk about RSN stuff goes here. That is why it is here. And I now use plural - though most folks here understand that "editor" may refer to several folks, and I did not assign any particular name to anyone, nor was the issue of singular or plural important to the issue of RS. If I wished to make a statement about a particular editor, I could actually manage to type the name. The issue is not the editor, the issue is whether the OED is RS for the purposes for which it is being used. Thanks for your concern that they would be confused about the issue. Collect (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who said "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous." And I'm the one who added the OED quote. Yet I havent removed anything unlike you claimed. I'm asking you one last time to retract false accusations. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How can I accuse you of anything when I did not accuse you of anything here? And I carefully use the plural here so saying that I accused you of something makes no sense -- and is graciously irrelevant to the issue of whether the OED is RS for the purposes which are given to it. The issue here is one of RS -- and only that. Collect (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is only one person who is using the OED as a source for stating that Fascism is "right wing" in the lede and who has said "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous.". And the accusation is here: "despite many cites (a dozen of which he removed)". Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Might you discuss why you feel the OED is exempt from WP:RS? That is the only issue here. Collect (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It isnt exempt. I was applying WP:RS in my edits. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oxford English Dictionary is very much a reliable source, and general tertiary sources like dictionaries are appropriate in the lead paragraph. I believe we're trying to give equal billing to too many alternative views in the "political spectrum" section. While there's going to be some that argue that fascism can be on the left or that it doesn't fit a one-dimensional political spectrum at all, for various reasons such as its integration with big business, it is almost always placed on the right. The answer however is not to cite the OED in an already-crowded quote farm, but to move the OED up, perhaps as high as the article lead, and break off some of that quotefarm into a subsection on "alternative views". Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The WP:RS policy does not classify dictionaries as tertiary sources. They are not in fact compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing source. They are secondary sources because they are the results of scholars who research primary sources in order to determine the meanings of words. In fact the Oxford English Dictionary is the most reliable secondary source for the meanings of words in the English language. It is common sense that if one wants to know the meaning of a word that one consults a dictionary. Ironically, the twelve sources presented in the footnotes do not support the interpretation that User:Collect has provided.
Also could we all please assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It does not really matter whether we label the OED as Primary, Secondary, Tertiary or Sesqui-Centeniary... what matters is that the OED is Authoritive when it comes to the English language. I can not think of a more reliable source when it comes to defining words. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
While that is true, the placement of fascism in the political spectrum is not an English language issue, and I would assign no dictionary any authority there. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Definition of fascism in English is an English language issue. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, this has nothing to do with the definition of the word, but rather with the history of human civilization. Secondly, the definition in English is not likely to differ from that in other languages. If it did, I would be greatly concerned. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So if the definition in English is not likely to differ from that in other languages, then we can use sources which provides definition of english words, such as OED. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You can, but only for definitions. If a dictionary would say something like 'usually found on the extreme right' you cannot use that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, definitions of word are suitable for LEADs, you dont make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
To explain: dictionaries primarily contain definitions, for which they are authoritive, but may add background material for which they are not. In good dictionaries it is clear which is which, but not all dictionaries are good. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
All right. I hope your not disputing that OED is a good dictionary. The matter at hand is this: adding "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." into the LEAD of Fascism Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is also being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and at village pump [43] Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the OED; its smaller online version doesn't seem very good. But no matter, that's just my personal impression. I would not present the second part without other sources as its weight and context are completely unclear. The first part is uninformative (and let's hope it's not circular...). Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not find credible the idea that someone could in good faith suggest that the OED is not a reliable source for the definition of words. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED is a reliable source. However, whether some source should be used in the introduction is a matter of consensus. From what I can tell, Wikipedia articles usually don't use OED for defining words. -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually dictionaries can be problematic when they are defining words used by professionals, etc. Take the word 'archaeology' - Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "the excavation and subsequent study of the physical remains of earlier civilizations!. No archaeologist would accept that as a definition. Ignoring the fact that you can do archaeology without excavating (eg field walking where you walk through a landscape looking for artefacts on the surface), archaeology covers all periods of human existence up to today, ie both before and after 'earlier civilizations'. And that isn't the only dictionary that defines archaeology as only dealing with things that happened 'a long time ago'. There's been a similar argument I believe at Patriarchy. So no, I would not automatically accept the OED as a reliable source for the definition of words, odd as that might seem. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
True... not all dictionaries have the same reputation for reliability as the OED (which, by the way, defines Archaeology as: 1) Ancient history generally; systematic discription or study of antiquities 2)The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the prehistoric period.) Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It does? Well, that's wrong, no archaeologist would say 'Ancient history generally' study of antiquities, prehistoric period, etc. Archaeology is the study of material culture - no particular period. That's worse than I expected and I certainly wouldn't accept that in the lead of our Archaeology article, which says it is "the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes". Quite a different definition and much more accurate. So in this case, the OED is just plain wrong and misleading. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, looking over all the points made:

  • OED is generally considered a reliable source on the definitions, usage, and etymology of words. There may be better sources for highly technical vocabulary, and a dictionary can't cover every possible shade of meaning of a word, but it is a good source on how a word is used by most people. Questioning OED as an RS is a red flag that there may instead be some editorial problem with the article.
  • OED is a tertiary source. Reference books generally are. Now, as WP is made up of people from many different disciplines, there will be conficting definitions for P/S/T sources, such as is it more important to classify a source by what it is ( reference book ) or to classify it by where it falls in the food chain ( does it summarize primary or secondary sources ). But lots of tertiary sources are based on primary sources; maps are one example.
  • We can debate that in some senses OED is a secondary source for etymology, but we are using it here as a tertiary source. One that's summarizing likely thousands of works that use the term "fascism" and what they mean by that.
  • Didn't either RS or PSTS at one time list types of books that were normally considered tertiary sources? I could have sworn there was once a list of examples such as "dictionaries, atlases, gazetteers, undergraduate textbooks, and other encyclopedias". As PSTS is ( for some reason ) part of NOR, and there's been a lot of drama on NOR over the past three years, I wouldnt be surprised if that list got lost on the cutting room floor.
  • Being a tertiary source does not make it non-RS. We shouldn't base too much of an article on tertiary sources ( IMO, especially other encyclopedias that we are in competion with ), but it is appropriate to quote a dictionary in the lead paragraph if an article needs a birds-eye view of the scope of the topic.
  • There's an underlying problem that we're trying to add the OED to what's already a quote farm of different definitions of fascism.
  • There is an undue weight problem caused by a misinterpretation of something that says secondary sources are preferred over tertiary. They are, but for research. For weight, I'd give more weight to the tertiary soruces because they are summarizing many, many secondary sources.
  • A second underlying problem is that we are giving too much weight to alternative views that fascism does not fall on the right side of the political spectrum. By almost any definition, such as nationalism, it does. There will be some scholars that insist the revolutionary aspects of fascism place it on the left, and there may be different definitions for the political spectrum used in Continental Europe, but some of these should be in a secton titled "alternative views". Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a point can be made for fascism not belonging to any specific place in the political spectrum. It is a type of government, after all (as any Civilization player knows). I had a look in the most trusted Dutch dictionary, and that has no mention of any relation to the political right side (nor to the left side). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OED is an historical dictionary, and lists both current and obsolete meanings. As dictionaries go, I don't consider it an authority on American colloquial usage, but it certainly is for general use in English-language publishing. If one wants a definition of a term like this, I can;'t imagine what would be a better source for most purposes. Whether to consider it a secondary or tertiary sources is really quibbling. DGG (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
See my comments above about its defintion of archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Dictionaries arrive at definitions by looking at how words are actually used. With all due respect, I will continue to consider the OED more authoritative than you, despite your disagreement with their definition of this particular word. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
They also list archiac definitions. Determining that a definition currently applies is a WP:SYNTHESIS conclusion based upon decisions made about the original source. For any controversial claims you would need a less ambiguous source. DreamGuy (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
And of course the OED is more authoritative than I am. That doesn't mean it can be used as a source for the definition of archaeology. That should come from archaeological textbooks/dictionaries. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with this in this specific case and also as applied to other specialist topics. "Evolution" has a variety of meanings, but out evolution article rightly focuses only on the specialist one. The more broadly focused a source tries to be the less reliable it is for specific fields of knowledge. DreamGuy (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I read in a reliable source (which I might even be able to find if it seems important) that sample surveys of actual English usage corpora find 10-25% of words are either not in standard dictionaries or obviously used in senses not given in them. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for album sales

Does anyone know anything about the reliability of this? Im not sure if the web site complies with WP:RS. — R2 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be reliable for some things, but I see no reason to think it'd be acceptable for reliable info about album sales. Whereever they get their numbers from would make more sense to use directly as a source instead of through them, because they'd have no inside track on these details except the same way anyone else would look that info up. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, is anyone else in agreement with this? Any other input? — R2 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Claim that an authorised biography can't be used as being authorised, it violates SPS

Over at Talk:Bilderberg Group (the last two sections) an editor is arguing that an authorised biography is self-published (the publisher is Harrap) more or less by defintion. He's twice tagged the article and I and another editor removed the tag (the first time he didn't say what was self-published). Interestingly enough, he's found an article -- see the bottom section on sources -- that I think we might be able to use even though it is self-published to reflect what the author, who more or less founded the Bilderberg Group, said -- any comments on that also? There seems to be an agenda here to make this group seem even more mysterious than it is and to state that it's purpose is unknown. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not SPS in the sense of the policy: it has been prepared and checked by several people and can reasonably be taken as evidence of factual statements. It may not be neutral, but that's another issue.Martinlc (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Confusion seems rampant on that talk page. Even Blueboar is claiming that an autobiography published by a reputable publisher is an 'SPS' [44]. Let's keep this clear. The concept of an SPS refers only to the mechanism of publication, not to any genre of writing. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with autobiographies in general is that the author has a vested interest in putting a personalized mark on his or her role in this, that, or the other historical issue. The reader is not necessarily getting an objective assessment of any particular situation. True: Wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:SPS "only" deal with the editorial mechanism, not the genre. Should it be that way? To be perfectly honest, I'm not so certain: the guidelines -- sooner or later -- need to caution editors on what "reliable" means in terms of "facts" versus "attributed opinion" found in autobiographies. It couldn't hurt to clarify it, at least. But that's for a separate noticeboard in the eventual chance the guidelines are revised. J Readings (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not with the obvious fact that an autobiography is a biassed version of events, it's just that it's not an SPS. We have to avoid confusing wholly separate issues. Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a big diference between an autobiography (witten by the subject himself) and an authorized biography (written by someone else, but with the approval and cooperation of the subject). The first might be considered an SPS, the second is generally not (the exception being if the subject paid for publication). Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You're not "hearing" what is being said. The first is not an SPS unless it happens to be published by the author. That and only that is what defines an SPS. The difference between an autobiography and an authorised biograpny is an entirely different matter. It goes to reliability, but not to SPS. An authorised biography can just as easily be SPS as an autobiography. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Neither authorized biographies, nor autobiographies are, in general, self-published (although they, of course, can be). I agree that autobiographies should be handled with care especially when dealing with disputed or disputable historical events; however mixing terminology and calling them SPS doesn't help the issue. There is already enough confusion in the area, lets not add to it. Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the WP:SPS section does conflait self-publication and self-authorship to some degree. Much of the reasoning behind the limitations we set out at WP:SPS has more to do with self-authorship than self-publication. Both can be problematical, but for differing reasons. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't see what aspect of WP:SPS deals with "self-authorship" ? Isn't everything self-authored anyway ? As far as I see, SPS deals only with the mode of publication, i.e., whether there was any editorial oversight and/or if any reputed organization has staked at least part of its reputation on the writing being "true".
No one is arguing that autobiographies cannot be problematic, but I don't see how we can (in general) regard them as self-published or apply WP:SPS. In particular, SPS unambiguously forbids use of self-published sources in BLPs. Certainly that is not true for autobiographies! Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:SPS does not "unambiguously forbid" the use of self-published sources in BLPs... it says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" (italics mine). In other words, you can use a self-published source to support a statement as to what a person says about himself/herself. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the exact wording of SPS; I paraphrased sloppily. Of course, autobiographies can be used even more freely, although with proper attribution and care that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. (See this earlier question about using Walter Cronkite's memoir as a source).
But as to the larger point: Blueboar, I have read your opinion on this noticeboard to 100s of queries and I can't recall any prior instance where I have significantly disagreed with your view. That is perhaps the only reason why I am seeking a clear consensus in this case; I don't want "autobiographies can be regarded as self-published sources" to become the new, and incorrect, conventional wisdom on this board; a position that is really indefensible both off or on-wiki. I hope I have made my reasoning clear as to why autobiography ≠ SPS. Do you still disagree with that ? Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between authoring a work and publishing a work. An autobiography that is published by the author is self-published. If it's published by a third party of some type, then it's not self-published. Autobiographies are by definition POV however, so care I think needs to be used using them as sources for facts, especially with regard anything other than about the author themselves. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Autobiographies are considered to be different from self-published sources here. See Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source ". . . subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."John Z (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note that, in this case, we're dealing with authorized autobiography. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(I don't think we should ever accept unauthorized autobiographies as sources. The authors would have reliability issues.)   Will Beback  talk  09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... what is unauthorized autobiography? too much acid? Police coercion? NVO (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh, authorized, in publishing sense (and with regards to this particular autobiography), would mean that the subject of biography did not wrote it himself, third party did it, while subject has read and gave consent to its contents. To keep the discussion pinpointed (we can work on improvement of policies elsewhere), do you think we should accept autobiographies outside the scope of biographical articles? That is, can this particular book serve as sole reference for the purpose/agenda of Bilderberg Group, if further details are needed, please see article in question. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, best cited as "one of the founders described the group as .... " Martinlc (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
and add what? The fact that his founding statements are not his and they cannot be verified by a single independent source? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It is an RS for what Bernhard is on record as believing to be true (in 1962) about the group's foundation. He may have been mistaken or deliberately incorrect, but we would need an alternative RS to suggest that.Martinlc (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll call it a wrap up. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Official Wiki.

Hello,

I listed this a while back and didn't get any answers so I am back with it again. I am currently writing an article on a video game. Would the official Wiki be a good reference? The Wiki was written by users, checked over by the game developers, and has been locked so nobody other then staff can edit it. Your input is appreciated!--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The control the developers have over it makes it essentially self-published by them, so it would be a WP:PRIMARY source of limited use but not completely forbidden. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It has a WP:NPOV issue but the developers say it is factually correct. Could it not be used in describing functions/features of the game?--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The acceptable uses of primary sources can be found at WP:PRIMARY: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." So descriptions on noncontroversial functions/features would be fine. DreamGuy (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should consider it self published as it was written in it's entirety by users of the game. It is only locked now to keep it's factual accuracy. The only real problem now is deciding which facts are uncontroversial.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Other people wrote it but it was published and under editorial control of the company itself. That's clearly self-published. If you got tons of people to write about you and then you printed a book with the parts you like, that'd be self-published too. Same thing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Source on Hinduism in the Encyclopædia Britannica article

A self-published critique of the EB's coverage of Hinduism written by an electrical engineer has been used as a reference in this article (see diff). This letter has been referred to by at least one website here but I'm sceptical as to if this satisfied WP:SPS. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here is a link to a Pdf of this source. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hinduism Today Magazine is published by Himalayana Academy, which was set up by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami to publish his own books and writings. As such, it should primarily be used only to source the views of Subramuniyaswami and his followers. Note also that the Hinduism Today website invites individuals and organizations to "submit Hindu-related news and announcements for distribution by HPI. News is our major thrust--the more current and global, the better. When sending news to HPI, please provide the source and text of the original item ..."
The letter by Amit Raj Dhawan is a self-published source and since there is no indication that he is an expert on the subject, we cannot use it as a source on wikipedia. If and when the issue gains coverage in mainstream press, we can reevaluate if it is worthy of inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Press Release

Are press releases from a U.S. State goverment, for example this, considered reliable? Showtime2009 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything being any more reliable.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, (almost) certainly. I say, "almost" only because sometimes even government communiques have obvious typos, errors etc, which need to be dealt referring to other sources, and using common sense. Can you provide more context about the particular dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Aren't they primary sources? Peter jackson (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Reliable ones. They should be used cautiously to avoid OR by Synth. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that primary sources are sources, not for the truth of what they say, only for the fact that they said it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Childrens' Book as Source on L. Ron Hubbard Article

Thomas Streissguth's childrens' book 'Charismatic Cult Leaders' is quoted in the L. Ron Hubbard article as source for the statement '...Hubbard once checked himself into a psychiatric hospital.' I've never seen this data before in any reliable source. 'Charismatic Cult leaders' is published by Oliver Press in their Profiles series, which is for grades 5 and up, the book has no bibliography: http://www.oliverpress.com/pages/pr.html

Google book search

OK to remove this dubious info and source? S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a reliable source but the specific info you cite looks like a WP:REDFLAG - a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" - since no other biography of Hubbard that I know of makes this claim. On that basis, I'd suggest removing the claim and citation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
SMS, I think you might have a misconception about books like the Profiles series. Books written for "grades 5 and up" only means the language has been simplified -- it does not mean they are unreliable. Books written in simple English can certainly be reliable when sourced. (That's the entire concept behind Simple English Wikipedia). Your link also shows the book does have a bibliography section on pages 153-156 -- as do all the Oliver Press books (see your first link) -- and the first source listed in Charismatic Cult Leaders is John Atack's book. However, I would prefer to see the original sources cited -- and if claims are not supported by any of those original sourced materials - then they should be removed or altered. — CactusWriter | needles 08:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The book seems to be based on two sources: Jon Atack, as you say, and Bare-faced Messiah by Russell Miller. My neighbour happens to own both. Having looked at them, I would say that the book does not accurately represent what its sources say: They agree that Hubbard claimed psychiatric problems (consistent with the placement in the Profile book, but inconsistent with the placement in our article, they date it 1947), but they also agree that the context is simulation in order to extort money from the Veterans Administration. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for digging around and finding those sources. — CactusWriter | needles 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Simplified works (biographies written for children) may well not be RS - the concept of RS is that material must be a secondary source -- that is, it must have a source itself, and which validates the claims. Once a book has one "fiction" in it, it ceases to be reliable, and, in this case, since no apparent source cited in the book backs the claim, it must be regarded as unsourced. Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the claim here is unsourced -- because the book has apparently altered the meaning of the original sources listed in its bibliography, as demonstrated by Hans. The point I was making is that one should not assume a book is unreliable only because it is written in simplified English. — CactusWriter | needles 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The claim that Hubbard sought psychiatric help can be independently verified by a Globe and Mail article, which references the original court evidence where Hubbard's letter surfaced. See John Marshall (26 January 1980). "Cult founder avoids press, most followers but court files shed light on a tangled past". The Globe and Mail. Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. p. 4.: "My last physician informed me it might be very helpful if I were to be examined and perhaps treated psychiatrically or even by a psychiatric analyst.". This letter is also referenced by Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah in chapter 8, page 137. In addition, the letter is also referenced by Tom Voltz's Scientology und (k)ein Ende, on page 63. And finally, Stewart Lamont's Religion Inc. says on page 131: In 1947 Hubbard applied for psychiatric treatment himself, a fact which may come as a surprise to those who see him as the scourge of psychiatry. ←Spidern→ 15:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When you want to use the letter in this way based on Miller, you are committing a misquotation because Miller uses it not as illustration for any psychological problems of Hubbard but as illustration for his characterisation of him as a malingerer for monetary profit. As I said above, he agrees in this with Atack. Voltz doesn't explain the letter in this way, but uses it exclusively to prove that there were inconsistent versions about Hubbard's past. Only the Globe and Mail article is an entirely different matter and puts the same fact into a completely different light.
Finally, the balanced conclusion by Lamont seems to be very similar to what we should do here: "Whether or not the letter is a sick attempt to con the Veterans' Administration into upping his disability pension is not clear." But with so many sources discussing it, it probably belongs in the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't really commenting on how the information should be represented in the article, I mainly meant to illustrate that the subject is discussed in multiple sources. ←Spidern→ 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight

Excuse me if this has been discussed previously, but I tried to do a search in the archives and all I got was any variation on the word "examine" (examining, examined, etc.) in previous discussions here, which, as you can well imagine, was extensive.

I've been seeing a few articles lately linking to pages on examiner.com as if they were published stories from the San Francisco Examiner or some other paper in that chain. Editors here should be aware that most of these links that I've found are actually to blog pages by people completely unaffiliated with the paper other than they passed a very brief initial test to set up a blog there. Content in these articles is posted by bloggers with no editorial oversight (they can write about any topic they like as long as there is at least an attempt to tie it to the topic area they were assigned to blog about) and they share in the ad revenue hits to those pages generate. It's similar in concept to Associated Content or Suite101. Based upon its set up and similarities to other prohibited sites it's pretty clear that these blogs fail WP:RS standards quite dramatically. Unfortunately it appears that examiner.com is blurring the lines between actual news articles from the parent media corporation, so I don't know if there's some easy way to differentiate the two. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't address your concerns but to search the archives for examiner.com, use quotes (i.e. "examiner.com"). I didn't find anything, but I thought this tip might be useful in the future. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that... so it wasn't discussed previously. All the more reason then for people to be aware of this. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please posts links, diffs, and other specifics, so that we may actually examine what you are talking about. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In case it was unclear, I was not asking a question hoping for random users to come clarify for me (though the above search tip is useful), I was using the noticeboard to post a notice about a source that quite dramatically fails our standards for reliability. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought they were an online newspaper or something. Could you provide links that describe their relationship with their writers? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually personally know one of the local bloggers, who complained to me about other bloggers' work there being full of errors and that it was obvious no editor had ever looked at them, and also saw the kinds of things being posted as sources to Wikipedia, so that's where I got the info. It's pretty obvious if you look into it at all. But for links on the web giving more info to support these conclusions:

DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching this site for a while and came here when I saw that the 400ish links from a few months ago have now grown to about 1,100:

examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There were several newspapers in the DC, SF and other areas that were once probably considered WP:RS; some of their articles have seemed to be incorporated into this new Examiner.com website. The "new" Examiner.com is a user-generated site, as DreamGuy says, and its writers' dependence on page views for income makes Wikipedia a potential target for abuse, or if its articles begin to rank well in the search engines, an easy choice for some editors to use as a reference.[45] Most articles are probably not useful Inositol#Common use as a "cutting" agent[46] or downright unacceptable Rahm Emanuel#Political views[47]. I slogged through some of the links, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious organized abuse, but I would hate to come back a month from now and see many thousands of links and no real way to determine which ones could be useful or saved from black/whitelisting. As there seems to be some discussion as to RS or author expertise,[48][49], I would rather see what the community says before I begin working through the list. Flowanda | Talk 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the community apparently hasn't looked into it much yet. The people in support of using it as a source you linked to above were doing so as part of AFD discussions, where some people unfortunately want to accept any source they can to try to justify a Keep. The claims that these bloggers were selected for expert status are simply incorrect, as Examiner.com is filling up spots and expanding their blogging system into new cities all the time, and they only criteria they seem to use is if someone can submit an initial essay that someone deems adequate enough.
I just looked at the external links search and started looking through the kinds of things being linked to, and it looks to me that we should really have this thing blacklisted, just as we do with lulu.com and associatedcontent, which have similar models.
Obviously it'd be nice to have more people check it out and comment here, but I'd hoped we'd catch this problem site earlier rather than later -- though it is already quite late in the game, based upon how long the've been around pumping out unreliable blog entries. Right now they are ramping up like crazy, so if we don't tackle this right away we'll have to do so soon. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a real problem. I'm sorry to say that I looked at this a few months ago, sensed these links might be undesirable but did not invest time to push the issue. Now it looks a lot worse.
For starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A. B. wrote "for starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors." I don't think it matters for purposes of deciding that it isn't a reliable source. No matter how many well-meaning editors cite an unreliable source, it's still unreliable. However, it might matter if we are trying to get it black-listed; I don't remember the blacklist criteria off-hand. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a resource still acceptable if it contains sentences taken verbatim from WP itself?

For details, see Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Talk:Międzymorze. The source is here [50]; it lists its publication date as 2008, but an editor has identified several sentences as first appearing in WP during 2005. Its publishers look reliable otherwise. Novickas (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are using poached wikipedia content they have a demonstrably poor editorial policy - they are engaging in (pick a few) Plagurism, Copyright Violation and just plain Using Bad Sources. What unique information comes from this source that can't be found elsewhere? Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the poor editorial policy comment, such sources are not engaged in copyright violation (Wikipedia releases it's content under GFDL). We do caution against using sources that cite to Wikipedia (see: WP:CIRCULAR). If the pdf in question lists citations, then I would advise reading those and citing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 2 June 2009
That's only true if they attribute If they violate the GFDL license, they violate the copyright of our contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Since I felt the reference, having copied from WP, was questionable, I reverted a bot's restoration of ref info; that edit was reverted with the edit summary "you are damaging a reference, please be careful" [51]. That's why I brought it up here. Novickas (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a source takes something from WP doesn't mean it doesn't have a proper fact-checking procedure. After all, some statements on WP are factually correct. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. It is possible that the source has in fact validated via peer review what was previously an unreferenced Wikipedia claim. Still, can we assume this much good faith? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It is also possible that the wikipedia entry was written by the author of the paper after submitting it for publication but prrior to its appearnace in print. There is no reason to doubt that the source is an RS as academically edited and published by an established institution, even if if were shown that some parts of the content were not very well researched.Martinlc (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the fact that the author didn't credit WP in any way discredits the paper. It looks actionable under Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. It also makes it extremely difficult to check possible WP:CIRCULAR - articles change - someone would need to sift thru article history for every citation to check that it wasn't here first. Supposing editors here agree it's an OK reference - on whom does the burden of proving or disproving circularities rest?

As far as the author of the paper having earlier edited the WP article - rather unlikely. The following sentence was inserted by User:Piotrus, who edits under his own name, in December 2004: "Over the 16 years following the battle (the so-called Great Turkish war), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." [52] Compare to the paper's "Over the next 16 years (during the "Great Turkish War"), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." in [53], p.242. And now the article is using this paper as a reference for the sentence...Novickas (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All said, this sentence is hardly controversial. I am more interested in the reliability of other parts of our article, referenced to this article; in particular about the economy of the PLC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The paper also contains several sentences taken verbatim from the WP Międzymorze article - see its talk page. These sentences were inserted by User:Logologist in September 2005 [54]. Logo has been inactive since November 2007 and his/her email is not enabled, so it could be hard to find out whether he/she is actually the paper's author. Novickas (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentences in question were based on an article by the late, respected Professor M.K. Dziewanowski that had been published posthumously in Polish in a Polish-American newspaper that is cited as the source. Nihil novi (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to question the reliability of Dziewanowski or the copyright status of the M. article - just to point out that the paper seems to have taken sentences from multiple WP articles. Novickas (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not the first time that an author who is not fluent in English has found text he agreed with, liked the English wording, and borrowed it. This author probably approved of Dziewanowski's article but likely did not have access to the Polish-language original. But it would have been well if she had put the text in quotes and credited Dziewanowski indirectly, and Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia may be developing into a respectable encyclopedia—as did the 18th-century French Encyclopédie. This incident, however, may also serve as a caution about academic and other authorities. Nihil novi (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical note: I think this question is applicable to more than this single source, so the issue should be noted and/or discussed primarily at the talk of WP:RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to this thread posted at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources ([55]). Novickas (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors are NOT reliable sources, please see WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time calling reliable any source that copies wording from Wikipedia. I especially have a problem with the fact that the source does not seem to have the intelectual honesty to cite Wikipedia while doing so. Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Or papers which cite material from sources they have not consulted, if Nihil Novi is right. Piotrus, how close did you come to translating your source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Posts in a discussion forum by an ackowledged expert who has published in the field

Well, I guess the heading says it all. Are posts by an expert in a discussion forum an acceptable RS? Obviously it would be better to find a widely available dead tree reference, but in my opinion so long as the point is consistent and sensible, and reevant to the larger discussion in which it is posted, and posted under his own name, it is probably easier for people to check a web reference than an article in some technical magazine. I'm not madly fussed either way, I just haven't seen it discussed. Greglocock (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as we can be reasonably certain it really is that expert saying it, then the source is him or her, and it's just as reliable as he or she is when writing in a newspaper or book. Because such writing can be off the cuff, however, more traditionally published statements are preferable when they exist. DreamGuy (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Such a post is covered by Wp:SPS and is very low on the totem pole of reliable sources, although usable in very restrictive cases when the identity of the poster is not in doubt, (s)he is a acknowledged expert, no alternate sources are available, and the point being supported is not contentious or a BLP issue. Such sources are definitely not equivalent to, or preferred over, articles in technical magazines, newspapers or books. Online accessibility is always secondary to reliability. Do you have a specific source and article in mind ? Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it is just a technical matter nothing biographical, specific thread in question is [[56]] where Bill Jurens is commenting on Bismarck. I realise dead tree references are preferable, but on the other hand the web link is far more accessible. Thanks for the link BTW. Greglocock (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

www.tehelka.com

Would this site be considered a reliable source, as on the Sathya Sai Baba page? It is used to detail possible mismanagement of funds of the Sathya Sai organization. However, when I searched for the supposed name of the article, I found nothing. It has a circulation of about 120,000, which is minute for a country the size of India. From what I can tell, the majority of the information on the website is opinion, and all (that I read anyway, the articles that came up under a search for Sathya Sai Baba) of the articles on the page regarding SSB were critical of him, which would hardly be considered objective/neutral. Any help on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Long, Long Trail

Hi a question of this online site is it a reliable source ? Chris Baker he author says this about himself - As far as historical things are concerned, I was Chairman of the Western Front Association for two years and a member of the WFA Executive Committee for six; I was also a founder member of the WFA's Heart of England Branch. I am a member of the University of Birmingham Centre for First World War Studies and of the Douglas Haig Fellowship. In December 2007, I proudly graduated with a MA (with Distinction) in British First World War Studies from the University of Birmingham. My dissertation was on the Supreme War Council 1917-1918.

Do you have an idea what possible articles and in what context? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Articles on World War I, which he seems to have a passion for --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm thinking the standard would require (1) identification that he's an established expert (not merely his CV but independent third-party confirmation) and (2) his work had been published by reliable third-party publications. Google news doesn't produce anything but there are some cites at Google books and Google scholar. Perhaps focus on those third-party cites first as this at best indicate some reputation for strict factual details, and keep out his opinions if possible? I'm not really sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Jim, Birmingham University's website confirms his membership of the Centre for First World War studies [58]. The website is also recommended by Intute, see [59] so I've certianly tended to view it as reliable in the past, see discussion on Talk:North Irish Horse. David Underdown (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Some independent references to his work would be good - so far his authority as an expert is established solely by his affiliations. I don't think that counting a post-grad's blog/website as an RS is a good plan without some hint that it (the site) not he (the person) has been treated as authoritative. Ignore me - Ricky81682 has shown this.Martinlc (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem about sources at Chronicles (magazine)

I really would appreciate some help here, where I am running up againt 3RR against what looks like one editor with several IP addresses (one-off so 3RR difficult if not impossible to enforce) challenging the sources that say that the magazine is, or at least has been, considered paleoconservative. Calling it paleoconservative should be in no way controversial, but various excuses have been used to remove the word and the sources, all of them revolving around the sources which is the only reason I am here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what semi-protection is for; see WP:RFPP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
71.126.40.130 is using comments in a discussion forum for a statement of fact? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought about asking for semi, but it is possible to see this as a content dispute. although I see it quite differently. It's interesting. After the IP removed my references, all the references are either to the magazine itself or The American Conservative Union Foundation. And there's been a determined effort to not describe it as paleoconservative even though that particular reference says it proclaims itself as paleoconservative. Go figure! Maybe I should ask for semi, this is pretty blatant pov editing. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Weston A. Price Foundation

Hi,

I'm doing a WP:Third opinion for a dispute at Raw milk and would like more opinion on the use of the Weston A. Price Foundation (external link) as a source for the article here. I'd be grateful for comments here. I'll collect a diff in the next day or so and add to the talk page.

Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be an advocacy organization. If they are notable, obviously reliable sources will have commented on their statements in the debate. Use those obviously reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and News Hounds

Would either Media Matters or News Hounds ever be considered reliable sources, like in the Gretchen Carlson article? There is a question on this at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Gretchen Carlson.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed Media matters for a very long time and it might not be black or white. Given its function as a news watch organization its mission entails integrally very political work, and they probably criticize the right more than the left (partially true). On the other hand, they seem neither a tabloid, nor aggressively distortionary like some think talks, political organizations. I don't see "Carlson" on the page noted above. I think scholars with higher standards that wikipedia would use them as a source, but not carelessly assuming fact. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few reports by Media Matters for America consist of stating accurately what content can be found in various prominent media outlets. Thus, the work of Media Matters doesn't depend on something like "We heard from a confidential source that Columnist X was threatened with exposure of his adultery if he published this story." It's more like, "Last year, there was a story like this about a Democratic politician, and Columnist X covered it (link), but this year, despite similar reports about a Republican politician (link), Columnist X has been silent." Reports of that type can readily be reviewed by those criticized. If there had been any inaccuracies, they would have been exposed. Media Matters is not ideologically neutral but neither is the Wall Street Journal. JamesMLane t c 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
In this case they are not reliable. They are fringe sources picking at minor, isolated incidents. John Asfukzenski (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Media Matters is a self described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" so they should not be viewed as being an unbiased source, but it may be appropriate to cite them in statements such as "liberal groups have criticized x, y ,z" or to cite their compilation of other sources such as videos and quotes from other more reliable sources. -- Gudeldar (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
John Asfukzenski cites no basis for his charge that Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents". By this edit he removed all mention of a Media Matters report that was based on review of every transcript of "Fox & Friends" interviews of Bush administration officials. That's an example of the kind of information that's perfectly proper. In fact, it's rather dubious that, in a case like that, the information even needs to be identified in text as coming from a liberal group. I agree with Gudeldar that such identification is generally proper when Media Matter is quoted as giving an opinion, however. JamesMLane t c 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be politically neutral, they have to be accurate and reliable. It sounds like the only objections to the use of this source have been made for partisan reasons. No source is 100% free of opinions or world view. As long as those views do not get in the way of the facts then the source is reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a real reason to remove a Media Matters report, I don't know. But more generally, it does not seem credible or relevant to claim "Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents"'. On the contrary, that claim seems pulled from the butt and I doubt it would withstand any reasonable scrutiny. Media matters seems to often or usually support its claims with evidence. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the fact that we are supposed to be putting forth an effort to make the articles in Wikipedia as neutral as possible as per WP:NPOV, and Media Matters on its own website calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", I can't see any way that MMfA could possibly qualify as "Reliable", as per WP:RS. The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV, how can it be reliable? Rapier (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Video game sites

Hi! I'm wondering about the reliability of a number of websites which don't yet have any information on reliablity at WP:VG/S.

  • ActionTrip (home; sample review)—Currently has a parameter in {{VG reviews}}. Seems to be a largish, fairly professional site. No evidence that I can easily find that it is user-contributed like a blog or wiki.
  • CVGames (home; sample review)—Not even mentioned at WP:VG/S at this point. Seems to be fairly professional, even if not the largest or most popular of game sites. No apparent user-contributed content.
  • The Armchair Empire (home; sample review)—Doesn't look quite as professional as the other sites, but it is a partner of GameZone (an RS) and has been around for 9 years.

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ActionTrip.com - I can't really find any information on them. They don't have an About page, no mention of their editorial policy, no physical address, etc.. Our article on them doesn't cite a single WP:RS. So I would say, no it's not a WP:RS. I do find a handful of mentions of it by other WP:RS so it's views might be important enough to include in an article. That's really an editorial decision. BTW, ActionTrip has come up before.[60]
CVGames.com - Again, I can't find any information on them. Even worse, I didn't find any WP:RS even mentioning this web site. So I would say not a WP:RS and it's reviews aren't important enough to include in an article.
Armchairempire.com - I'm not sure about them. They don't have an about page but do have some sort of staff[61]. No physical address and they aren't referenced by a single WP:RS that I could find. So, I would say no, it's not WP:RS and it's reviews aren't significant enough for mention in Wikipedia.
But that's just my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. I'm guessing that eventually ActionTrip should be removed from {{VG reviews}}, since having a possibly unreliable source built into that sort of template seems kind of confusing (that's why I was unsure of it). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ [62]
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35