Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

The Nassau Guardian

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

Looks odd to me. It is attributed "By FESTIVAL STAFF WRITER, For the Guardian" When I do a search for the phrase "festival staff writer" at site:thenassauguardian.com, there are no other results, just this page.[1] I believe that this was written by a publicist, not by a regular writer for the The Nassau Guardian. My problem is that I can't figure out what the publicist was trying to publicize other than Mr. Burrows. So I'm highly skeptical that it is an independent source, which is relevant to notability. I'm not inclined to doubt reliability of the source in general, but wouldn't use peacock terms from it. GRBerry 19:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your research. I won't change my vote. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

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

Given the quality of the rejections of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality and conversion therapy, I would not use narth.com as a source for anything other than their own views. Such use is described by Wikipedia:Fringe theories. If there is disagreement regarding how much space to devote to NARTH's side of the controversy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard may be a better place for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
agreed - I'd use it only for statements about the organisation and its views. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree also. Would add that NARTH appears, on the balance of available evidence, to be a non-scientific organisation and, if its views are presented, they should not be misrepresented as having a scientific basis. --FormerIP (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a crucial distinction that must be made here. There is a difference between using NARTH as a source for what its own stated views are, which in principle is fine, and using it as a source for statements about the organization in general. No organization, least of all a fringe organization such as NARTH, should be able to control how it is portrayed in a neutral encyclopedia. If reliable sources contradict what NARTH says about itself generally, then NARTH's view must not take precedence over the reliable sources. I'm not sure that Cameron Scott's comment above quite captures this point. Born Gay (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

CelebStoner

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

So you would say it would be considered a reliable source in Cannabis-related articles? -- Ϫ 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably. The sole proprietor was the editor of High Times which is about as reliable as sources get on marijuana, so he may meet WP:SPS. Just remember that WP:BLP pretty explicitly forbids blogs as sources on living persons. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tate Publishing

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

PS There is another Tate Publishing that is even more widely used as a source but that is a respectable art book publisher. So anyone investigating this should take care. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a question that can be answered, at least not the way you present it. WP:SPS limits when and how we use self-published sources, it does not ban them altogether. Thus, we might say that a source published by Tate is reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. I would say that Tate qualifies as a vanity press, and so anything cited to one of their books should be looked at closely to see if it does have WP:SPS issues. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Shaun Walker of the First Post writes:

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

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

Could you please explain this edit [2], given that the cited article says quite plainly that "Georgia has rejected those claims, alleging instead that Ossetian militia engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source for saying that the massacres actually occured... but it is a reliable source for saying that a) there were rumours that they occured and that b) Shaun Walker finds the rumours believable. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well here's how it's currently cited: "As the war of 2009 in South Ossetia came to a close, there were reports of massacres in Georgian villages inside the conflict zone ­Ossetian militias checking the ethnicity of residents and treating Georgians to a bullet in the head, however this was impossible to verify.[9]" How would you suggest changing it, or is this fine? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That edit, Mr. Wolfowitz, was done because the article doesn't mention what it cited. The article is being cited for "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia was the removal of Georgian people, which was conducted in South Ossetia and other territories occupied by Russian and South Ossetian forces". However the article doesn't talk about that at all. Anything that even comes close, Mr. Wolfowitz, is the article's statement that the Georgian government claimed there was ethnic cleansing. But there are already six sources from the Georgian government that say exactly the same, and even expand on the topic, and are cited several times as well. So it seemed to me like it's "article advertisement". The only thing the article said is that Georgia's government accused Russia of being mean and evil. That's been proven multiple times, and we don't need a seventh source for that. I am sure six sources can hold that fort. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Emporis in building articles

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

Note that Emporis has also been endorsed by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (the international architectural group that announces the title of tallest building in the world and is regarded worldwide as a reliable source for skyscraper information) as an official building database. Cheers, Rai•me 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite reliable for the U.S., but there you can easily find better printed sources. Each step away from North America makes it worse and worse. YMMV. NVO (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The building in question is Four Seasons Hotel Miami; I am having trouble finding statistics for the building's height, floor counts, and dates of completion from sources other than Emporis and primary sources such as the building's developer. In this case, then, you would say that Emporis is a reliable source? Cheers and thanks for your help, Rai•me 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: User:Jezhotwells has found sources other than Emporis to use in the Four Seasons Hotel Miami article. Still, I am curious to know if other editors find Emporis to be a reliable source to use in lists of tallest buildings and other articles. Cheers, Rai•me 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that someone, and actually multiple someones, have finally stepped forward and shown with proof that Emporis is in fact a reliable source. I once collaborated with someone who said it wasnt and that scared me from ever using Emporis again. I now feel confident in using it as a source again.Camelbinky (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, anyon can register and contribute to Emporis, There is some unspecified oversight of contributions, so I would not consider itb reliable, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The oversight comes from senior editors (see a complete list here - many senior editors have been interviewed by reliable sources as indicated by this list). As far I can tell, nothing contributed by registered users is published on the site without review and verification, so I don't see why it is unreliable. Cheers, Rai•me 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

That is likely true, but I do note that User:Raime said at Talk:Four Seasons Hotel Miami, You're right anyway - Emporis can often be wrong. and So this information is incorrect; another instance where Emporis is wrong which doesn't make me think that it is particularly reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This is true, but the two quotes Jezhotwells is referring to are from two years ago, and Emporis has since corrected all of the information regarding the Four Seasons Miami. I was incorrect when I said "often wrong", as since then I have really found very few instances where Emporis' statistics varied widely from the developer's information or the statistics from other data sites. Having used Emporis as a source for over 30 featured lists of tallest buildings since 2007, I can testify to its information being "correct" when compared to that stated by the developers. The New York Times can also be wrong at times, but that doesn't make it unreliable. -- Rai•me 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Senior editors do not (and can not) verify provided data. Developer's PR rep logs in, types in numbers; the only way to verify these numbers is through checking as-built drawings... the catch: actual building may be in fact taller than the official specs (money money...). NVO (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I moved NVO's post to the bottom of the thread to make it easier to everyone who has been following this thread (such as me) to find. When it came up on my watchlist and I came here I was a bit confused and had trouble finding his comment. With that I would like to ask NVO a question- you state senior editors do not and can not verify provided data, but others here are saying they do. Can you provide me with anything to prove that fact? I am an impartial reader who would like to use Emporis, but if you are right and it isnt a reliable source then I would have to take your side. I'm just looking for some sort of resolution and proof from one side or the other of this debate.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The senior editor list linked above states "The senior editors are responsible for managing large amounts of information throughout the Emporis Community. This especially applies to reviewing added and updated textual data such as building facts, news stories, and descriptions." I have contacted Huaiwei (talk · contribs), a senior editor with Emporis, to see if he/she can help clarify this issue. Cheers, Rai•me 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Raime! Perhaps this can solve this problem for good with some facts.Camelbinky (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There are a number of sites that allow user submissions, which are controlled in a non-transparent way by editors of some sort. IMDB is kinda like that-- I'm a little late to this one, but Peregrine pretty much nailed the issue for a certain class of sources. I mean, if IMDB is just an open wiki, then how come it doesn't fill up with nonsense? There's a debate below about a baseball site that allows viewers to send in information. But the BBC also solicits input from its viewers, does that make them unreliable? Seems to me something like IMDB we should accept as semi-reliable and a tertiary source, but a source nontheless. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay per view court records

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


  • Not on WP:V or RS grounds ... WP:V says things must be verifiable, but that does not mean personally verifiable, by you, right now, without any effort or cost on your part. This is like citing a book that costs $25 to purchase, or citing a rare manuscript that is only available at the Bodleian Library in Oxford (which, since I live in NY, would require me to spend hundreds of dollars to personally verify).
    That said... depending on what is being stated and sourced to the court documents, there may be WP:BLP issues. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Not on the point of cost. Sources need to be publicly available, but not free (consider classical off-line books). Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help. But also note that court documents are usually primary sources, and hence often not appropriate. As an example, a deposition by a party is reliable only for the fact that the deposition was made, not for its claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you can at least verify that the book exists for free. I can't even verify the case number exists without paying. I can't verify that someone testified in the case without paying to find out, or worse, paying to find out that they didn't testify. These are being used to make some pretty dubious claims about "proof" of being a covert CIA operative etc. These claims have been questioned (some even debunked) in verifiable, reliable sources, but these court documents are the only "proof" that the claims are true. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Stephan, let me ask specifically then. If a person testifies that they were involved with Dux in the CIA, would that be considered a primary source for the Dux article? Or would that be considered acceptable? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
A primary source is not unreliable or unsuitable per se. But a simple statement by some person, even in a court of law, is not usually reliable, no. People lie to courts all the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Paid sources per se aren't disallowed here. In order to get at federal appeals court documents you need to pay to access PACER. In order to get to articles in scholarly journals you normally have to have institutional access, a subscription to the journal in question or the willingness to pay some absurd per-use fee. However, use of court documents, especially circuit court documents as primary sources is very dangerous. WE aren't wikileaks. We aren't a crowdsourcing operating to comb court material. We should show here what is covered in sources whose intent is to publish, rather than sources which appear consequent from trial and discovery. For BLPs we need to be doubly careful, since we have a strong presumption in favor of privacy for BLP subjects. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue isn't that it costs money to verify the source. The problem is that court documents, like transcripts and exhibits and particularly legal arguments motions and briefs are not only primary sources, but they are primary sources with an axe to grind, pushing a particular POV. It is one thing to use a court judgment in a Wiki article as a source; at least you are then reporting an indisputable "fact" the court issued an order and it said whatever it said. But, writing that "in the trial, witness A said X, and Exhibit B showed Y and Attorney C did Z" is totally inappropriate, particularly since that there is no independent secondary source verifying any of it. If there was an independent, reliable secondary source on any of this material, then judicious (yes, that was a deliberate pun) use of the primary sources, might be considered, but not under these circumsances. And, as an aside, the whole article you're talking about is a horrible mess, almost none of it reliably sourced. Fladrif (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are issues as well. But they don't relate to the central complaint: that it costs money to access those briefs. As for your arguments, I mostly agree with them. Out primary source guidelines (mostly thanks to strenuous argumentation from fiction article writers) contain loopholes large enough to drive a truck through, but the basic guidance should be "don't use primary sources to support a disputed claim or a claim which could be interpreted multiple ways by reasonable people. Don't use primary sources when you aren't sure that the source itself doesn't have an underlying interest in structuring the source a certain way. Don't use primary sources to cite something that in the reasonable future could be cited from a secondary source" But I don't write guidelines, mostly because I can't help but say things like "...strenuous argumentation from fiction article writers". Protonk (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  • They aren't separate issues. They are bundled rather rightly. While obviously there is a wide gulf between briefs/motions and court rulings, documents that issue at various points in court cases should be looked at with some skepticism. Falling back on the PSTS defense is not sufficient. Who cares what the court document says? Why does it belong in the encyclopedia article? Why can't it get done eventually using a reliable secondary source? Protonk (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
While I dont disagree with you Protonk, I do wonder if, since this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard whether it is within our scope to really look at "why" this should be put into an article. We can, I think and hope, all agree that yes there is not an RS problem with a court transcript, ruling, etc that you must pay for. Which Blueboar and I have stated similar statements on several occasions (the navy museum was one that comes to mind) that being verifiable does not mean "I must be able to see it this second from my computer chair, without paying anything, and without being inconvenienced". Being a document of a court would, I hope, make it where we all can agree it is reliable, since saying "in the trial x person stated y" can be verified and reliable based on the court transcript. It may also be relevant, but the relevancy issue shouldnt be considered here. Only whether or not such a type of document is reliable and/or verifiable. Which I hope we can all agree that it is.Camelbinky (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You raise very good points. The reason I bring up the 'why' and the 'how' is because often in disputes like this noticeboards are brought in, shown only a small portion of the elephant, then reports from the noticeboard that the elephant is indeed a horse are used as a sort of imprinteur for the general use of the source. Someone complains that source X might not be good to use in article Y and the response will be "RS/N said it was kosher". So I try to offer some general hedges regarding court document sourcing. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes think we should put a huge banner at the top of this page that says... "WARNING: Just because we say a source is reliable, that does not necessarily mean it can or must be used. There are many other policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that may bar or limit using the source." Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You all have brought up some very good points and I appreciate it. I hadn't really started to think about it in PSTS terms and perhaps some of this is better suited for the BLP noticeboard. There an inherent reliability problem, as I see it, with calling a source "reliable" just because it came from a court. The court merely records what is said. If Subject A claims in court that he was a CIA operative, simply citing the court record that he said it is still a primary source. They just recorded that he made the statement. In the Dux bio, nobody disputes he made the claim. Hell, he wrote a book making the claim. The concern here is that the court record is being cited as "proof" that the claim is true because he swore "under penalty of perjury" (yes, that's how the editor put it) that is was true. I appreciate the input. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Protonk and Blueboar on everything they said. Niteshift however- there is a big problem with your example about the CIA "operative" on the stand. One- the attorney from the otherside would, unless a bad lawyer, prove in cross-examination that the person was perjuring and two- the attorney who put the "CIA operative" on the stand would be put in contempt of court and brought up on disciplinary action for accessory to perjury, possibly disbarred depending on just how much he/she knew ahead of time and how it impacted the case, depending on the severity of the lie it could even cause a mistrial. Stating "x said y in court" is a verifiable reliable statement from a court transcript, whether or not what was said is true is irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines and policy what we are concerned with in Wikipedia is whether or not it is true that x person said y statement, which obviously that part IS true because it is in the court transcript. Primary sources, especially when coming from a government source, is not a bad thing, editors in my opinion need to get over the whole "its a primary source" issue. In dealing with histories on counties, cities, towns, and villages in the state of New York I have cited directly many state laws, which are primary source, on when they were formed, their type of government, annexations and boundary changes, etc. instead of trying and finding a reliable secondary source that actually gets it right. Primary sources are our friends.Camelbinky (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The difference between a law as a primary source and witness testimony as a primary source is that if the New York state legislature passes a law to create a town or something like that, that is a performative utterance. In other words, the legislature's saying so makes it so. The only way that it wouldn't be so would be if there was a failure of the proper felicity conditions (say, if the New York legislature purported to create a town in Pennsylvania, or the New York state constitution forbade the legislature from creating new towns but the legislature tried to do so anyway, or if the legislature held a vote to create a town but a quorum was not present). But witness testimony is not like that. Witness testimony is normally a declarative utterance, usually about things that happened in the past. If someone says under oath, "I am a CIA operative" or "I was a CIA operative", that alone does not make them a current or former CIA operative, because they could be lying. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Articlesbase.com

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

Remove it from which article? All of them? Some of the articles might be useful for external links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
All I'd say - we don't link to open Wikis, this has the same problems. And I note a number added recently seem to be articles linking to a commercial website. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
We do link to open wikis if they are relatively stable; the offloading of a lot of sci-fi material to Wookiepiedia, Transformers Wiki, etc, is one example. Articlesbase is only the channel, just like with other selfpub venues we can deal with these links on a case by case basis. However, most of their articles aren't really necessary in our articles, and some link back to commercial sites. I'd recommend adding it to XlinkBot, which will disallow it most of the time but unlike a full blacklist if editors really want a particular article they can revert the bot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, the problem with open Wikis is that anyone can change an article. For example, I change an article that says "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii" to say "Barack Obama was NOT born in Hawaii". This is different than anyone being able to upload an article. If someone uploads an article that says, "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii", nobody can go into that article and change it to mean something else. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
True, but the ones added recently are like this one [3] which link to a sales site. I don't think many if any will pass ELNO 1 even. How do we add it to Xlinkbot? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
ArticlesBase doesn't meet any of the requirements for WP:RS, and there's no reason to expect that any of the articles would meet WP:EL either. And notability for its Wikipedia article seems to still rest on two foreign-language articles used in its AfD. Flowanda | Talk 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with Flowanda here. It's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, doesn't meet EL rules, and shouldn't be used at all. If a bunch of articles link to it they should be unlinked. DreamGuy (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
One more reason -- each page is very ad heavy. I've been going through it, most of the articles, maybe all, that I've seen are promoting the author in some way. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And this article] is just trying to sell a service. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

References concerning GAETANO MOLLA

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

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

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


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

I can't tell from this what question you are wanting our advise on. If equivalent sources are available in English and in a foreign language, the English Wikipedia prefers to use the English source and the foreign language wikipedia would probably prefer to use the source in that language. But if there is not an equivalent English source, foreign language sources that are reliable can be used. In order to get an evaluation of a foreign language source you'll probably need to either 1) find other editors that read and write the relevant language or 2) translate it for the regulars here. GRBerry 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage on a WP:SPS source

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

The report itself, and some media coverage. (there's also more in the "stack of sources", obligatory link here) --antilivedT | C | G 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not an ordinary SPS. The publisher of the report is a notable Canadian ex-politician, David Kilgour. According to his WP article, he's a former Canadian "Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific (2002-2003)". It's generated notable press coverage, e.g. by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I say it's notable, though possibly opinionated, so the article should present its conclusions as the conclusions of the Matas + Kilgour report, not as fact. Or to put it another way, http://organharvestinvestigation.net is a notable primary source, the coverage on CBC[4] is a notable + reliable secondary source. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Author is a Canadian ex-politician, but it's published... as good as annonymously in my opinion. Should we really overlook the fact that it's not written under any scrutiny, not published in any journal, not peer-reviewed in any way, just because it's written by some ex-politician and some lawyer? --antilivedT | C | G 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As much as I think the report is extremely "opinionated" (citing above), I think Peter has got it about right. Even works of fiction can be notable if they get enough publicity and/or becomes a bestseller. But is it reliable? Only as far as what they say can be reported as "Kilgour & Matas say", and no more. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That not withstanding, in a hypothetical situation I've described, would my logic be correct? --antilivedT | C | G 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is nothing stopping a reliable source, such as the Independent, covering a crackpot conspiracy theory. It is in turn the RS that becomes the one we cite, regarding what it said about the theory - its claims, the reacton etc. The only work to do in such circumstances, although strictly unnecessary, is to go to the crackpot theory to verify that it has been reported faithfully. I would probably draw the line at writing about anything in the theory itself which was not reported in the RS, because it would not have been reliably covered. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
My logic is since those coverage heavily depend on a non-RS source they shouldn't be counted as RS themselves. Woah, there, you've got it backwards. Not only is the RS still an RS, but it's now possible to cite the self-published source, with attribution, as a primary source on the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Peter Ballard and Squidfryerchef are correct. Media coverage, if by a WP:RS, is still a WP:RS. The report should not be used for statements of fact, but can be used with in-line in-text attribution (i.e. "According to Kilgour's report...". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
But you can't do "According to [some big media company]... so and so facts are true" or "[Fact ..] [cite media article]" when the article itself refers to SPS right? --antilivedT | C | G 11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No, and maybe (depending on what the RS put it). You would say something like "Watchdog report says X,Y,Z"(cite RS and maybe SPS), or "RS reported that watchdog report claims X,Y,Z",(if very contentious and if the first RS to bring up the issue can be identified). Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. --antilivedT | C | G 01:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball America

The issue has come up in an FLC over whether this is a reliable source. The reviewer;s comment was "Baseball America's Executive Database doesn't qualify as a reliable source since it accepts user submissions. This goes to show that not everything from what appears to be a good source actually is." This is because at the bottom of the page, the site says this: "Information for the Baseball America Executive Database was compiled through listings in the annual Sporting News Guide series, contemporary newspaper reports, interviews and other sources. Click here for more information. We welcome additions or corrections; please send them, preferably with substantiation, to [site e-mail address removed]." IMO, every site will have something like this, asking for corrections, and if being open to contact = non-RS, then WP:RS is nonsense. It's as if one must assume bad faith. Mm40 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the disclaimer at the bottom of the page discredits the source is patently absurd. It actually makes it quite clear that any "user submissions" are subject to editorial review. Rvcx (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Even the BBC's web page has language inviting ppl who live near news events to send in correspondence. Does that make the BBC unreliable? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I just posted much of this on the FLC nomination page in question, but I think there is more to this issue than a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. There are reasons to regard this database as a reliable source. For one thing, Baseball-America is generally a reliable source for items they publish. And Baseball-Reference, which is a reliable source, supplies links to this database in its team encyclopedias. But the problem I see is Baseball America's own disclaimers about the database here: [5]. Particularly item 8: "In that regard, while we have taken a giant first step in building this database, it remains a collaborative effort between us and the baseball community, including you. There will be mistakes..." While we do not (and cannot) require reliable sources to be infallible, when the source itself acknowledges its uncertainty about the validity of the information, that seems like a possible problem. So while Baseball America in general should be fine, I am not sure about this particular database within the Baseball America site. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This argument is nonsense. Every reliable source has errors, and the more reliable the source the more self-reflective it is about identifying and correcting these errors. The New York Times has an extensive corrections policy as part of its style guide (which is a commercial publication, but excepted here) which openly admits that its articles contain errors of fact and lays out a process whereby contributions from readers are addressed and incorporated into the paper's content in the form of corrections. The Baseball America database policy and disclaimer is, if anything, more evidence of the high quality of the source. Rvcx (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a source providing contact info to receive feedback or corrections. If users were able to directly edit the site, that's one thing, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Having an error correcting mechanism is one of the things that makes a reliable source reliable. The fact of a visible error correcting mechanism is an affirmative indicator that a source is reliable. The lack of a visible error correction mechanism is an indicator that a source is not reliable. In both directions it is not enough evidence to drive a conclusion. But to interpret the visibility of a process for error correction as an indication of unreliability is to be turned 180 degrees out of true - and to conclude on that basis would be the equivalent of an own goal.

Seemingly more significant is the database's note that it will contain errors. However, that should be read in context of paragraphs 3 and 4 that note that official titles and functional jobs are different (this is true in every business), and thus that real research is required to determine proper answers. And in context the phrase about "proof of your contribution's accuracy is always appreciated" should be understood to mean "we won't pay any attention to your email if you don't offer evidence that it is true". GRBerry 15:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The degree of error one would expect to be present in a work like Wikipedia is probably high enough that differences in cited journals' impact factors is immaterial. It's akin to leaving all your windows open but worrying whether your front door has a knob lock versus a deadbolt. Wikiant (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard before. Here, where the consensus was that impact factors do not correlate with reliability. Nevermind. It appears you have read those archives. What needs to be put to bed? Is there a specific case you have in mind? Protonk (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In one form or another the question pops up on many WP:Fringe-ish and WP:Pseudoscience articles. The case at hand was that publication in the Central European Journal of Physics, with an impact factor of 0.448, was being advanced to bolster the credibility of a paper at Blacklight Power. Similar questions have previously come up at Talk:Homeopathy archive search and I'm sure elsewhere, so I'd like to see some general position arrived at rather than having to tackle each case on an ad-hoc basis. Is that unreasonable?LeadSongDog come howl 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Unreasonable is the wrong word, because it describes you or your position too broadly. I think if you read the archives and read a little of the literature on the subject, the answer is that impact factors just don't correlate well to any underlying metric for quality. There is some argument to be made that something with an impact factor over 20 will generally be a highly regarded journal and something with an impact factor under 0.5 might be less than mainstream. But this varies tremendously across disciplines and sub-disciplines, is prone to manipulation and doesn't offer much tractable data between the extremes. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
While it is certainly possible for journal publishers to manipulate their impact factor, it still remains one of the best systemic indicators of reliability that we have available for established journals. Publishers also have been known to manipulate circulation figures, but that doesn't mean they aren't relevant to us (or to advertisers). They translate into the ability to fund quality editorial work in a commercial publishing venture. LeadSongDog come howl 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Your desire is not unreasonable, merely unachievable, unfortunately. Even within a single issue of a single journal different portions will have different degrrees of reliability (letters versus peer reviewed papers versus editorials, and then variation within each of those categories). That doesn't make impact factors unuseful, it merely means that they can't be decisive. GRBerry 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We already have objective indicators for class of content. PubMed (and other catalogues) apply xml tags to article metadata for "Original research", "Review", "Systematic review", "Short correspondence", etc. When we have doubts about a source we pay attention to this, especially at GAR and FAR of medical articles. WP:MEDRS#Biomedical_journals is sufficiently clear on that. For impact factors I would be happy to see wording that cautions against giving them too much weight in the assesment of sources, but I do think we should acknowledge that they are indicative of the relative reliability of different journals. Original research in Nature or even PLOS Med is far more likely to attract a review than if it is published in a small private McJournal. We should have a way to reflect that increased transparency and scrutiny in our priority of sources.LeadSongDog come howl 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'm not sure that the impact factor (or whatever thompson/reuters has renamed it to) is the best method. Modified page-rank methods, other more flexible methods, and relying on review or meta-review articles may be better for some purposes. One of the critical points made in the above linked article is that measurement based on impact factor introduces a number of unspoken assumptions which may skew results. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
These newer methods might in theory be better, but unless/until we have access to the published ratings the methods may as well not exist for our purposes. Impact factors are routinely published, usually right on the journal's website. That's what makes them useful. Is there a place to read the ratings by the newer methods? LeadSongDog come howl 21:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple things. As I said above, most of the complaints that I have about impact factors involve the vast middle ground between journals like Nature and journals like Reviews of crazy space physics i just made up. I don't think it is wrong to set some very low bar and just note that below this a journal might be suspect as too new or too outside the mainstream. It is wrong to treat that bar as an automatic decision rule, because novelty or marginality is not sufficient to rule that something is not a good source. Another point to make is that if we are looking at individual papers the problems with impact factors stop being academic. There is very little connection between the impact factor of a journal and the acceptance of a particular paper within a field. That's for sure. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
While it is true that impact factor varies tremendously across fields, and that some highly respected but esoteric journals have very low impact factors, it is still the case that impact factor is a useful metric. Especially, if you are comparing two journals in the same field, with the same breath of coverage, impact factor is a useful indicator of reliability. For example, the American Economic Review and the Pacific Economic Review are both general-interest economics journals. The very large difference in impact factor ratings between the AER (Impact Factor: 2.55) and the PER (Impact Factor: 0.243) is a solid indication of the difference in the quality of the articles therein. I think impact factor is a useful metric as long as we are not comparing between fields (eg. anthropology journals vs economics journals). LK (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Different fields have different expectations regarding level and number of references, so it is awkward at best to compare JIFs across fields. Moreover, in some more isolated fields – particularly certain 'fringe' sciences – there can be a 'walled garden' effect. In the era of electronic publishing, a small fringe field can nevertheless have several journals. The authors who publish in the fringe area seldom or never publish in other journals, and authors from mainstream science will seldom or never publish in the fringe journals. The fringe authors regularly and extensively cite each other's work in these few narrowly-focused journals; the most popular journals in this isolated area may appear to have a very high JIF, but still be totally unreliable from the standpoint of being worthwhile sources for Wikipedia articles.
One further point is that the quality and importance of papers even in high-impact journals varies widely. Looking at one of the Big Guns in science publishing, Nature, an analysis found that 89% of their 2004 JIF (a whopping 32.2) came from citations of just 25% of the papers: [6]. Less than 3% of Nature papers had drawn more than a hundred citations in other journals, and the "majority of [Nature] papers received fewer than 20 citations". (A non-trivial chunk of Nature's 2004 JIF came from a single publication: the mouse genome, with more than 500 cites in the two preceding years.) Wherever possible we should strive to evaluate the quality of papers based on reliable secondary sources, rather than on a dubious proxy like JIF. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Nab. You have provided philological proof for what the sources I checked merely say without citing the Arabic original. It is however not absolutely clear that the verses refer only to kafir. Some early islamic commentaries take 2:191 as referring to those Jews who broke the Sabbath, i.e. not 'Jews' but former Jews who had broken with their religion (hence the 'kafir' reading?).
Former IP. We quote primary sources optimally through secondary sources that qualify as RS. There would be nothing wrong citing Walter Laqueur, though he has no professional knowledge of Qur'anic literature, regarding it and the broader question of antisemitism. What is plainly intolerable is defending someone like Laqueur's presence on a page, as RS, when he, as here, has tampered with, and consequently falsified, the reading of an ancient document. If no orientalist on that passage takes the word 'kafir' to refer to Jews, obviously we shouldn't be citing an amateur (in this area) who reads it, against the consensus of specialized learning, in this way.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Jews who have broken with their religion being called kafir, (the verse that comes to mind having just read over it is 2:65 And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected.") I would have to look for that. Will get back to you. nableezy - 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The secondary sources I have read note that too. My point is that in citing or referring in Wiki articles to primary texts notorious for the difficulties they pose to interpreters, one should absolutely avoid using thinkers, writers, or historians who don't know the period, the language or the intricate traditions of hermeutic controversy. Citing Laqueur on the Qur'an is like citing Bertrand Russell on Heraclitus. Russell was a great philosopher, but he knew no Greek (indispensable for understanding Heraclitus) and nothing he wrote on this cannot be found in the commentaries written on Heraclitus by scholars, is generic and just a second-hand summary of what he found in the best secondary sources of his time. One goes to the area experts, i.e. directly to the best secondary sources. God I'm wasting a huge amount of time on asking for confirmation of what is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, it looks like what we have here can more-or-less be categorised as a mis-quote. If that's the case, then I really do think it would be better to go to the primary source. What say "Laqueur says the Koran says x" when you could just say "the Koran says y"? If the differences between the primary source and Laqeur's version are such that the quote is no longer of interest, then just don't include it. --FormerIP (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. But it is not a misquote. It is an interpretation, with an interpolated gloss, of a passage in the Qur'an. I dislike using primary sources except when they are available through authoritative secondary sources. We have many secondary sources citing this passage, written by specialist scholars on early islam. My point is, if someone wishes to cite this passage, then the proper course is to seek it out in a reliable source, not in an author whose interpretations of the Qur'an, as distinct from modern history, are no more reliable than my own.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I feel the whole article is ridiculous, and I've started a discussion about merging it. Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Proposed_merger--FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Just to be clear, in his favor, it should be noted that the author in question is a respected historian and university professor, who has written or co-edited almost 70 books. The material in question is from his recent book The Changing Face of Antisemitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, published by Oxford University Press, a highly respected University Press. On the other hand, his area of academic expertise is 19th and 20th century European history, not the Qur'an. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with former IP about the article being ridiculous and needing to at the very least change its title which is incorrect inflammatory and insensitive. My full opinion and reason are on the OR/noticeboard where this was first brought up but I guess probably because we didnt like the title and encouraged the topic to go away it was then brought to this noticeboard.Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources in Sathya Sai Baba page

Resolved

Hi, i recently came across an edit by user ProEdits on the Sathya Sai Baba page using the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html to quote some viewing numbers.
i looked into the source of the web page and found the site http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/ to be its source. Reading the authors name, Barry Pittard, shows the website is an anti Sai Baba site.

My concern lies in that ProEdits (Robert Priddy, another anti Sai Baba writer) posted this edit. What seems to be a circle of one editor using a 'friends' anti Sai Baba website as a source and then using it to write a 'neutral' article on the subject. Robert priddy,( http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ ) Barry Pittard ( barrypittard.wordpress.com ) and Brian Steel (http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/index.html ) websites are linked.

Considering Wikipedia policy on BLP is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. ".
one editor from the COI noticeboard suggested this forum to discuss proper sources.
i was wondering what can be done or where to bring this concern. Thanks!

J929 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that this article appears to be your primary focus of interest here on Wikipedia, as it was where you started your contributions and the majority of your contributions have been to it and related articles. By now, you should have long since read the talk page, and know that editing around this article has been the focus of two arbitration cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. The remedies in the first case call for removal of all poorly sourced material from the article, whether it is positive of negative about SSB, and additionally prohibit any user from adding any links to a website that they personally control or have a significant role in. The second case explicitly stated that those remedies remain in force. I see from Talk:Sathya Sai Baba#Non-reputable source references for deletion and Talk:Sathya Sai Baba#State of Editors that this remains an ongoing issue. I will reiterate that it is essential for all editors of the article to limit the article to the best standards of sourcing, even when the source of debatable reliability agrees with their views.
There has been so much editing on this article recently that I am not completely certain which specific edit is in question. From context, I believe you are referring to the reinclusion in this edit or this edit of a paragraph you have yourself removed, then I would say you have seriously misdescribed the sourcse being used for the paragraph, which is primarily the BBC documentary, not any of the websites. (And I see no evidence that the www.rfjvds.dds.nl website actually being used as a source is based on the one that you claim it is - the contents of the pages are just too different. Indeed, only the second version of the paragraph makes any reference to www.rfjvds.dds.nl, and there it is sourcing only the phrase "which screened it in most countries of the world". I don't know that this phrase, or the equivalent phrases in the prior paragraphs actually add anything to the article. Is there really serious doubt that the show was shown internationally? If there is no real dispute about this, don't bother citing any source. If there is, it might be possible to test for some of the listed countries the historical schedule of BBC World from clearly authoritative sources on the stations schedule for the specified dates. If that test can be done and turns up actual schedules, then you will quickly know whether or not the web page is reliable. If it can't turn up complete schedules for those dates, then you don't have any better source available. I'd be inclined to treat it as reliable for that claim. The evidence of the specific page is that it was published in 2004 when the BBC documentary was in a status of scheduled to be shown, and at the time it would have been both easy to be accurate and easy for someone who disagreed to say "look, this guy is full of bunk" (or words to that effect). Thus, while in a normal article I'd be inclined to treat the source as a reliable source for the one phrase that it is supporting, in this article I'd recommend instead deleting all references to where various documentaries aired in this and surrounding paragraphs - the information about countries aired in just isn't important enough to merit inclusion in this article with this level of sourcing. GRBerry 02:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Radiantenergy:

This source is another attack site critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Please click the above link and it takes you to the negative attack site criticising / defaming Sathya Sai Baba.
  • What's wrong using negative attack site in the article - Are they reliably sourced?
First and Second arbitration clearly stated the rules. I see that you have already provided the links to the First and Second arbitration. So I would like to summarize it shortly for quick reference.
  • When referring to attack websites such as the one owned by Priddy the arbitration stated as follows "attack sites contain large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research".
  • Remedy from Second arbitration also stated that "Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. Passed 6 to 0, 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)"
Its quite clear from the above link that its an attack site. Hence I think this link should be removed to abide by the arbitration ruling. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree with me on which edit J929 is referring to. Remember that reliable sources are always evaluated in terms of whether or not they are reliable for a given claim. All the bruhaha raised about other pages of the site and relationships to other sites are just red herrings, both as you have described it and as J929 described it - that mess is just a waste of our time here. As I said above, the only phrase being supported by that source is "which screened it in most countries of the world". Neither of you dispute the truth of this claim, just the link to the site. I thus conclude that there isn't really a dispute about the truth of the claim that the documentary was shown in most countries of the world. Thus one acceptable solution is to leave in the undisputed claim and remove this source citation. I've suggested that a better solution for the article is to remove all the statements in the vicinity about where various shows aired. But either way, you don't have a real dispute about reliable sourcing, because nobody is saying that the claim is the problem. Remember that all sources should be held to the same standards for this article. Websites favorable of SSB and the associated movement were also found to be problematic. If I saw evidence of editors working equally hard to get rid of website sourcing to both points of view, I'd believe that they were really concerned with source quality. Instead, I view what is going on as yet another pretext for the long standing partisan battling over the article. I won't participate in, facilitate, or encourage that behavior, because that behavior is wrong whether done by supporters or opponents of SSB. GRBerry 13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article should be sourced to higher standards. The full article clean up is going to take a long time. It has to be done in phases. What I have tried to accomplish so far is to get rid of negative attack websites banned by second arbitration as well as removed several other unreliable self published sources through WP:RS discussions. I have completed 1 round of clean up in the article. I do intend to look at other sources in the article and get them all fixed eventually. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your time!
J929 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

sources for whether Alger Hiss was a spy or not

OK, this one has a very specific context. At issue is whether Hiss' espionage is "case closed" or still controversial.

Currently Victor Navasky is being cited for the claim that the matter is "controversial". However, Navasky himself admits that he is not among the "consensus historians" and Harvey Klehr states that "Outside the ranks of Nation readers and a dwindling coterie of academic leftists, there are few people still willing to claim that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were not Soviet agents."

Mark Kramer has taken issue with Navasky and Allen Weinstein, Sam Tanenhaus, and John Earl Haynes are amongst those who believe that Hiss' espionage is, in the words of Haynes and Klehr, "case closed". A number of left leaning academics have also agreed with this sentiment as well as intelligence agency professionals.

The bottom line is whether Wikipedia should declare that the Hiss case is still controversial, cited to Navaksy, or whether it should be said that a small group associated with the Nation magazine (which would include Victor Navasky) contend that the matter is not settled, with the conclusion that "vast majority of historians ... accept the guilt of Alger Hiss" be the summary of the Wiki introduction on Alger Hiss, cited to David Oshinsky (who used those exact words).Bdell555 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Just go check out Dark Sun from the library. That will solve your problems. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you need help from the NPOV noticeboard more than you do from this one. What we specialize in is giving an assessment of whether source X is reliable for claim Y in article Z. If you want that help from us, give us some specific sources, not merely author names. I'm not inclined to doubt that any of the authors you named are capable of producing a source reliable for some claim in this article, but seeing what they actually said in context is essential for a good evaluation. GRBerry 14:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll agree w/ that. I will also say that there are two dangerous poles: claiming that Hiss was not a spy because it would mean there were liberals spying on america because they likes russia, and claiming that Hiss was a spy in part to lionize McCarthy. For my money, if you want a reliable source to show that Hiss was a spy and that his espionage doesn't justify McCarthy, Dark Sun is your source. But actually creating claims in order to keep the article appropriately balanced isn't a job for this noticeboard. Your princess is in another castle!. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Dark Sun appears to be primarily about the story of the atomic bomb, or possibly Klaus Fuchs. The most relevant source for this case would be, I suggest, the well received and critically acclaimed Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America which came out in 2009 and reviews the evidence relating to Hiss concluding "case closed". If people agree about the reliability of this particular book it should settle the matter.Bdell555 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll favor my recollection of Dark sun over your summation, not least because Dark sun is not primarily about the atomic bomb (please reread the summary in your link). Protonk (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with stating that the majority (even, great majority) of historians have concluded Hiss was a spy AND that the matter remains controversial. Kinda like global warming in a way. There's a majority view and bitter enders.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
On the basis of Soviet archival materials that have recently come to light, where Hiss is identified clearly by name as one of their agents, historians now concur that the case is closed, though a few historians remain unconvinced.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There are actually no professional HISTORIANS in the English speaking world that remain unconvinced. If there are, it would be useful to hear of them. At issue here is whether this specific cite is a RS for the claim that "the question of Hiss's guilt or innocence remains controversial". On that point, 1) Navasky is a journalist, not a historian and 2) He is at least as "extremist" or "fringe" as Pat Buchanan in terms of where the expert consensus is, and Buchanan did not seem to get a general endorsement when he was discussed above.Bdell555 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This actually raises a broader issue ... what constitutes a "controversy"? ... I think this term is too often used to justify giving minority or fringe viewpoints undue weight. I am not saying that this is happening in this instance, but we do need to be careful. In order to say that a controversy exists, or that a particular viewpoint is controversial... we need to cite reliable secondary sources that substantiate that there actually is any controversy. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with most of the above (except that it really doesn't belong here.) The matter is still (citably) controversial, and there definitely are professional historians who are not convinced about Hiss (and White), contend that academia has not arrived at a consensus, and are not part of some Navaskian clique. Stephen Schlesinger, Kai Bird (and Russian collaborator Svetlana Chervonnaya) and Amy Knight (historian at Carleton University and elsewhere, author of several books in the area) are three in the English speaking world. Hiss's last name appearing in the clear in Venona (rather than hypothetical identity Ales) has been argued to exculpate rather than implicate him. Knight's observation here concerning new evidence from Venona or the KGB archives that "in the excitement produced by the new revelations, many of the standards by which scholars traditionally judge historical writings have been lowered, or discarded altogether" is worth noting.John Z (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I generally agree with John. A definitive statement is not justified. Many historians, certainly the bulk of opinion, believe that Venona clinches things, but some argue the opposite way and say Ales is someone else. Of course, they still have to explain the typewriter, Chambers' intimate knowledge of Hiss's life, why he would have the pumpkin papers, etc. etc. but give them a chance!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
John. According to Haynes and Klehr, KGB documents are available where Hiss is cited by name (Hiss) as in fact a Soviet source. Specifically, the memo written by Anatoly Gorsky, December 1948, listed as both Hiss and 'Leonard' (joint letter to the TLS July 31, 2009 p.6). They are replying directly to Amy Knight. Surely, unless proof is forthcoming that this in turn is a conspiracy, or forged, that seals it for historians? Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

bluesandsoul.com

bluesandsoul.com has popped up a lot recently. So much, it had to be added to User:XLinkBot as it was continually added to external links. Now they're making their ways into references, so I'd like to know whether this is an acceptable source or not. — Σxplicit 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the online website of a magazine published fortnightly since 1966.[7] It is certainly going to be a reliable source in at least some cases; you'll have to review case by case. GRBerry 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC) In cases where it is useful as a citation, it would be to a specific article of the magazine, not the magazine's home page. GRBerry 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

emando.com

I would like to provide sourcing for Electric_mandolin#Players, and imho, the best source for info on the electric mandolin is emando.com, however, as someone who participates regularly on this noticeboard and who tends to hew to a rather strict interpretation of the guideline, I'm not sure this is really an acceptable source. And since I am passionate about the subject, I don't trust my judgement. I am a big believer in dispassionate editing. You are best when editing an article whose subject does not engage your emotions. Anyway, as someone familiar with the topic, to me, emando definitely has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but that's just my opinion. However, their list of electric mandolin players aims to be all-inclusive, I don't think a mention there does anything for establishing notability... of course that brings up the whole discussion of notability of list items, which is far beyond the scope of this noticeboard... what think you? Dlabtot (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be at best very very cautious using it. The site says[8] that "on this site you'll find players and makers of all instruments in the mandolin family—including mandolas, mandocellos, octave mandolins, bouzoukis, and citterns." So even if it lists a player on the players page, you'll have to additionally verify that the player plays an electric mandolin, and not solely another member of the family. And some, e.g. Mark Bryan, are listed with no more data than "Bryan reportedly owns a Chapman electric" and no claim that Bryan has played it in any public setting.[9]. The FAQ does say that the author needs a certain amount of detail to justify a listing, but doesn't say what level of verification it looks for to validate that detail beyond a request for a picture of the player holding a relevant instrument. This indicates some level of fact checking, but not too much. My honest recommendation is to look for better sourcing, especially since we don't want to be all inclusive in such a list. GRBerry 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"We don't generally make blanket pronouncements like that. Rather, we look at specific citations, specific claims and try to come to a consensus as to whether a source is reliable for supporting that specific citation. However, when time after time, a source is shown to be reliable, it becomes natural to consider it 'generally reliable', although this does not override the necessity to judge each citation individually." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
not sure what your point is. Do you have any comment to make about emando.com and its application in this specific section of this specific article? Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps as reliable sources

Would a map, say, one showing the extent of a project, be a reliable source for information on that project? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps can come from a variety of sources. "A map" is nowhere near specific enough. It'd have to go through all the regular criteria for determining reliability (source, expert status, etc.). It would also have to explicitly show the feature in question without any subjective interpretation on the part of the Wikipedia editor, otherwise it'd be a WP:SYNTHESIS violation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Many maps show some features not to scale (e.g. any map of the US highway system will show highways wider than they are, otherwise they are invisible). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To make it more specific, if the map contains statistics, would it be appropriate to rely on the map as a reliable source for these statistics? In particular, I had this in mind. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes - it looks like an official publication by the corporation that runs the system. I'd be a bit wary about very controversial claims, but for simple factual claims like miles of new tracks planned or number of trains running, I would accept it. What might be a concern is that it is undated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
In general I concur with Stephan. "View page info" (in firefox, via right clicking) can help with dating. That map is from no later than February 2008. For facts also found in text here, the text page might be reliable, as it dates via "view page info" to January 2009, and is thus more recent. (When view page info gives the current date, it means there is dynamic page generation and you are getting your page load time instead of a page update time, fortunately not an issue here.) There are differences in the details of phase II between the two. The text page does not discuss phases III or IV though, so can't be used for everything that the map could be used for. GRBerry 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. My primary concern was about using the map as a source for phases III and IV, which has been addressed. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Just one word of caution... it is very easy to misuse maps in ways that constitute Original research. The maps in question may be reliable... but inappropriately using them may create other problems. I am not saying you are misusing these maps... just letting you know that there is more to think about than just reliability here. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage sourcing

These sources keep getting removed by an editor as they are being cited as non-neutral. Can we please have some more eyes on this?— Dædαlus Contribs 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not being neutral is not determinative of whether or not a source is reliable.
  1. In general, an opinion page such as the first is relevant as a source for its author's opinion. It can be a source for the NYTimes opinion, but not for facts stated as fact.
  2. The subtitle of the Salon piece ("An African-American lesbian explains why she's hopeful that an "Obama Effect" won't kill gay marriage in California") indicates that it also is an opinion piece, so it can be a source for LaDoris Cordell's opinion, if her opinion is relevant to the article. Given that I just created a redlink, it is doubtful that she is sufficiently noteworthy that her opinion merits inclusion in any article, but this remains open to case by case examination. I know that there are news articles from after the election that validate some of the things she was worried about, so some claims that might have been sourced to it could be sourced to a reliable source instead. Depends on the specific claim though.
  3. The Southern Voice article is a news article. In general, there is a good chance it can be a reliable source. Validate the claim in question against the source. Much of the article consists of quotes, so be careful to distinguish between the claims of quoted speakers, where the SoVo will have merely fact checked that the speaker indeed said that, from non-quotes, where the SoVo will have tried to fact check the facts in the claim. Our article claims relying on this source will need to be worded accordingly.
  4. The CNN page is a transcript of an on-air interview. It consists entirely of quotes. An excellent source for the questions the host asked and the replies Frank gave, but no actual fact checking will have been done by CNN on Frank's replies. Use as a source for statements attributed to either the host or Frank. Of course, Frank is a politician, not a scholar in a relevant field.
  5. The Reuter's page is a wire service news article about an EU study. An excellent source for an overview of the study and the few claims of the study that are included. However, it would be even better sourced to some publisher that actually used the article in their publication. GRBerry 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
With more time now, I've dug through your contributions to determine why this question was raised. (You'll always get better replies here if you give us the specific article text that is being sourced, not just links to the sources, because sources either are or are not reliable for claim X in context Y, and can be reliable for one claim in one context and not reliable for another claim in the same context or the same claim in a different context.) It appears the query is in regard to an ongoing discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage about whether the statement "The opposition of those against same-sex marriage is often based on concerns regarding direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, tradition, and/or homophobia." is adequately supported to belong in the lead of that article. It also appears that the real challenge is to the word "homophobia", not to the rest of the sentence, so I ignore the rest of the sentence. In that context I add the following additional comments:
  1. We already know this is an opinion piece and can only be used to source the NYTimes opinion. Not useful for the sentence as written. Might be useful later in the article about a claim that the NYTimes believes Republicans don't really care and are only using it as a campaign strategy - but can't be used anywhere to claim that there is real homophobia motivating anything.
  2. Cordell's article uses the word "homophobia" only in the sentence "Homophobia and traditional religious teachings play a role in our silence." Silence is obviously different from active opposition, and I can't see any synonyms for homophobia in the article hence this source is not useful for this claim even if expressed as Cordell's opinion. Could be used to support a claim that Cordell believes homophobia is a cause for a lack of active support, not for any discussion of active opposition.
  3. This source says
    1. "Sharpton also criticized some black churches that he said were manipulated by traditionally white religious conservative organizations to support efforts in 2004 to ban same-sex marriage in exchange for faith-based grants under President George W. Bush’s administration. Sharpton criticized those moves as creating a wedge issue to boost votes for Bush’s re-election." - nothing about homophobia here, could be used to support a claim about wedge issue politics.
    2. Yvette Flunder said “Some people question why is it so easy to polarize the African-American church around same-gender loving issues and issues of marriage? Denominations that had never written a position paper about anything — until someone [before the 2004 elections] came in and gave them some technical assistance and offered them some change,” she said to much applause. “… I believe they used the oppression of our unresolved prejudices to divide us,” Flunder added. This is a quote. The article describes her as "Dr. Yvette Flunder, a lesbian and senior pastor of the United Church of Christ’s City of Refuge Church in San Francisco". Dr. Flunder's bio at her church is here. It says "She earned her Doctor of Ministry degree from San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo California." Looking at the rest of her bio, she has work experience in general ministry and AIDS ministry. It lists one book publication[15]. In context, she is referring by "oppression of our unresolved prejudices" to prejudice against gays, but the article clearly says that this is Flunder's words, and she herself describes it as her opinion. It can't support a statement about more than her opinion because she explicitly describes it as being her opinion.
  4. The closest the Frank interview comes to this specific issue in a Q&A a bit more than 75% of the way through. "Roberts: ... The National Review online, talking about what you said regarding Justice Scalia, pointed that out and went on to add, quote, "Millions and millions of voters in state after state have acted to preserve traditional marriage. Does Congressman Frank regard all of these Americans as homophobes?" Frank: No, as I just said -- no. ..." Frank then returns to discussing only Scalia. This could be used to source a claim that Frank does not believe homophobia is the reason everyone opposes same-sex marriage, but can't be used to source even a claim that Frank believes a single person opposes same-sex marriage because of homophobia. Frank's lead comment in the interview about same-sex marriage is "Obviously, there's a legitimate debate about marriage." This is in his very first reply. This could be used to support Frank's opinion that there is a legitimate debate about marriage, but can't be used to support any comment about anybody on either side's reasons for taking the position they do.
  5. The Reuter's article on the EU study says absolutely nothing about reasons for opposition to same-sex marriage. It says "Only three EU states -- Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain -- gave full marriage rights to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people, while most of the other countries do not award any rights at all." It says nothing about the reasons for that.
I conclude that not one of these sources is relevant to supporting the word "homophobia" in the sentence in question. There may be such a source out there, but these don't qualify to support that word in that sentence. Given the nature of the word homophobia, it also seems quite plausible that the strongest claim that could be adequately sourced would be something like "supporters of same-sex marriage also claim that opponents are motivated by homobphobia". You'll have to go looking for new sources to see if and how the word can be supported.
As an additional caution, I suspect that an NPOV reviewer would look askance at using that term in the lead unless the sourcing was of the absolute highest quality. The term is so loaded that it needs to be used with sensitivity, so even once you find reliable sourcing I recommend running it by the NPOV review board before using it in the article lead. It also is highly unusual to use such a loaded term only in the lead. If it merits any inclusion in the lead, it merits more nuanced discussion in the body, and that is currently lacking today. GRBerry 05:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Village Voice Editorial "Swift Boat Swill"

The article Winter Soldier Investigation cites and quotes an editorial [16] from the Village Voice entitled "Swift Boat Swill." Doesn't this article violate the NPOV criteria? It certainly contains misleading information, leaving out highly relevant information from the primary sources it claims to research (specifically, that the interviewees were unwilling or unable to provide corroborating information except in one case out of 46). Gustnado (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard, where we engage in discussions about the reliability of sources. This is not the NPOV noticeboard, where they engage in discussions about the application of WP:NPOV in articles. I doubt that anyone would dispute that the Village Voice editorial page is a reliable source for reporting on the editorial opinion of the Village Voice. Dlabtot (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It is my (limited) understanding that WP:NPOVN contains only discussions about NPOV issues on Wikipedia pages, and not about sources. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Correct. WP:NPOV is a policy on Wikipedia. It helps guide us as to how to write Wikipedia articles. It is not in any way relevant in judging whether a source is considered reliable for a particular citation. In fact we expect sources to express, not a neutral point of view, but a 'single' point of view, and it is by describing those points of view, where significant and verifiable, that we write a good article. Dlabtot (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If the only source has a 'single' POV that is a strong POV, how does one achieve accuracy?
It appears the paragraph in question is the second to last of the subsection "Verification of participants' credibility", which begins "According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following declassification,...". The citation is actually to the fifth paragraph on the second page of the article [17], so a link to the second page should be used, not a link to the first page. The two page thingy is described as a "Feature" in the "News" section, not as an editorial. So this is not a source for the Village Voice's editorial opinion; it either is or is not a reliable source for facts. The author is "Nicholas Turse", who wrote exactly one other feature for VV.[18]. So he is not a regular writer for them. At the end of the other 2004 article he was described as "a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and a regular contributor to the Nation Institute's tomdispatch.com."[19]. Initially, there is no reason to believe that a doctoral candidate in a school of Public Health is an expert historical scholar. Yet it would appear that he is this fellow (self-published bio) biomedexperts publication analysis. So despite pursuing his PhD degree in a school of public health, he holds himself out to the public as an expert on U.S. war crimes. Your mileage may vary, but I'd tend to think of him as marginally reliable. It may be possible to find a superior source that discusses those documents, in which case use the better source. GRBerry 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The Village Voice does have editorial oversight and they found him reliable as an expert on that topic, and plenty of other sources find the Village Voice reliable. Certainly someone can be an expert on a topic other than what they get a degree in, and I think that someone with a doctorate from the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health could very reasonably have studied war crimes, as the History and Ethics part is spot on and Public Health certainly overlaps the area in question. Different people can all be experts on the same topic despite having taken different routes toward knowledge. History of crimes, war or otherwise, can be picked up through history, criminology, sociology, a journalism focus on that area and so forth. I don't see any reason to doubt this individual's reliability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(Note, I indented the responses above for formatting reasons) Does Village Voice's "editorial oversight" extend to validating strongly POV articles, or just straight reporting. Is this an NPOV article by a reporter, or, more likely, a POV article by a partisan? Although this is a "feature article," the pejorative nature of the title is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, which leaves the remainder of the article suspect (regardless of whether one agrees with the sentiment expressed).
There are at least two reasons to doubt the reliability in the relevant area: strongly POV title of the article, which is not a hallmark of a reliable source; and, the content of primary source documents. Photocopies of CID primary source documents exist which call the reliability of this article, in the relevant section, into question. Specifically, my counting of the results in the individual documents shows that of the 46 investigated, 6 could not be located, 25 refused to provide information, 10 backtracked on or renounced their claims, 6 caused subsequent investigations which found no corroboration, and 1 provided information which resulted in an ongoing investigation and eventual validation. Editors are welcome to go to the source link and read the photocopies, as I did. They are summarized here for convenience.
However, the primary documents exist (online) only as photocopies on a partisan site (WinterSoldier.com), referenced by a WinterSoldier.com produced summary page. I believe this leaves two possibilities: (1) the photocopies have been altered (this would be easy to detect and is hence unlikely); (2) the photocopies show the Village Voice article, in the relevant area, to be insufficiently complete at best and strongly POV at worst - in either case, not reliable for this issue. Note that the original documents should be available by FOIA but it isn't clear how physical possession of such documents would be helpful in this on-line world Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You overlooked the 3rd possibility: (3) wintersoldier.com, a propaganda site that does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source, has created "summaries" of those government files that are subtly inaccurate. Therefore, the partisan-produced summaries of the government documents conflict with the findings of the Village Voice article based upon those same documents, which is presumed to have some degree of accuracy. I don't believe an eye-grabbing headline (a trademark of VV) throws the news article into disrepute. As strictly a matter of reliable sourcing by Wikipedia's standards, The Village Voice qualifies and the "wintersoldier.com" website does not. As a matter of accuracy (beyond the scope of this noticeboard), a brief cursory glance at your partisan non-RS website shows me numerous misrepresentations contained in their summaries. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The VV article looks reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion of the documents was related only to the photocopies on wintersoldier.com, not their summary. Each item in the summary provides a link to the document itself. Editors can judge for themselves, not whether the documents sustain wintersoldier.com's summaries, but rather facts that are contradictory to the summary in the VV. The document show that only one of those investigated was willing or able to provide information which led to verification of claims (the documents show further investigation warranted, history shows that investigation substantiated the allegations); that many refused to cooperate with the congressionally ordered investigation; and, that some had made claims at WSI that were more extreme than what they made in interviews described in the documents (such as claiming knowledge that was actually hearsay). The link is above. Gustnado (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quack Dlabtot (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago-style pizza

This source "How to Eat Like a Chicagoan," by a professional restaurant critic and published at Chicago's Restaurant Guide keeps getting removed from the Chicago-style pizza by an anonymous editor. Could more people take a look at it. The issue is the claim that some people in Chicago refer to thin-crust pizza as flat, which is supported in the article, as opposed to the counter claim that the phrase is never used. Shsilver (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The original URL www.chicagorestaurant.com has become a redirect to a site that at first glance is different. Without digging into the history of the changes, I can't use the current site to validate reliability. I'm tentatively inclined to consider it reliable, however I don't see how it supports the claim. The page says "You can get plenty of thin-crust, flat pizza here, but Chicagoans treat that as a type of canapé ..." and "Some misguided old South Siders may try to kid you that the “real” pizza of Chicago is greasy flat stuff with a cardboardlike crust, but the true Chicago-style pizza began ...". Both are in the second/third paragraph, the last one before individual restaurant listings begin. The page does not use the word flat anywhere else. I don't see any way this paragraph, can support an article claim "There is also a thin-crust pizza unique to Chicago, generally described as such, but sometimes referred to as "flat" pizza", no matter how reliable the source is. It says nothing about the thin-crust pizza being in anyway unique to Chicago (and square cut is not a sign of uniqueness, I've seen it in restaurants copying specific Italian regions and in generic restaurants elsewhere. Assuming for the moment that the source is reliable, it doesn't support the claim that you were trying to support with it. GRBerry 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with you except for the placement of the comma. Coming before the word "here" it would support your reading, but coming after the word here, it turns, "flat pizza here" into a single clause (as in, "called flat pizza here." The comma is placed where it was in the original non-electronic printing (which I have sitting next to me and, although it isn't sourceable, the same author does make the argument that it is called "flat pizza" on the talk page under her wikipedia handle.Shsilver (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree because of placement of a more important comma. "Thin-crust" and "flat" have a comma between them. If "flat pizza" were a name/noun phrase, there should not be a comma after "thin-crust". There is, and there is no excuse for it if thin-crust is an adjective describing the thing known as "flat pizza", because a comma should never separate a final adjective from a noun or noun phrase. However, two coordinate adjectives, when used before a noun, are supposed to have a comma between them. (See The Chicago Manual of Style, this detailed explanation, or even Comma#Between adjectives, as well as plenty of online manual of style explanations.) The comma between "thin-crust" and "flat" indicates "flat pizza" is not being used as a name, flat is just one of two coordinate adjectives modifying "pizza", and thus that "flat, thin-crust pizza" would have been equally valid in that sentence. If you want to claim that the entirety is a naming phrase, then your equivalent phrase would be "called thin-crust, flat pizza here", and that can't support a claim of "called flat pizza" in our article. From this source the second use of the word flat is in the phrase "greasy flat stuff" - arguing from it you might conclude that it is called "flat stuff" (because as two adjectives to not have a comma the phrase probably should be in the order "flat greasy stuff", since flat describes shape and greasy describes condition and cumulative adjectices are usually in the order size, shape, condition/age, color, origin, material), but you can't get to called "flat pizza" from "flat stuff". You need better sourcing. GRBerry 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with GRBerry. At best, the sources used are at best ambiguous... What is needed is a source that clearly uses the word "flat" as a name for this pizza style. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thirded. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the aviation web site a reliable source for the history of WWII?

Some editor used the site [20] to draw a conclusion on independence or non-independence of certain countries during WWII. Can that site be used as a reliable source for general (non related to aviation) WWII history?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. After all, we don't know what they are basing their claims on.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears you are referencing the discussion at Talk:Allies of World War II#Tuva removed. The claim in question is not stated in prose, but appears through reading the article section headers to be a claim that "Tuva was an independent country and joined the Allies of World War II on 25 June 1941." I'd refuse to draw a conclusion based on that source, as it doesn't seem sufficiently reliable to conclude, but between that source and Tuvan People's Republic (itself with sub-par sourcing), there is certainly room to doubt the claim as expressed in prose. I'd say that the {{fact}} tag the other editor wants in the article is appropriate until better sourcing turns up. It also quite possible when reasonable sourcing turns up that the conclusion will be that Tuva was not an independent state in 1941. The issue is functionally parallel to that for Mongolia - the real question is whether it was an independent state or not. (I note that editors at Participants in World War II have chosen to discuss Mongolia but not to even mention Tuva. Current status would seem inconsistent between these two articles.) GRBerry 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Another problematic entry is Free France[[21]]. Free France was not a country and it should be removed form the list. France is already listed as an original Allie. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Butch-femme.com

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination) there's a question of whether Butch-femme.com is a reliable source for Slut Night which it promotes and seems to have founded. My first reaction to the question was "Just look at it," but that might be viewed as impolite, so I thought I'd ask you folks. Smallbones (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an independent source so it doesn't apply for purposes of determining notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The primary issue with reliability sources is claim specific - is a source X reliable for claim Y in article Z. Undoubtedly, the site is reliable for some claims in some articles. (Whether it should be used in those articles is not our specialty here.) There are parts of the site that are definitely not reliable for this topic - e.g. the forums, personals, shopping pages, and chat areas. Other pages may be, so we have to review page by page and supported claim by claim.
However, you are raising this in the context of an AFD. So even before we get to the specific RS issues, I have to highlight the issue of independence that has already been mentioned therein. If the website and the concept/event are not independent, then even if the sourcing is reliable it will do nothing to show notability. So for the purpose of the AFD, editors need it to be both reliable and independent.
I'll list the individual pages used in the article in current[22] order.
1 is used to support the claim "Slut Night is the name for butch-femme social gatherings—mainly for self-identified dykes". This post-header text of the webpage begins "Hints to help you carry on the Slut Night tradition... plus tips on advertising your event on this web site." A purpose of the page is to drive usage of the website, which ranks it pretty darn low on the reliability scale. In addition, the closest it comes to supporting this claim is "The premise of traditional Slut Night involves Femmes dressing up (or over-dressing or under-dressing) in their most risque, daring, diva drag." This page is not a reliable source for this claim, and is not a good source for anything.
2a is used to support the claim "online networking which has brought on the "the golden age for Butch-Femme culture."" The page says "Because of computers, today is the golden age for Butch-Femme culture." The quote is accurate. The site is probably a reasonable source for claiming that, but it is a quotation that should be attributed in the article text.
2b (same page) is also used to support the claim "In 1995, Texas-based Butch-Femme.com was created becoming "home to the first Butch-Femme-specific personals" and a few years later the first registered domain dedicated to butches and femmes." For this claim, this page is a self-published source. The page could be used in an article about butch-femme.com, but not about an independent subject. Even then it shouldn't be used for self-promoting claims such as "first". For this article, for this claim, either A) this is not an independent but not reliable source or B) this is a non-independent source that doesn't demonstrate notability and doesn't support peacock terms like "first".
3 is used to support the claim that SN was born at social started by the website. Again, for AFD purposes this is a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't situation. I'd tend to credit the source as reliable for the author of the page believing it, and thus for a claim about it being their opinion, but also as definitively not independent. Which means that it doesn't show notability.
4 is used to support the claim that "Slut Nights are usually informally called for and in regular rotation with Femmes and Butches United (FABU) chapters organizing them as needed to "bridge the chasm of cyberspace."" It is not a reliable source for this claim, as the phrasings "informally called for" and "regular rotation" both can't be supported. The quotation is from the lead sentence "One of the most special aspects of an online community is the way in which its members find to bridge the chasm of cyberspace and meet "in real time."". This sentence is not at all supported by this page regardless of whether the page is reliable.
5 is used to support the claim that "The original San Francisco/Oakland outing was quickly followed by Slut Night events in New York City and Portland, Oregon." I'd say that the page is reliable enough to support a claim that "There was a Slut Night in Portland, Oregon." (The page only supports a date for when planning began, not for when it happened.) It doesn't support any of the rest of the current sentence, so can't be used to support that sentence regardless of whether the page is reliable.
All in all, in three (1, 4, 5) of the six usages the page does not support the claim it is attached to, so the question of reliability of the source is not reached. In two (2b and 3) the page is either not independent or not reliable, so it doesn't support the article at AFD. In only one (2a) is the page clearly reliable, though slightly misused, and that is for the claim that computers/online networking caused/brought on "the golden age for Butch-Femme culture." That claim has nothing to do with Slut Night. As far as supporting the article to survive AFD goes, this source fails completely. If it can be kept solely because of other sources, 2b and 3 might be useful if and only if SN is not independent of the site. GRBerry 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox News on Lawrence Solomon

Resolved

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

Well, for one the article does not look like a very good source to me, but rather like a collection of tidbits used as a teaser. But more importantly, it does not say that Solomon is an environmentalist. So I can fully understand the concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is, in broad terms, considered a reliable source ... The problem is that, in this instance, the source does not support the statement. That means that this specific Fox News report is not a reliable source for the specific statement it is being used to support. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not simply ignore a source that does not support what you need it to, and look toward G Books where several sources refer to him as an environmentaist. Then there's Washington Times, Nashua Telegraph and Boston Globe which all call him environmentaist. Heck, the Outlook even calls him an "internationally acclaimed environmentalist". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Michael, it looks like it may be easier to find this stuff than I thought, and your refs look better. Meanwhile, for my own humble Wiki-education, I am still unable to understand the concern and would appreciate a response from uninvolved editors. The article states: "A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming. Lawrence Solomon writes ..." What is the problem here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is not a reliable source. We've been through this in many different cases. Find a better non-partisan source.Camelbinky (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
But it's fair and balanced! Seriously, though, where has it ever been determined, by consensus, that it is "not a reliable source"? My search through pages and pages of matching archives shows it, time and time again, being defended as a reliable source. I don't watch it (and don't like it), but that's because of its editorial slant, not because of any inherent bent towards factual inaccuracy. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Fox is a reliable source. They have a right wing slant, but that doesn't take away their RSness. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources that pass WP:RS for one fact or in one context often fail under different circumstances. Trying to get a definitive answer about whether something is a reliable source in every case is an exercise in frustration. In this case, if other sources support it as well, I'd just cite it to several and move along to the next project :) -Pete (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fox news is reliable under our guidelines. That doesn't mean it is preferred as a source for cases like this. Just like cnn's website wouldn't be preferred, fox's 'print' side isn't great. That's without taking into account their slant. Protonk (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
@Michael - every single one of your sources are opinions (Op-Ed's, letters to the editor etc.). The trouble is that so far no one has been able to come up with a sufficiently reliable source to the effect of calling Mr Solomon an environmentalist. And that is the problem in this case. The insertion has historically on the article been controversial (several edit-wars), and thus it requires a reliable reference - which is all that is being asked for, before insertion. For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that he is/or has been an environmentalist - but that is neither here nor there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Geez, I don't think there's any doubt that the sentence is referring to Solomon, and a lot of newspaper-style articles introduce a subject in this way. If it's not referring to Solomon, then who else is it referring to? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. FOX still has an obvious POV to push here. They have every incentive (and a history of doing so) to pump up the prominence of anti global warming claims. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
And that is why FOX news is not and will not ever ever ever EVER be considered a reliable source for anything that is remotely political in nature. It has been repeatedly stated and verified in other actually reliable news sources regarding their bias. Do I have to seriously write an essay "Dont use FOX News!" to get the point across? It seems we go over this question once a month. It is my period apparently because it happens like clock-work and I get cranky everytime it occurs. How about a hatnote at the top of this page- if you have a question regarding using Fox News, dont bother asking, the answer is "probably best to find a better source".Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is great. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, we've described The Nation as a reliable source here at WP:RSN. Are you really going to argue that Fox News is so much more biased than The Nation as to make it an unacceptable source? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Worldnet Daily is more biased than The Nation is. Not after seeing the last time it was brought up in RSN.[23]. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone who responded; we have opted not to use this source but appreciate the feedback. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

Is the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

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

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

It is not entirely clear at the moment. The description of the book's contents imply that it contains significant new theories and evidence, but it is a collection of conference papers (which typically, may summarise work in progress but do not provide definitive data). To answer your questions-
  1. it will show mainstream acceptance when it is reviewed seriously by respected mainstream scientific journals; until then, no
  2. the editorial process may have involved editor or peer-review, or not. Unless the book says explicitly that its contents were peer-reviewed, treat with caution - most conference paper volumes allow the speaker to say what they wish
  3. not a secondary source (it would appear), since each paper will reflect the view of the speaker; if some papers comment on/review others, they would be secondary. But a good secondary source would be reviews, critiques and third-party references to the volume as a whole or individual papers.Martinlc (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's published by OEP (OUP, I was confusing it with the journal Oxford Economic Papers). Whatever complaints one might have about how marginal the views expressed in it are, it's a reliable source per WP:RS. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree it is an WP:RS for the views of authros. I don't agree that it can be used to demonstrate that the topic has 'gained mainstream acceptance' - to me that means acceptance by others in the academic community, and that would require a mainstream publication reviewing it respectfully (which they may well do). The decision by OUP to publish a collection of papers from a conference does not, in my opinion, demosntarte that.Martinlc (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well then frankly your opinion doesn't comport with the reliable source guideline. Publication by one of the preeminent academic publishing houses in the world is more than sufficient for WP:RS. Whether those views are mainstream, whether the data support the conclusions, whether the material is being used to push a view rather than present science is a more nuanced discussion that needs to happen in an RfC or on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are other fora more suitable venues for discussing those aspects of reliability? 99.35.129.22 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Because they principally aren't aspects of reliability. I think cold fusion is a sham, but no one knows me from Adam and it isn't really my business to say that even though the OUP published some conference proceedings on it that the contents are probably hokum. Likewise I have no idea what the conference admission requirements were or what stage the research was in when it was presented. I'm also not competent to evaluate their data (even if they had presented it along with the papers) so I can't decide that research presented without all underlying data is immediately suspect just in this field (where I might accept it elsewhere). Protonk (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

more detailed discussion by Abd

It's unfortunately not on-line, most of it, and that can make it hard to discuss. But it was sponsored by the American Chemical Society, which is the largest scientific society in the world, through, as Protonk notes, Oxford University Press.

I have written that there are grounds to conclude that cold fusion had moved back in or close to the mainstream by 2004, based on the friendly reception by many experts on the U.S. Department of Energy review panel that convened and reported then. To summarize that, from the overall report, half of the reviewers considered that evidence for the basic experimental claim of anomalous heat was "conclusive." Very few in the other half, if we look at the individual opinions, considered it bogus! -- merely not well enough established for them to consider the matter proven. One, however, used the F word, Fraud, and made hardly any comments at all, giving a clue as to how seriously he took the whole thing. One-third of the experts, however, considered the evidence for nuclear origin to be "somewhat convincing" or better.

Nevertheless, in 2004, the exclusion of cold fusion papers (very active, by editorial policy, not through ordinary rejection at peer-review) from the more notable mainstream publications was still extensive. Token one-day panels were allowed at ACS conferences and American Physical Society conferences.

But by 2008, the ACS was ready to back the publication of the Sourcebook, and, in 2009, it featured, with a press release and press conference, a four-day session on Cold fusion where some very significant results, published in January 2009 in Naturwissenschaften regarding finding low but unmistakeable levels of energetic neutrons in cold fusion cells, were presented, with relatively wide media attention. Apparently another Sourcebook is in press.

The 2004 panel, the ACS publication, the CBS special on cold fusion featuring Robert Duncan (physicist), continued governmental funding of cold fusion research (the 2009 International Cold Fusion Conference is being held in October in Rome, sponsored by ENEA (Italy)), rising publication in peer reviewed journals of increasing impact factor (Naturwissenschaften is a multdisciplinary journal with impact factor in that category of 50, just behind Scientific American at 49), all point to increased acceptance. How far that acceptance goes is very hard to tell. There is no "Journal of Mainstream Opinion." And most scientists, outside of their specialties, know little about details of research in other fields. That's why the 2004 DoE review is important: there was a cross-section of experts there, uninvolved, given an opportunity to become knowledgeable. I'd say it was unfortunately short and shallow, but it was far better than nothing, and our opinion that cold fusion is rejected by the mainstream is based on the situation twenty years ago, not supported by more recent evidence; indeed, since 1991, the bulk of all peer-reviewed publication has been favorable to cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

more detailed discussion by Abd

Material from the Sourcebook should be used with care. Publication in the Sourcebook, in my opinion, establishes notability, it does not establish "acceptance" by the mainstream. Vyosotskii, as an example, is reporting work of such astonishing implications that to consider it accepted would be very foolish. It is so far out of the expected that, I suspect, it hasn't been taken seriously, even by most other cold fusion researchers. But from an experimental point of view, if what Vyosotskii reports is accurate as to his experiments, and they seem simple enough ... well, prepare to be astonished if it's confirmed. That hasn't happened, to my knowledge, nor has there been any disconfirmation or even noises about attempts or plans. He is reporting biological transmutation with strong evidence, very difficult to explain away, AFAIK.

On the other hand, some of the original research in the book represents confirmations of published work by others, which makes them a type of secondary source, plus, of course, there is a review of the field, overall, and specific reviews of various aspects, which should be considered golden unless contradicted by other quality source.

In my opinion, those parts of the book which are secondary source reviews are usable for fact, as with any peer-reviewed secondary source, where there is no source of comparable quality contradicting it, and especially where primary sources confirm the facts or likewise do other secondary sources, perhaps of lesser quality. Where it seems clear that something from the book hasn't been accepted, it should be used with attribution. While the comment "but this has not been generally accepted by mainstream physicists," is often a violation of WP:SYNTH, nevertheless, where it seems reasonable, and where it increases consensus, I favor allowing the technical violation, but "not accepted" shouldn't be every other phrase in the article. It can be covered by a few blanket statements, generally, and there are some media sources for that. Older sources should not be used to imply present rejection.

Cold fusion is clearly still very controversial, and I see statements on blogs by nuclear physicists all the time about how bogus it all is. But they aren't experts in condensed matter nuclear science, what I see them write shows ignorance of the actual reported experimental results (why bother reading detailed reports of totally bogus and impossible experimental results?), they often repeat statements that were weak twenty years ago and clearly false in review, ("Where is the ash? No ash, there can't be nuclear reactions!" The ash is known (helium) and quantitatively confirmed by multiple reports as correlated with excess heat, at the "right" value for fusion, which doesn't prove fusion, because there are alternate pathways, the point being that they clearly aren't aware that the peer-reviewed papers exist.) The theory that Fleischmann was falsifying is one that has been solidly accepted theory with no recognized counterexamples for more than the lifetime of most of us: that theory implies that there is no difference between condensed matter nuclear science and what physicists actually studied and characterized, plasma nuclear science. As a cliche, Chemists say that the phenomena called "cold fusion" couldn't be chemistry, and nuclear physicists say it couldn't be nuclear physics.... Who are the experts?

It's a difficult problem for an encyclopedia, but my opinion has been that if we simply follow RS guidelines, without prejudice against authors and subjects, but only considering the reputation and reliability of publishers, and we firmly adhere to NPOV, which means that we don't allow our personal conclusions to warp the text, we will be on the right track, and if we seek maximized editorial consensus, we can hardly go wrong, even if we individually have biased POVs. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought this was conference proceedings - my mistake. I do (as I said above) accept this as RS. Notability isn't at issue here. In reply to the question 'who are the experts?' - the question is more 'what do non-specialist academics think?' There was a time when only those involved in cold fusion believed in it - if the point has been reached where others do, then, yes, that's mainstream. Martinlc (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, it's been clear that the cold fusion evidence is convincing to at least many mainstream academics, and you can infer more from the review than that, for the division between the chemists and materials scientists (generally positive) and nuclear physicists (generally negative) is clear in the individual reports. Martinlc, it was never true that only those involved in cold fusion "believed in it," there was always plenty of opinion to the contrary, including more than one or two Nobel prize-winners, and, what is even more the real issue ("belief" is a red herring, many of the so-called believers are skeptics by habit), there have always been peer reviewers willing to pass papers on cold fusion when asked. Are these "believers?" Certain "mainstream" publications stopped submitting papers for peer review. We have RS on that. But others continued. The first question we need to answer is "Is research into cold fusion legitimate, recognized by the mainstream?" It was recommended by both DoE reviews. In fact, however, after 1989, attempts were made to request funding for research that was exactly as described in the report, by experienced researchers, and it was denied. Huizenga's influence was very strong, and in 1989, the mollifying language was only there because a NP winner threatened to resign as co-chair if it wasn't included, whereas in 2004, it represented a real consensus. The science is mainstream now, not just among cold fusion researchers, but the conclusions (nuclear or not?) remain very controversial, there was substantial opinion for "nuclear" in 2004, with a two-thirds majority unconvinced, and there is now more conclusive evidence published, but I'd have to infer "mainstream" only from the fact that reviewers at mainstream publications are accepting the papers. That means they believe the science is solid, which doesn't imply acceptance of the conclusions. For conclusions, we need peer-reviewed secondary source, and, in fact, the subject book provides that. I still advise caution. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to rain in your parade, sorry.

Cold fusion is considered a pathological science. After the debacle in 1989, only a group of researchers kept researching, with most scientists abandoning the field as failed. Their presence in the APS meetings was helped by Robert Park because he thought that it was science, even if it was bad science (from his What's new column, I can't find the link), and in the ACS because the "Gopal Coimbatore, program chair of the ACS's division of environmental chemistry, felt that unless a forum was provided, the subject might never get discussed; and 'with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities'. "[24]

Also, "The ACS Symposium Series contains high-quality, peer-reviewed books developed from the ACS technical divisions' symposia. Each chapter is carefully authored by an expert in the field, and the collection of chapters edited by an internationally recognized leader in the field."[25]. The author is Steven Krivit, who has no scientific studies, and who has been publishing during six years a newletter called New Energy Times supporting cold fusion.

Krivit made a presentation at the latest ACS congress to defend that Cold Fusion was real and that its pariah status was all product of a terrible mistake back in 1989:

"I realize that for some of you, sitting here in this room [unintelligible] about ... cold fusion [emphasis in the original], it may seem something like entering into the Twilight Zone, cos we have [unintelligible] for many years. Well, I reassure that there was once upon a time, I was very surprised to find out that there was research [unclear words] six years ago, and I was working in the Information Technology bussiness around that time and I was very surprised that the research was still going on, and I started looking into it (...) It took me about three years (...) before accepting the possibility that there might be some real science (...)" 00:53-01:49 [26]

The papers of a few Cold fusion conferences were also published by university presses of Cambridge and others.

I'll also say that OUP has also published

  • "Voodoo science: the road from foolishness to fraud" in 2002 [27]
  • "A Field Guide for Science Writers, Volum 11" from 1998 reprinted in 2006 [28],
  • "Responsible Conduct of Research" [29]
  • "The undergrowth of science: delusion, self-deception, and human frailty" in 2000 [30]

And other university presses have published

  • "Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science" Chicago UP in 1995 [31]
  • "Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line" Chicago in 1999 [32].
  • "Undead science" Rutdgers in 2002 [33]
  • Fusion: the search for endless energy" Cambridge 1990 [34].
  • "Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World" Cambridge in 2002 [35]
  • And a lot more UP books saying about the same thing Google Books search

All of them say that cold fusion's reputation was killed in 1989 apart from a small group of researchers, and some speak of how the opinions of CF researchers are not shared at all by the mainstream. Krivit is one of those researchers a journalist that advocates for cold fusion (fixed per Abd's comment).

All together, the presence of the sourcebook can't be reasonably taken as evidence that cold fusion has suddenly become mainstream. Taking the book in isolation is disingenuous, and I'm tired of CF advocates trying to push it as a RS.

The CF advocates have the sensation that the field is getting more acceptation[36] however that's a far shot from CF being accepted as mainstream or as valid, and far from CF papers being accepted as something other than papers from a fringe field that is still alive for some reason. I'll note that one of the 13 papers in volume 1 is about Biological transmutation, which is also not accepted by mainstream. As Martinlc says, this shouldn't be taken for anything other than sourcing what CF researchers think, and never as an expression of mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is a rant from an editor who has spent too much time trying to prove that the field of condensed matter nuclear science (misnamed "cold fusion," it may not involve fusion at all) is "pathological science." He can source that opinion, but not from any peer reviewed reviews of the field; it's been in editorials, popular books, and the like, or off-hand mentions in sources he cites from long ago. Krivit isn't a cold fusion researcher, he's a journalist who has long covered the field, who is recognized in reliable source as an expert in that sense. He has another review that just appeared, preprint. RS by our standards. "Mainstream"? Well, that is actually not part of RS, unless there is a contradiction of sources, where relative journal quality may arise. What counts is independent publisher and, for science, peer review. How we use RS is for editorial consensus to determine, i.e., is material from these sources reported as fact, or as attributed claim or opinion? But these are peer-reviewed secondary sources, and outright rejection of them, which is what Enric Naval has done in the past, is beyond the pale. The field is clearly alive, with ongoing publication in scientific journals, including the very high quality Naturwissenschaften. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE for fields that don't have good mainstream sources because they have been abandoned by mainstream. (Nature and a few top research labs published a few negative reports declaring the whole thing dead and buried, but a small group of researchers have continued to publish positive reports, with mainstream scientists not bothering to reply to them. That is why there are only positive papers in the last few years, they are all by cold fusion advocates, while nobody is bothering to replicate them. So, from mainstream you are getting neither positive nor negative papers)
I notice that Krivit has published his article in a journal about "Cutting-Edge Research on Environmental Processes & Impacts", not a journal on established Physics or Chemistry. I suppose that this was included because of being a "[Highligt] in Chemical Science" [37] (fourth point in the bolded list) Mind you, Krivit makes a sensible point:
"Twenty years later, some people who had dismissed the field in its entirety are considering the validity of at least some of the reported experimental phenomena. As well, some researchers in the field are wondering whether the underlying phenomena may be not a fusion process but a neutron capture/absorption process."
I have been searching for some RS to source that some scientists think that some experimental results are real and that CF is caused by some small real phenomena that remains undiscovered, and that this is why it's being given more leeway lately. Still looking for some third-party independent source that says this. A mainstream one, not one from a CF researcher or CF advocate. If this shift has really happened, then it's been in the last few years since 2004, and it seems that it's still too soon to get a good source covering it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
2004, the DoE review, one third of 18 experts, presumably a neutral sample or even skeptically biased, found the evidence for nuclear origin "somewhat convincing." One half-found the excess heat evidence "convincing." That's mainstream opinion, as of 2004, the best information we have about it, and it is a massive shift from 1989-1990 already. The "mainstream" you talk about as having conclusively rejected cold fusion is the large body of scientists who have not reviewed the evidence. This is all a red herring. The journal Krivit published in is mainstream, published by the Royal Chemical Society; chemists are far more likely to be accepting of LENR than physicists, because they know the experimental work that led to the nuclear hypothesis was sound. That is, the heat part, not the radiation measurements, which everyone accepts as bogus. The physicists remember the radiation errors and consider rejection of them proof of artifact and pathological science. Enric, you aren't following RS and NPOV guidelines. What you have is a circular argument: if the author approves of cold fusion, the author is fringe and therefore it's not mainstream. It's the publisher that counts, unless the publisher is explicit that this is a fringe view that they are allowing for freedom of speech or something like that. The ACS has put its mark on the Sourcebook and is issuing another this year. Don't you think that they would choose someone familiar with the field to edit it? Who else is going to write an article or paper? Huizenga? Park? One of the other anti fanatics, described in RS as such? The theory that there are no negative papers because the mainstream has abandoned the field is interesting, except that there were lots of negative papers published after the major positive ones, and none of them established a clear reason for rejection, most ignored the positive results, even early ones. Very isolated exceptions, a handful, and with only a little of the positive. And there are some very important results now. You can't pop the "off-topic journal" claim on Naturwissenschaften, and you know it.
What you and others have done is to reject peer-reviewed secondary source based on nothing other than your own opinion and a persistence of vision from long ago. In science, later publication trumps earlier, later secondary source trumps earlier, because, presumably, it's aware of the earlier work and incorporates it. Follow the guidelines, they are quite good. We don't reject peer-reviewed secondary source, independently published. If it's wrong, we balance it with source of equal or better quality. Because you don't have that source, you want to keep this information out, but with nothing to stand on. That's why it's a losing position, in the long run, it's impossible to keep reliably sourced information out of Wikipedia, and the effort causes nothing but disruption. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The 2004 DOE report said that their conclusions were the same as those of the 1989 DOE report (no federal funding for a cold fusion program, only recommendation for individual experiments), and the reviewers pointed out several flaws in the evidence, including lack of replication.
And I point you to the list of UP books in my comment (all of them being full books, and the Krivit book being a compilation of papers in a OUP collection dedicated to publishing those compilations), and to the comment made by the ACS guy about why they allowed cold fusion into the ACS meeting. (Indeed, the ACS thing was covered by Nature in 2007 [38] and BBC in 2009 [39], I suggest that people read these two articles to see the actual state of the art of CF). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the 2004 DoE report says that, and, in this context, that statement is highly misleading. The conclusions that are "the same" are the recommended funding and the recommendation of further research. Underneath that hood, the reports were vastly different, and it's obvious, so that Enric keeps bringing this "conclusions" thing up is an example of how to mislead with true facts. I found nothing of great interest in those articles cited (but one I couldn't read, behind a pay wall), merely a few reported individual opinions. There seems to be nothing there about the really significant "ACS thing," which would be the greatly expanded seminar in 2009, the press release giving it a high profile, and the Sourcebook publication, which is being followed by another this year. Enric Naval is suggesting that we ignore peer-reviewed secondary sources in favor of off-hand, off-the-cuff comments? It's like he's trying to hold back the tide by sticking his finger in the dike, having to feel around underwater to find the hole. It's typical, and I'm grateful I won't have to deal with this any more. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that people here should look at some of the university press books that I listed above, and to the Nature and BBC articles, and see by themselves if secondary sources say that cold fusion is currently accepted by mainstream. This is a collection of papers versus a lot of books about science, bad science, philosophy of science, history of science, etc. The author of the book himself sort of recognizes this lack of acceptance and says that the assistants to the 2009 ACS session must be feeling like they were in The Twilight Zone (source in one of my comments above). WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG apply here, and reports written by cold fusion advocates should be taken with a huge grain of salt (from the description of the ACS Symposium Series, I notice that it was Krivit himself who made the editor work and decided what papers were reliable enough to be included in the book, and it was probably him who chose the peer reviewers?).
P.D.: Throwing statements about me trying to stop some tide is unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a battleground. When some mainstream RS reports independently that the situation has changed, then I won't have any problem with the article saying so, and I won't lose any face for doing so. Refusing to acknowledge all the sources listed above is very unhelpful and runs directly against WP:V. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Enric Naval has misrepresented the sources he listed. I do not "refuse to acknowledge all the sources listed above," that is a direct and blatant distortion of my position, rather, those sources should all be used, as exactly what they are (though several of the sources are so weak that they would have no use, such as the guide for science writers). I have not claimed that "cold fusion is currently accepted by the mainstream," but neither can we say that it is currently "considered pathological science," which is what Enric wrote as if it were a continuing fact. There is no "mainstream" as some monolithic body of opinion. However, if we limit ourselves to those relatively informed about the whole body of research, instead of those relying on judgments made twenty years ago, clearly the trend is strongly toward acceptance. Of the 18 reviewers on the 2004 DoE panel, only one took a hard-line approach similar to the almost unanimous opinion of the 1989 panel. Anyway, not my problem any more, I'm now working with the actual researchers. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it illegal to use this?

Currently trying to expand the Damien Rice article and have been gathering sources. But I have run into this problem, one article in particular would allow me to verify alot of history about his early years, but unfortunatley it's behind a paywall here and so unacceptable. However I have found a copy of the article here though it's obviously just been copied across by someone who had access. Just wondering would it be wrong to use this secondary website as a source considering it probably shouldn't have these interviews posted on their website?
Regards, --RavensFists (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are free to use a pay article if it helps and is a reliable source. Add (fee for article) before the </ref> ending.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, --RavensFists (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

'Viewpoint' section of European Journal of Public Health: RS or opinion?

A question has been raised, can this article (entitled "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?") appearing in the 'viewpoint' section of the European Journal of Public Health be considered a RS or is it better considered an opinion piece and RS only for the purposes of establishing the opinion of the author? Editors wish to use this to establish encyclopaedically the meaning of the term "denialism" as used in "climate change denialism", "AIDS denialism", "denialism" generally, and so forth. See Talk:climate change denial. Thanks for your attention. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like opinion to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it's the expert opinion of Martin McKee, who is basing the paper on his own views and those of many other published papers on denialism in respect to climate, AIDS, the Holocaust, tobacco, and so on. It's also published in a peer reviewed journal of some standing. Denialism is a concept much used in the modern world, with >100K Google hits, although it has not made it into most dictionaries, even if it is in the Wiktionary. ► RATEL ◄ 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, I also believe that it would only be RS for establishing the opinion of the author, and the article itself should state, "According to expert McKee, ...". Ratel is, of course, the other editor involved in the dispute and I did ask very nicely if we could leave our disagreement at the Talk:climate change denial, but no... anyway... any other views? (By the way, 100K hits is nothing, Ratel; try 'Paris Hilton'). Alex Harvey (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would I do a web search for a hotel? ► RATEL ◄ 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard

At Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, there are some hearsay statements of one of her accused kidnappers, Nancy Garrido, being woven into the article. The statements are second or third hand and border on sensationalism in my view. In particular, regardless of how reliable a media source is, I don't think controversial statements by her against her husband - a co-defendant - are really to be considered "reliable". There's some discussion on the talk page, and an accusation of 3RR against me (which may not apply because of WP:BLP). Policy-based input would be appreciated; probably the best place is at the article's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues are outside the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

religionandspirituality.com

This site takes articles from anyone who cares to email them in (see http://religionandspirituality.com/write_for_us/) but has been used as a key source site for several articles including biographical pages. In particular:

Due to the lack of clear editorial control over article submissions and consequent website publication, I do not believe this site meets the requirements of WP:BLP or more generally WP:RS and would like some third party confirmation or rejection of my view before removing it as a source from these articles.

The relevant terms of the website are under http://religionandspirituality.com/terms/ where it states "You understand that R&S does not control and is not responsible for any Postings on the website". —Ash (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction was to say that this was not reliable.... but looking deeper this is another case of "it depends"... where we need to look at specifics and not make broad sweeping statements. The key here is that the policies of the website mean that the various essays posted on it can be considered self-published. We allow self-published material in BLPs when the material is self-published by the subject of the article (for example, we would allow a citation to the subject's own blog). But not when self-published by another. So, for example, since the citation to the website at Anita Revel points to something authored by Anita Revel, it can probably be considered reliable for a statement as to her opinion. On the other hand the article cited on the Sandana and at Stone articles does not seem to be authored by the subject of the article, so I would probably not consider it reliable. In other words... It depends on the author, the connection the author has to the subject of the Wikipeida article in question, and how you word the statement that the citation is being used to support (statement of fact vs statement of opinion). Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Perhaps my straightforward rule in this case is to apply WP:SELFPUB where the author is the subject of a BLP, and consider it a failure of WP:RS in all other cases (as I can't think of another exception as to why WP:RS would not guide us to remove such references).—Ash (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand... I will also note that these citations are essentially being used to support trivial stuff like a date of death or membership in an orgainzation. Unless there is controversy over this information, I would say that this is stuff that does not really need to be cited at all. But I think you get the jist of what I was saying ... examine who wrote the article at religionandspirituality.com ... and look at exactly what is being supported by the citation. Then use good judgement, applying all of our policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

Editors regularly contributing to the article on Alger Hiss are currently engaged in a discussion which may require a formal dispute resolution. I have been asked to suggest reliable sources for research on Hiss.

I consider the following persons to be reliable sources on the Hiss controversy:

  • Kai Bird, Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian.
  • Svetlana Chervonnaya, historian who has collaborated with Kai Bird on research on the Hiss case.
  • D.D. Guttenplan, historian and contributor to The Nation magazine.
  • Jeff Kisseloff , author and historian.
  • Victor Navasky, Columbia University Professor and publisher emeritus of the The Nation magazine.
  • Dmitri Volkogonov, Doctor of History, who performed extensive research on the Hiss case with the assistance of General Julius Kobyakov.

Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sites providing reviews/critiques of comic books

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

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

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

It's a user submitted site. There's discussion in the archives (and recently) I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Big Shiny Robot! seems to be a reliable source. They're often quoted by CBR and Newsarama, and even the top news link on www.starwars.com leads to an article of theirs at the moment. They have user names, but the editors have real names and a way to give them feedback.
It doesn't look good from its about page.[40] If it was owned by a media conglomerate, I might look more closely, but as it is it's not a RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's absurd to assert that a news source is unreliable if it isn't owned by a media conglomerate. It's run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist. User:98.202.184.225 (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2009
See my explanation below. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Also, I have another site: Neil Shyminsky. ComicBoards.com Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason I mention a media conglomerate, is that there a lot of sites that are run like newspapers, but call their writers bloggers. If it's "run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist." it may be one of those. Huff Post is considered borderline here, though (it's one of those blogs run like a newspaper, although it depends on the particular article too.) Being quoted is a good sign. The other thing about media companies, is it means there's someone with money to sue if they commit libel. That adds to reliability.
The people here are sort of experts on RS stuff. Anyone who wants to do it can, of course. I've probably answered roughly 100 questions here. It's not binding, anymore than any other discussion on WP. The more clear cut the case, and the more people who respond, the stronger the conensus, I guess.
For the comicsboard.com review. Is Neil Shyminsky an expert? Otherwise it looks like that site allows anyone to post, making it not reliable. They may be reliable for interviews, although I don't think that's what this source is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what 'expert' means in this context - I'm Neil, though, and I've taught comics to undergraduate university students and published academic writing on the X-Men. I figure that's worth something, right? (I found this discussion when I Googled my name.) As for Comicboards, they solicit, review, and edit unpaid reviews - and reject them, too. One could disagree with their standards, but they certainly don't allow just anyone to post to their review page.

1. If it's not binding, then what are the criteria by which I can add or remove material in articles that cite them? This is important. Can I remove information sourced by these sources and cite this discussion as a rationale? If I do, can others revert it?
2. How can I get more experts to respond to this discussion?
3. If I can't find anything on Google in reference to that interview, what then? The only things I can find on Google are the site where the interview is, the Wikipedia article itself, and some other sites that are forums, message boards or other sites whose reliability themselves I can't figure out.
4. Regarding the others you never heard of, you said, "there will have to be a good reason to think they're reliable which you should look for." Well, I don't know what reasons there are, or how to look for them. I usually just come here for RS matters. What do I do? Nightscream (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got another source. Is this interview with Jeph Loeb reliable? In it, he talks about his involvement with the upcoming series Day One. Nightscream (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Other than arbcom, there isn't much binding here at WP. Comments here can be good ammo, but if the disagreement is too big, we usually just recommend (our crappy) dispute resolution.
2. You get what you get. Your first mistake was listing a ton of sources, and asking about them in a group. What you want to do, is figure out the ones you can yourself, and then only ask about 1 (or maybe 2) here. There's a thing at the top of this page that kinda tells you what to do. Basically, ask about one source, and include what article it would go in, what you would like to say, and what the source says. That makes it easy for people here, and they're more likely to reply.
3. For interviews, I generally say use them, if they aren't saying something controversial. If another editor disagrees, then more discussion is probably warranted.
4. The best things to look at are the sites about page (or whatever they call it), and whether sites on google news reference them. If the about page talks about editors and writers, that's a good sign. If it talks about submitting your own articles, that's a bad sign. With google news, if other reliable sources say "according to site x..." that's a good sign. If sites on google news don't mention it, your forced to look for other signs of reliability. Another good thing to do is google the writer. If they're an expert, then they're OK. To check expert status look at other things they've written. Do they have their writing in google books or google news, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry I neglected to notice the protocol up top. Nightscream (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material

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

Personally, I don't think so. Amazon is a retailer, not a publisher. The material on their site is intended to sell things, not to inform. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say wait until October on this one unless you can corroborate the list with a source independent of Amazon. The lack of mention at the official label websites would sometimes indicate that the track list might not be finalized, but with just over a month until release I doubt that that is the case here. If they mention any song titles in promotional interviews and the like, then those could be mentioned. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. There are articles purporting to have a track list (www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00026793.html), but these don't claim to be from press releases. Might be listings assembled from web forums. Seems to have been some leaking issues on this album. Cool Hand Luke 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL... We don't need to "scoop" anyone by including the latest rumor. It won't hurt the project one iota to wait until the album actually comes out before we say what songs are on it. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I now changed it, as everyone says no so far, in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RSN#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material, WP:NALBUM, WP:N, WP:NRVE, WP:RS, WP:SBST and WP:GNG. PopMusicBuff talk 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Accuracy is only part of it - specifically, what we call on Wikipedia reliable sources, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and are independent of the subject. It's not just about perceived accuracy. As a retailer, not an independent publisher, Amazon is never independent of the subject. Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"It won't hurt the project one iota" – I think your statement may have consensus, but I think a reader visiting the page and looking for the info is ever so slightly "hurt" by not finding it.
"Amazon is never independent of the subject" – I don't think independence matters (that's a NOTE thing, not an RS thing). Whick leads me to...
Our assumption is that all retailers can't have a rep for fact checking and whatnot. I think this may not be true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if these were not independent from the publisher, it would be a more reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Cite it with attribution. Amazon may be a primary source, but it is reliable. Perhaps remove it from the song listing but in the prose have something like "Amazon.com reports an additional song entitled XYZ", which protects us from the slight possibility of the listing being in error. I looked into CRYSTAL, but unless we want to delete the whole article, it wouldn't be appropriate to use CRYSTAL to delete one song that's going to appear on the album with the others. Gut feeling is that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article; it's these hard-to-find nuggets of information that I rely on WP for, well, if I cared about the Backstreet Boys. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My question is always: can't you find an independent news source that contains the same information, and not a retailer? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice, but it isn't necessary. It's pretty unlikely that Rolling Stone is going to mention a B-side track on a Backstreet Boys album. Album reviews in general don't always list every song, just whatever caught the author's fancy at the time. We'll need to use a primary source for the time being. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Why not wait for a secondary source to emerge? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
We already have a source, why wait? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram

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

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

I would tend to very leery of any source that has as its byline "from occupied Jerusalem." That said the Ahram article is chock full of innuendo, unattributed quotes and an attempt to characterize an arrest for selling 1 kidney (and a 7 year old accusation of smuggling organs from Eastern Europe that was reported to but never investigated by the FBI) as a massive IDF organ harvesting conspiracy. Even the author of the Aftonbladet article admits he has no basis for the accusation other than "wanting to see it investigated." So, I would look for better sources than Al-Ahram. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
East Jerusalem, from where Amayreh is writing is part of the Israeli-occupied territories. The UN calls it occupied. Are they an unreliable source?
Also, the question is not is the material in the article WP:TRUTH, but whether or not Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram are reliable sources for their opinions and/or those of others for the purposes of the Wikipedia. Tiamuttalk 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
However... for an attributed statement of opinion such as "According to the Egyptian news paper Al-Ahram, 'Israel is bad bad bad'<cite to Al-Ahram>" it would be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are reliable for what they claim they are saying, but that's missing the point. There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? 2) are they reliable in the sense of - are they mainstream and not WP:FRINGE? Sources that are WP:FRINGE are not inclusion worthy even if they are being used just to say what they are saying. AL-Ahram clearly fails both tests. And especially applied to this scenairo, where they are trying to perpetuate a blood libel.
BlueBoar: We've went through this before. Your stance, which allows everything into WP because we believe the unreliable source that they said what they claim to have said, is an extreme stance. It is not in line with Wiki-policy and fails the letter of the law and the spirit of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Respectfully, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? No, no, no, no. We don't let editors decide that sources are unreliable because they print "bullshit" instead of what the editor believes is "The Truth™ ". In fact is inconceivable to me that someone could actually arrive at that conclusion following a good faith reading of the reliable source guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood, Dlabtot. There's no argument being made that there are unreliable because what they said in this specific instance is bullshit. The point being made here is that they are unreliable because they are renown for publishing bullshit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to back that statement up? nableezy - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This particular article could easily have come from a western newspaper (including the claim that Jerusalem is occupied, in no respectable dispute). Whatever other faults there are in this newspaper, the "rigorous treatment" and testing it should be getting on this page is laughably absent. If an Israeli paper was getting such treatment, the cries of antisemitism would be deafening - this case makes Wikipedia (even in its control mechanisms, let alone amongst its editors) look Islamophobic.
It is particularly disturbing that, according to the complainant, this failure to present any evidence has happened on every occasion, as if both Wikipedian editors and experts flaunt bigotry. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
— 86.157.70.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That warning has been applied by BrewCrew, who must be following me around. I don't wish to bring a different issue to this page, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits and my Warnings Page (accusations of vandalism) for the locus of this problem. Please advise what I'm supposed to do, if not ask the people concerned directly, quoting from the Book of Rules. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Putting that aside for a moment so that we stay focused on the issue at hand ... the material being cited to Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram is here. I just restored it after it was deleted by Brewcrewer User:Rm125 [41]. If people could comment on whether or not Al-Ahram is a reliable source for this information, as phrased or phrased differently, it would be much appreciated. I would note that Al-Ahram is the Arabic equivalent of the New York Times and the The London Times is terms of circulation and the way its viewed by the Arabic speaking world. As this is the world's encyclopedia, and not the West's alone, I hope people will take other perspectives into consideration when making their comments. Tiamuttalk 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And that is the key... This is a WP:NPOV issue not an RS one. Yes, Al-Arham disagrees with western POV, and yes it is biased... but we still have to account for Al-Arham's POV. As far as WP:RS goes, it is a respected news outlet with a significant circulation in the Arab world. It passes our test for reliablility.
That said... no source is "always" reliable... context is very important and reliability depends greatly on the statement it is being used to support (even the New York Times can be unreliable for some statements)... and being reliable does not mean a source must be used in any specific article. There are a host of other policies and guidelines that might limit or bar the use of a source in a specific article. But, in general terms, most of the time, in most articles, Al-Arham is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the question here is not reliability but notability. While Al-Ahram may not be reliable, it is the mouthpiece of the Egyptian state, and this makes its position notable. -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Its statements like these, Blueboar, that result in allowing the inclusion of statements of unreliable sources because they are believed to say what they say they are saying. The editors that are pushing for the inclusion here are not pushing for its inclusion because they want to use the unreliable source to show what the Arab media are saying. They want to use the unreliable source for the truthfullness of its statements.
We wind up with these ridiculous statements that Government-controlled-Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-antisemitic publications are equal to the New York Times and the BBC because these great media outlets have also sinned in the past.
The fact that lots of readers read that newspaper, means nada. The Pravda and Der Stürmer had a huge readership, but we don't use the former for the truthfulness of any analysis regarding capitalism v. socialism and we don't use the latter for the truthfulness of anything regarding Jews. Similarly we don't use Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-anti-Israel publications for anything that pertains to Israel. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Nazi-baiting your fallback response in any RS/N discussion not going your way? How is it you are comparing al-Ahram to Der Sturmer? How does al-Ahram not meet the requirements of WP:RS, specifically WP:RS#News organizations? nableezy - 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't use any sources for the truthfulness of anything. Period. Verifiability, not truth. Dlabtot (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're not understanding what's going here, Dlabtot. WP:RS is a condition of WP:V. Full stop. Al-Ahram is not a RS because they are goverment controlled and have a history of perpetuating anti-Israel and anti-Jewish lies. Full stop. Nevertheless, some editors here are arguing for an exception to the WP:RS/WP:V requirements, claiming that Al-Ahram unreliability is not pertinent if we are not using their content for the truthfullness of their content,. They claim that since we are quoting Al-Ahram to show what they are saying, their unreliability is a non-factor. I hope this clears everything up for you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what al-Ahram is being used for. This is the passage the source is being used for in the article:

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

It is also used for the following:

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

Al-Ahram is being used to source statements from Palestinians about the issue. Nowhere is al-Ahram being used to say that Israel did in fact steal organs from Palestinians. Your idea that because Western media outlets have not given them that attention Wikipedia should not is against WP:NPOV, and to do that you are distorting WP:RS into saying something it does not. Again, what about WP:RS#News organizations is not met? What about what al-Ahram is being used to cite is improper to include? You are trying to make it so Palestinian reactions do not appear in the article, an odd thing to do for an article focusing on allegations of stealing Palestinian organs. nableezy - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Its being used for exactly what WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE was intended to get rid of: The emboldment of crap. There are plenty of mainstream sources that cover the I-P conflict. They all realize that the underlying allegations are a joke and are focusing instead on the free-speech/lack of denouncement aspect of the controversy. The only sources that are willing to discuss the actual underlying nonsense allegations are fringe and unreliable publications. The quoted texts above proved my whole point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Your brushing off of the Palestinian viewpoint on an article about the alleged theft of Palestinian organs is at odds with core policy. And you are distorting both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE to do so. nableezy - 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
He's not brushing off the Palestinian viewpoint. He's saying Al-Ahram is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter who's viewpoint they are reporting. They are a government controlled publication. They can not and do not report freely and thus are not a reliable source. I'd also suggest that Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one and encourage editors to look up some more of his work before making up their mind about this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources are not disqualified from use simply because there is an element of government control/funding for the publication in question. I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time trying to disqualify the use of the most widely circulated publications in the Arab world. There are plenty of other newspapers that are government controlled/funded that we use all the time without any objections. Singling out Al-Ahram is not justified. Tiamut 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And what the f does this mean? "...Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one..." He writes in English, for English-language newspapers. He's a journalist by any sense of the word. Do you have a source that indicates that he is not a journalist? Or are you just hoping to exploit people's latent racism against Arabs to get what is obviously a reliable source that you do not like persona non grata status at wikipedia? Tiamuttalk 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If there are other newspapers that are government controlled those are not reliable sources either. Funding is not necessarily the same thing. The issue is if someone can dictate what the newspaper writes. If that is the case, then it's not a reliable source, now is it?
As for Khalid Amayreh, as I said, I encourage other editors to read some of his work and decide what they think for themselves. Your thoughts about people's "latent racism against Arabs" and whatever other insecurities you may have really don't interest me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps NMMNG is referring unkindly to Amayreh's male pattern baldness (i.e. western journalists usually have more hair nowadays) or possibly that he's been imprisoned both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Either way, is this RS/N question about Al-Ahram or Amayreh or both ? What's the pass criteria ? Government controlled seems like an odd way to talk about Amayreh. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. I said Amayreh is government controlled. Funny and clever as always, Sean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that you said that but do you see what I mean ? Is the problem the paper or the journalist or both ? It's not clear here because both are being challenged for different reasons. If government control is the issue I would have thought that for an editor of a government controlled paper he would be pretty near the bottom of the list of journalists likely to do as he's told. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying Amayreh is the editor of al-Ahram?
The editor of al-Ahram is appointed by the Egyptian government. He works for them. That's not exactly RS material. Or at least for anything other than what the Egyptian government thinks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
..and some more verbiage just to be polite and answer. No, I just meant for example that if I were an editor I wouldn't choose Amayreh as a journalist to write pieces on the basis that he could be easily controlled as a spokesman for an official government line. He's not that kind of journalist IMHO. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor at al-Ahram wouldn't need to "control" him. He'd just not publish something that wasn't in line with government policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of verbiage posted above, but Al-Ahram is definitely a citable source. It doesn't matter if it's an official news agency of a country, by that logic then the VoA, BBC, and many other national broadcasters would be out. It would be a primary source on topics where the government or its allies or foes is the subject of debate, and some of its stories would require qualifiers and attribution, but you still may cite it, and it's likely the opinion of a national broadcaster is important enough to mention in an article.
But that's pretty much moot, because theyre being cited for an interview with Arafat, not their own opinion. Whatever their political leanings, I'm pretty sure theyre reliable enough to conduct the interview. And whatever you think about Arafat, because of his position, his opinion is important enough to include in the article.
Anyway it looks like the article resolved all this days ago, with careful attribution: During a 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made the accusation, as well as finding an independent news agency who also conducted an interview. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to find the Al-Jazeera interview with Arafat online, but failed. So the only source for the interview with Arafat is Al-Ahram. Ulner (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't see the whole quote but its mentioned here too. Tiamuttalk 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Nableezy has a good point. Al-Ahram can be trusted for this information, regardless of their overall status as an RS. --Jonund (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above arguments which note that although one can argue that Al-Ahram is a biased source, by our standards, it is well-respected newspaper, and therefore it is a reliable source. LK (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jake Tapper ABC News White House Correspondent's Blog

Resolved
 – Yes, it's a reliable source.

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

Examples:

[42]

[43]

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

The relevant policies aren't as clear as I would like, but this language (from WP:BLP) is helpful: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I don't think there's any reason to distinguish between newspapers and broadcast TV network news organizations here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I might be the editor to whom Dougie WII refers. In response to above, so far, no one has been able to cite any evidence that the blog has the newspaper's full editorial control. Even worse, WP:V states that "where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed." No one has shown any evidence that the news organization claims responsibility for the opinions. Finally, it should also be noted that (assuming I am the editor to whom Dougie WII refers) this is about controversial information about a biography of a living person where we are supposed to insist on high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
From ABC News - "[Jake Tapper] contributes regularly to "Good Morning America," "Nightline," "World News with Charles Gibson," and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," as well as ABC News' digital properties, including ABCNews.com and ABC News Now."
He is the "ABC News senior White House correspondent" whose blog underwent a "rigorous editorial process," according to an ABC spokeswoman.
It's a reliable source; this has already been explained to you at Talk:Van Jones. Echoing what I said on the Jones talk page, Tapper's blog is used 138 times in articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama, Inauguration of Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc. (closely monitored articles) His blog is referenced by mainstream news organizations all the time. APK is a GLEEk 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree, web writings of senior full-time journalists hosted by the publication they work for may be called 'blogs', but are in reality are more like old fashioned newspaper articles on a fast update. They can (with some care) be considered reliable sources. LK (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The argument about other pages using them doesn't mean much since WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Also, are they being used for statements of opinions or statements of facts? There's a difference between the two. Thank you for this link ABC spokeswoman. Unless I missed it, this is the first time anyone (besides me) mentioned the need for editorial review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved. We've explained several times why it's a reliable source. You're the only one continuing to question the blog's credibility. APK say that you love me 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you've just talked without listening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan

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

It's not a reliable source because Buchanan is not a historian (he is a politician and educated as a journalist), because Crown is not an academic publisher, and because the book has not been received well by historians. The number of end notes is, at best, a crude heuristic, but not a guarantee for reliability. Not a WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you've got pretty exacting standards because I once tried to cite the Chair of the History Dept at the University of Dallas and you didn't think that guy was reliable either, not even when the US Senate published the same claims at issue and other claims of this academic historian were cited by the Historical Adviser for the Royal Archives and George VI's official biographer.Bdell555 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I might add that excluding Crown Publishing means excluding the world's largest publisher, and well known PhDs like Thomas Fleming have called Buchanan's book "wonderful".Bdell555 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Buchanan does not strike me as a reliable source as an historian. (Whether he's reliable as a political commentator is a different matter.) If his book has extensive endnotes, however, then presumably he gives citations to other sources which may be more respected and reliable. As with most questions of reliability, the answer really depends on exactly what facts you are trying to verify; my expectation is that if you really can't find any other sources to use then Buchanan's original research is fringe. Rvcx (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It's debatable whether Buchanan is "extremist", and because the book is not self-published, he doesn't have to meet all the SPS caveats about being a recognized authority on the topic. We have to watch our political biases here. Not everybody to the right of Reagan is on the "fringe".
It's likely his point of view is notable enough to mention, depending on which article wants to use a cite from his book. Just attribute it as "conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan wrote..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure Buchanan's opinions are notable on the topic. Sounds like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to me. We have reliable sources that say he has an opinion, but nothing to indicate that his opinion is important on this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The OP didn't say which article was planning to cite Buchanan's book. We'd have to see which article, how long the quote was relative to the article, and whether this was an extraodinary claim or just filling in fine detail. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering the question was about history then it's almost certainly undue weight to reference what Buchanan said, as that's not his area of expertise. DreamGuy (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless the article is "Pat Buchanan's views on history". :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he's fringe. He hasn't claimed that space aliens convinced Churchill to resist good ole peace loving Adolf. He's not quite extremist, though if you follow the line of logic he is basically arguing that Europe would be better off had the Holocaust been left to finish (obviously there are some problems with that contention, namely that no western power entered the war because of the Holocaust, but that is neither here nor there). He's wrong so it behooves us to bookend his claims with claims from real historians. In other words, he is a voice in the history of WWII. He's not a very important one, but he is a voice. We should include his claims where appropriate and take pains to ensure that we don't mislead the reader by qualifying them appropriately. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that Buchanan has ever argued that "the Holocaust should have been left to finish". Buchanan's view is rather that the greatest evil of war is the breakdown in the norms of human behaviour that come with it, and hence the magnitude of the Holocaust was a consequence of war that might have been mitigated had the war, or its scale (originally localized to Poland) been limited. Buchanan also argues that the Red Army committed a number of large scale atrocities and denied the liberty of many Europeans and that this was aided and abetted by Churchill and FDR's alliance with Stalin.Bdell555 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider Buchanan extremist or fringe, however, he's not a professional historian. His opinion might be notable, I'm not sure. Which article are we talking about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A lot of Buchanan's work parallels with or draws from that of Robert Nisbet. According to the Wiki article for Nisbet, he was a "first rate 20th century sociologist". A professional sociologist is not a professional historian. Is Nisbet a reliable source? Does Nisbet become more or less reliable if Buchanan cites him? For examples for the type of particular cites at issue here, it would be to cite to Buchanan historical claims like "In Hungary, it was hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the “liberators” of the Red Army" or "at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact....FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections".Bdell555 (talk)
I'm not familiar with Robert Nisbet, but I want to point out a careful distinction. No person is a WP:RS. Only published works are. (And of course, not all published works are WP:RS, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking are.) Keep in mind that academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources. For a topic such as World War II, there should be plenty of such sources. So, no I would not be citing Pat Buchanan for those claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Pat Buchan is not a noted historian and therefore his books are not a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Quest and Four Deuces. The Hungary claim in particular is clearly rhetorical (ie it is unlikely to be literally true), so it doesn't provide us with useful information or pass the verifiabilty test. Even if it were attributed, claims made by PB would not be notable in the context. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Buchanan's book is a reliable source for an attributed statement as to Buchanan's opinion on WWII. Whether his opinion on WWII is worth mentioning in a specific article is another matter (see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE)Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Which article would this be going in? If it's the main article on WWII, the book might not be appropriate to mention. If it's in an article about specific views on WWII, it may well be. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles where the specific examples would go in would be Tehran Conference or Soviet war crimes. Other Buchanan material would be applicable to Winston Churchill.Bdell555 (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources. For a topics related to World War II, there should be plenty of such sources. So, no I would not be citing Pat Buchanan for those claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Tehran Conference would have to be expanded quite a bit to use Buchanan without creating an undue weight issue. Right now there aren't any reactions or alternative views sections. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whois

Is the result of a whois query a reliable source for an article on a website? --John (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, imho. The results of a dynamic query are by definition not a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. A HTML query is dynamic, too. However this would be a good time to use the "retreived on" field in the citation, and in the article body have something like "As of 2009, whois lists the site owner as..."
If it's for uncontroversial information like the location of a website to fill out an infobox, that's fine. But if it's for something likely to be challenged, such as the owner of a controversial website, you would want a source that's verifiable to an archive somewhere.
You also want to consider whether the information is relevant to the article. For instance, in an article about an underground press organization, the location might be important to show that it's beyond the reach of the authorities in the countries it covers. However, is the location of the registrar important, or is the location of the server ( try something like Netcraft, which shows the netblock owner ) important? Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not likely to be relevant to the article, but that isn't the query here. Very time sensitive, websites can change hosts quite readily, and the sorts of websites where this question would produce data relevant to the article are especially likely to change sites - so any reference should be date specific, not merely year specific. However, how would using this not be original research, probably via synthesis? Even accepting the result as reliable, you can't engage in synthesis. GRBerry 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how a statement of the form "on date X, website Y was registered by Z" could be considered synthesis. I have trouble with verifiability (whois only answers questions of the form "who has registered website Y now". On the other hand, this is public knowledge - it's even built into the infrastructure of the Internet. On the third hand, if the fact is notable, there should be a third-party RS for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Whois data is not published anywhere so how could it possibly be considered a published source? Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... not sure about that. Isn't Whois data published every time someone accesses the site and runs a querry? It isn't published in the same way a dead tree source is published, but it is "disseminated to the public" which is essentially the same thing (just as the airing of a TV program is equated with publishing). Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am going to take this as a qualified "yes" to my question above which was what I thought. A whois query is a reliable source for the location of the registration for a website, with the usual qualifications about access date etc. --John (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There's still a question of whether it's relevant to an article (besides the lingering concerns about verifiability). For example, which jurisdiction the registrar or the physical server is located in would be appropriate in articles about Indymedia or the Pirate Bay. Registry creation dates might be important to other articles. But for most websites, unless we're about to start adding hosting details to an infobox, it would just be trivia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Source for Michael Moore's birthplace

The birth place of Michael Moore is a topic of dispute, particularly as it pertains to his critics, who assert that he was not born in the blue-collar town of Flint, Michigan, as Moore has often asserted, but in the more affluent Flint suburb of Davison. Among them are David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke, who assert Davison as his birthplace in their 2004 book, Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, and provide this as their source. Is it reliable? Normally, one would just cite Hardy and Clarke's book, but since this is a controversial point, the sources provided in such controversies is more relevant, I think. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd need more than an online faq to dispute someone's birthplace. Do they have a copy of the long form birth certificate? ;) Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think both claims are incorrect. The cited reference for Moore's birthplace being Flint is his movie Pets or Meat: The Return To Flint, wherein Moore states that he was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in Flint. But St. Joseph's (now Genesys East Flint Campus) is actually located in the suburb of Burton, at 1460 Center Rd. Burton, MI 48509-1429. So he was born in Burton, Michigan, raised in Davison, Michigan but both are suburbs of Flint, Michigan. L0b0t (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Working from the current location of a hospital is original research, as the physical campus can relocate. I don't know whether or not this one has. GRBerry 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
According to editor Flintmichigan, St. Joseph Hospital was located in Flint. [44] The new hospital is located in Grand Blanc. Dynablaster (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The main Genesys location is Grand Blanc. There is also a Genesys East Flint Campus at the former St. Joe's in Burton. L0b0t (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My initial inclination is to doubt the reliability of both sources in this case. This issue has been discussed many times before. I looked through the archives of Talk:Michael Moore. I found two linked to sources that are unquestionably reliable by our standards: the New York Times biography of him[45], and the encyclopedia Encarta[46]. The New York Times lists in its header "Birthplace: Flint, Michigan, USA" but in its text says "Michael Moore was born in 1954 in Davison, MI, a suburb of Flint". Encarta says "Moore was born in Davison, a suburb of Flint, Michigan.". Absent a reputable historian that has examined the birth certificate and published his findings, the article should probably reflect these sources. It may not be necessary to mention the dispute at all; Davidson is indeed a suburb of Flint and it is common to reference nearby large cities in saying where one is from. A geneaologist insists on precision in birthplaces, ordinary discourse does not. GRBerry 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I take your point but disagree about the originality of my research. All I did was refer to Flint, Michigan, which tells us that St. Joseph's Hospital is now part of the Genesys Health System and called Genesys East Flint Campus (the address for which is readily available through any number of means). Regardless, you have cited two great sources that say Davison. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a little late but I should point out that "birthplace" in vital statistics usually means the town where one's parents were resident at the time of birth, not the town the hospital was located in. If there's any doubt, you could say someone was "born in year X to Mr and Mrs Y of Shelbyville, a suburb of Capital City", and if there was an interest in the hospital, say if the hospital was located someplace distant, interesting, or it was part of a question of citizenship, then "at Springfield Hospital, Springfield" could be included. And let's not create a false dichotomy around "Flint". In the US ( except California for some reason ) it's common for people to say theyre from the nearest large city. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Geographic map of Israel

The geographical map of Israel of this article is misleading and it should be replaced as it includes the West Bank and the Golan Heights as part of Israel. This is contrary to the international law as those territories were acquired by war.

This principle was stated in the UN resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 which states: “...the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...”.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

The presented map should be changed with a new one showing the Golan Heights and West Bank as foreign occupied territories as correcly indicated for the Gaza Strip.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giacintomodena (talk • contribs)

Which article are your referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This query is the first contribution of the querying account. At this time, there is nothing to do here. GRBerry 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The user making this request has replied on their user page. The article referred to is Migdal, Israel, and the map in question is File:Israel_outline_north_haifa.png. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops...yes he has a point. The West Bank has been absorbed and it's being used in many pages. I'll drop a note at WP:IPCOLL. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ok. The image is a split image at two map scales. The image is used in 33 articles, including this one.[47] The left hand panel uses three colors for land, a white for Isreal, a pale yellow for the West Bank and the Golan Heights, and grey for other countries. The white/pale yellow difference can be hard to see, depending on monitor settings (very washed out on my default settings), but is definitely there when examined. There is also a thin grey line between the two. There is no text in the left panel.

The right hand panel is a larger scale of just the northern portion. It has the same color differentiation and also includes the label "Golan Heights" (in a font more prominent than that used for towns/cities) across the Golan Heights region. A label for the West Bank would be at least 90% off this map, and thus is reasonably omitted.

I conclude that the requester's desired change is already largely present in the map, as there are color differences and a label. It might be better to use colors that are easier to see the difference between, but I know my monitor settings are different from most peoples so I don't know if this is a significant issue.
It might be a good idea to standardize colors somewhere, somehow. If we have ever had a centralized discussion somewhere about what color means what and what should be used in maps, I personally would not be aware of it, the maps I see day to day around here don't show evidence of standardized colors, the examples at Template:Location map/doc don't use standardized colors. I conclude that we don't today have standardized colors with standardized meanings. If such a task were to be tackled, it would be a major project. I can't even recommend who to talk with that might be interested in such a project, so I don't know where to recommend that Giacintomodena go next. Since many of the maps are over at Commons, it is likely to be somewhere there. Perhaps the author of this particular map might be of help, his Commons talk page is here, while his local talk page is here. GRBerry 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so...we dont have maps showing a country's territory if the territory was gained through war....ok, so California can only be shown on a map of Mexico and not the United States then. Israel is the only soveriegn state over the Golan Heights, "West Bank" (which is not the official term for that territory btw), and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority is not a state. It administers it in a similar way in which Greenland has self-rule within being a part of Denmark. You win something in war its yours. When did the US decide to give Spain back Guam or Puerto Rico? When did the UK give Gibraltar back to Spain? More recently when has China given back territory won from India in the early 1970s? I'm sorry, maybe I missed the part about "we dont show maps that show territory won by Jews in a war", which is what this proposal on here is really about. After 1948 maps everywhere showed the "west bank" as an integral part of Jordan (formerly Transjordan) and the Gaza Strip as part of Egypt. Those nations lost, and both have renounced their claims on those territories, claims that were in fact legitimate at that time, they have both signed treaties with Israel. No other nation claim those territories. They are not in dispute with a legitimate recognized state. They are within the borders of what is defended by the State of Israel. Treat the maps as such and do not bow down to the anti-semites who find their way here and try one thing after another to push down Jews and their state.Camelbinky (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've already posted a note at the IPCOLL article issues page. It must be changed to clearly differentiate between internationally recognised Israeli, Palestinian and Syrian territories. I'm sure it will be dealt with in due course. This is a no brainer. Wikipedia can't use maps like this that either accidentally or deliberately present a position that doesn't comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV unless they are in articles where they are specifically used to illustrate the opinion of the vanishingly small, fringe minority who holds these views (which doesn't include either the Supreme Court of Israel(HCJ) or the majority of Israelis let alone the international community etc). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
"Fringe", ha! Um, the Golan Heights, as opposed to the "west bank" and Gaza Strip have in fact been ANNEXED by the State of Israel and are an integral part of the nation. This is not fringe theory thank you. The "west bank" and Gaza Strip are not claimed by any other nation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority and Hamas are not states, they are not sovereign, the agreements Israel signed giving the PA authority over the territories made that explicitly clear that Israel still has defence rights over that territory. If you are going to insist on this ridiculous claim that Wikipedia must not show one view over another on maps of territory, I expect you to support me now as I go to every single country's pages and demand that their maps be neutral as well. The Kuril Islands now can not be shown as being Russia's instead of Japan's even though since 1945 Russia has administered it, Japan still claims it. Gibraltar can not be shown as UK territory, The Amur River can not be shown as the border between China and Russia as neither recognizes it and both claim land on both sides. Border between Vietnam and China has to be shown as not determined because both nations claim different borders. Most of at least one province of India can not be shown as India's because since 1970's China has occupied the territory by force. Goa was conquered by India in the 1970's, similar in situation to Israel's war that lead to it gaining the west bank and Gaza, so why is it ok that India gets to occupy land gotten in war, but Israel cant even get that land shown on a map? Oh, yea, because Israel is a state created for Jews. I keep forgetting that double standard in world history applies here on Wikipedia too. I'll stop posting on this subject because just as in the UN and other organizations, Jews are outnumbered and majority decisions can be influenced by anti-semites and pro-Arab/Muslim individuals. Just remember one thing- the reason the UN has anti-Israeli "occupied territory" rulings is because of blatant anti-Jewish/Zionist positions by the Soviet Union and the over 50 Arab/Muslim countries, just as they were able to get rammed through at an international woman's rights summit in China about a decade ago an official statement declaring Zionism to be one of the most dangerous things in the world facing women's rights. Just because a large number of countries dont like a border it doesnt effect the situation on the ground and who won the war (or in this case won every single one of the many wars, if you lose then dont cry about you losing and get the territory back because you suck at war but are good at propaganda and terrorism. Wikipedia caving into showing maps of the land as something it isnt, is only encouraging the propoganda of the Palestinian side it isnt being neutral to show maps declaring their side to be accurate.Camelbinky (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's too bad nobody ever sticks up for Israel on the Wikipedia. head.. desk. But that said it's appropriate to mark disputed territories such as Kashmir in a separate color, while the boundaries themselves should show the current reality. Remember that part of being a country is that other countries recognize you as a separate state and send diplomats to you. If some countries don't recognize Israel and/or send envoys to the Palestinian Territories instead that can be reflected on our maps, but in terms of color, not lines. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Third party materials on rickross.com

A debate on talk: Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse is centring around whether or not newspaper articles not available on line (through age), but cited in full on rickross.com can be trusted as genuine. Obviously, if they can, the newspaper article itself can be the citation, not rickross.com. For example: here.

As I pointed out on the talk page there, a couple of books published by an academic publishing house refer to his website as a cult information website and use it as an RS source. This book describes him as "an internationally recognized cult expert", again by an academic imprint (John Wiley and sons).

Is this enough to consider the articles genuine?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this had been discusssed before and that we don't use ross's site as a reliable source. He clearly has an anti cult position and unless we can find the articles elsewhere then they are unsupported.There are also plenty of citations where ross's credentials as "an internationally recognized cult expert" are disputed.Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, you say the articles on Ross's site are cited in full and with accuracy. How can we know that? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that the citations for the article are heavily reliant on the ross archives, apart from that there is little to support verifiability or notability. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. Just use LexisNexis, Newsbank, Westlaw, Infotrac, Google News, or any other research database archive, and cite the source itself. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea. agreed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
And remember that things do not need to be on the internet to be reliable or verifiable... If these old newspaper articles are from standard newspapers, then they are probably available at any large public library... either in hard copy or archived on microfilm. If so, then they are verifiable. You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Cirt - if you open the link I gave to the article, you'll see it's British and won't come up on the American search engines you gave and that I can access. In any case, as I wrote, the problem is that the article (and others like it) is not available on the internet at the newspaper's site, as it's before the paper went on-line. Off2riorob - the whole point of posting here is to ask for opinions about whether the rick ross website can be trusted as a repository of third party sources, so I don't understand the point you're making.
Blueboar, I appreciate your answer. I am in no position to check the newspaper article, as I am about 8000 miles from the nearest British public library, and am not going to lie and claim I checked it. The question is, can I just go ahead and cite the newspaper article, presuming the rick ross institute won't have faked it?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
@VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs) - Other libraries near you may have access to these articles. Just ask your friendly local librarian. :) Cirt (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I live in Japan. I doubt they take the Daily Express in a library near me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps they have access to databases that do. Have you tried? Cirt (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No, but I *seriously* have grave doubts they would, and I don't fancy the three hours it might take finding out they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs)
Well, perhaps you can find a friendly fellow Wikipedian who lives in England who would be willing to check the source for you. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is well established that sources not available online can be used. So if an editor has physical copies of the articles that they know are complete and accurate, and can produce full citations then the sources can be used. (Incidentally, {{cite news}} is an excellent tool for formatting a full citation.) Because the posting editor has used the actual original source, the citation is to the original source. If there is also an online copy that the editor has verified is the same, then a convenience link can also be added. The link is then for the convenience of readers and other editors. In this case, the reliability of the site hosting the copy is not at issue, because they are not the source of the edit. However, there is another rule that applies - we do not link to copyright violations. The disclaimer page at rickross.com basically states flat out that they don't have copyright rights for much of what they are hosting copies of, and that copyright holders can request removal. On this basis, we shouldn't use convenience links to rickross.com copies of reliable source news articles. But the original news articles will remain reliable, and an editor that has looked at them can cite them with no link anywhere, or a link to an article behind a paywall. GRBerry 02:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look and comment if the way the links have been inserted is correct for wikipedia. The cites link to ross's site claiming that that site is a internet archive? The actual article has still not been referenced or seen. The ross site is still the actual reference point. Please see and comment, the page is hereThanks Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to scan them... just check to see if the original is identical to what is posted at rickross.com... if so, then you can cite the original, and link to the copy at rickross.com as a convenience link ... the citation would go something like this: <ref>News Article Title, Newspaper Name, Date, Page. (convenince link at: [rickross.com page])</ref> Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
One problem is that the editor above who complained that "the actual article has still not been referenced or seen" still claims this despite scans being linked to one article (so far) on the talk page. Another technique for a separate article (which is accessing a subscription newspaper through its snippet search results for sample checking of accuracy (several separate chunks, which come out 100% accurate)) is also rejected out of hand by the same user. What should be done in such a situation?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob has been a thorn in the side of this article and is moving for deletion based on the idea that the articles at Rick Ross aren't genuine because Ross' site is anti-cult. I had to scan at least one article to prove that they are. Please see the discussion page for the article. I had similar convenience links, but Rob took them all out. I feel like Sisyphus or something. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no requirement for anybody here to be scanning articles. If the source is cited, then the onus is now on the person who doesn't like the cite to get to a library. I also second the idea of looking for excerpts in news archive searches, and sometimes those results make good convenience links even if theyre to a paywall.
As far as providing convenience or archive links to a third party website there's a couple things we need to look at. The big one is copyright; is it likely that the articles were reprinted with permission? For example a corporation's "in the news page" with a reprint of a news article is probably done with permission, and is OK to link to. A news article pasted into an online forum is probably not. Neither would be a fansite with a collection of articles under an overbroad pronouncement of "fair use" or "if you're the copyright owner you can contact me to take these down".
I can't seem to reach the site in question, but unless it's using language similar to described above, it sounds like a professional's site and similar to a corporation, it's likely that permission was obtained to reprint. The other issue of course is accuracy, but the author and site have reputation and have been cited in academic journals. If this was an individual making a claim the moon landings were fake then there would be a question, but this looks fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_43&oldid=1142502434"