Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107

Volumes of the Anthropological Survey of India
The Anthropological Survey of India has published a series of volumes on the communities of India. Here's the full citation:

This source is currently being used in the expansion of the Kunbi article but I'm sure it is used in several other articles all over Wikipedia about other communities of India. The work identifies about 4635 communities all over India. Details of the project that led to the publication of the volumes, the sources referred to, methodologies applied, number of person-days/hours spent on the project and per community, etc can be found in the foreword. Problems in language and presentation have been noted on the talk page of the Kunbi article. Is the source reliable for articles on the Indian caste system like the Kunbi? Relevant discussions are at Talk:Kunbi. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Anthropological Survey of India is a major research organization, long-established, government-supported, academic. Its publications should be treated as reliable. There may be opposing points of view on controversial issues, and in that case we should cite reliable sources for the opposing views too. And rew D alby  18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The AnSI might be all of those things; however, these volumes are not secondary sources. In one of the few books in which they are even mentioned in the bibliography (but not cited), Susan Bayly's Caste Society and Politics in India, a couple of these volumes are listed under "Government Publications," but not under "Secondary Works," both of which subdivisions the bibliography has.  The only review I have seen of these volumes, Laura Jenkins's Another "People of India" Project: Colonial and National Anthropology is less than complimentary.  No peer-reviewed publication of this data in internationally recognized journals has accompanied or followed the publication of these volumes.  Neither have they been vetted by being cited in secondary works.  I had initially thought, they might pass as tertiary sources, but upon examination found them to be little more than airbrushed field reports which have the imprimatur of an organization for what its worth.  Government Publications have their place on Wikipedia, e.g. for citing a few locations, dates, population numbers, but they can't be used en mass, and not for interpretations (especially when they also serve as nationalistic platitudes) such as "Formal education has had a positive impact on the younger generation of the Dhonoje women."  All the pitfalls that accompany the use of primary sources on Wikipedia accompany the use of these.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is much about the books which is suspect but one point that stands out, for me, is that they regularly include footnotes acknowledging that information has been taken from the works of writers such as Edgar Thurston but they seem not to explain what has been taken from those works, nor what page(s) of the works are referenced etc. Effectively, they have merged 100 year old sources with other stuff, without providing any delineation or even "proper" academic attribution. I can only see certain sections of these books but they are usually self-contained sections, and in some cases have the appearance of being pretty much an unattributed copy of the old stuff. This would not be the first time that Indian government agencies have extensively copied content from other sources without attribution (even Wikipedia has been used in this way, IIRC). I would have to dig deep to find examples because this is something that I have picked up "along the way" while dealing with numerous caste/community related articles, but examples do exist. I really would not trust them without additional verification, just as I would not trust the official reports of the Census Commissioners from the British Raj. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Using reports of market research surveys
This concerns Metrication in the United Kingdom, and I'd appreciate input because things have been getting edit-warry. The dispute is over whether we can use reports sourced to the BBC, Which? magazine, and other typically RS sources to include content that describes how two major supermarket chains (Tesco and Asda - one and two in the UK by market share) cited their own commissioned research on consumers' preferences for imperial and metric measurements and how it determined subsequent policy (reintroducing pricing in imperial measurements in in one form or another).

Here is a paragraph containing the material that is disputed. (The Asda information is also mentioned in the lede as a 2011 state of affairs reference):


 * Following the results of a survey of their customers in early 2011 - which concluded that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units - the Asda supermarket chain are experimenting with selling produce in round imperial measures again.source A similar survey of 1,000 customers conducted by the Tesco supermarket chain in 2000 showed that 90% of their customers used imperial measures.source Tesco's use of imperial units over metric, with prices per pound displayed more prominently that those per kilo, was identified in a 2004 Which? magazine report as a possible means of appearing cheaper than its rivals.source

Extra RS for Asda here and here and for Tesco here (coverage is also in the Daily Mail, Express and Sun, but I don't like those as RS - but clearly it adds to dueness).

One pair of editors (and I'll do my best to fairly describe their arguments) is suggesting that because we do not know very much about the surveys themselves (we know sample sizes and a few key results that were announced but little else), why it was commissioned and because commercial organisations can lie about research we should not include this material. People may misunderstand the report of the survey and come away from the article thinking something else. Also, Asda was recently taken over by Walmart and for this reason one editor argues we shouldn't believe what Asda says, and Tesco also is claimed to be untrustworthy. They have also cited "lies, damned lies and statistics" and asserted that it is necessary to have done statistics at undergraduate level to understand the problem, which both of them say they have. One of them even kindly suggested a statistics textbook for the rest of us to read. A third editor objects on the grounds that insertion is an abuse of WP:verifiability.

The other group of editors (including me) argue that the material is due because of RS coverage, and that so long as we attribute clearly, then it is fine to put the material in. According to multiple RS, the surveys took place, the supermarkets announced some of the findings, and their reactions to those findings, which also indisputably took place. An editor's personal belief regarding companies and their surveys counts for nothing regardless of any claims to expertise: we need sourcing that explains why these particular surveys should not be mentioned in the article.

As such, no evidence specifically relating to these surveys, or to any general tendency of the two supermarkets (Asda and Tesco) to produce bogus research has been produced. None of the RS mentioning these surveys has raised doubts over their authenticity. (I would say that at least one or two appear to take the results at face value, but that's my view) This is not - and we're all clear on this - to say that we treat the surveys as topnotch RS on the state of public opinion: they should be reported with attribution.

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Anyone with even more time on their hands might look at other disputes on that page, notably whether or not the London 2012 Olympics is relevant to metrication in the UK. Things are getting a bit shirty.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note: One of the users wanting to omit the material has described my summary as fair save that "I would like it mentioned that both HiLo48 and I (user:Martinvl) have claimed real life qualifications in statistics. I think that this is relevant because we are both using our "expert" knowledge to interpret the sources and the degree to which "expert" knowledge should be heeded might well be a factor. (I used the term "expert" is the way that a witness in court might be an expert witness)" VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case this is helpful. There is a Market Research Association in the UK, which the major polling organisations are members of, and it has a code of conduct which would forbid findings being doctored to suit the sponsor. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "A poll, commissioned by the British Weights and Measures Association (BWMA) last year, said most people preferred to maintain imperial measures, alongside metric. The survey, carried out by an independent polling company, found 72% of youngsters and adults in the UK wanted to keep imperial measures." From your second EL, BBC News. That's the kind of thing I meant, and is good enough to cite. If the source doesn't say that an independent company did the survey, it could be the supermarket asking customers while they shop, and that's not so valid at all, so I would omit. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Judith, I think you're mixing two points together. One is finding good sourcing for public opinion on metrication. The other is how we report an event (a supermarket changing its pricing policy) that is clearly due. On the first point, I would have been reluctant to treat the BWMA survey as RS because the BWMA is an advocacy group opposed to metrication. As the survey was done by BMRB, does that mean we needn't worry about who commissioned the survey? (I'm surprised by that if it's the case, but I'm (in ignorance, admittedly) dubious as to enforcement of the MRA guidelines). On the second point, the decision by Tesco to start giving prominence to imperial measures is clearly important - it's the biggest retailer in the country, and in addition to the contemporaneous RS, the BBC even mentions the move in its "on this day" (in previous years) feature five years later, and all reports mention the survey. If the survey isn't trustworthy in itself (I can only find this article in RS to suggest it was "commissioned" rather than done by Tesco themselves), what should we do? Not mention the numbers, but generally describe the result (eg "Stating that their own customer research found strong support for imperial measures")? I think omitting all mention of the survey would be odd, given it's a consistent feature of all reports.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the claim is reported in secondary source, Which being a source that is a reliable source, the article linked verifies the claim. That gentlemen is more than good enough for wikipedia. As an aside, I see several familiar names in the history list, who will no doubt see this comment as "invalid" due to past editing disputes. However, I have seen that wherever they seem to edit there does seem to be conflict, perhaps this is not suitable for this board but rather an RFC on user conduct would be better. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:EXPERT, although an essay, does give relevant guidance - in particular Unsourced "expert opinion" and unpublished conjecture have no place in an encyclopedia. The two editors concerned must provide a cite to back up their expert opinion.  What I saw in the talk page wouldn't pass muster.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is frustrating. I've had people attacking someone described as me, without anyone going to the trouble of checking up on what I actually. I posted a lot of well thought out comments in the original thread. Very few people here seem to have read them. Surely responsible editors would have checked on what I actually said. One simple point I now repeat about the stores' alleged surveys.... The sources did not tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. When I go to the supermarket it's with very explicit goals, which would not include stopping to respond to a survey, so people like me don't get polled. Now you at least have something real from me to attack. Do carry on. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have your expertise in this kind of research (and you have asserted expertise as if it gave weight to your view), you'd know very well that a properly done survey would take into account the demographic of people sampled. People like you (age, gender, etc) will get asked. An anecdote: An old sociology professor of mine said that he realised he was getting old when his occasional deliberate walks past supermarkets to see what was being surveyed no longer resulted in being stopped to be interviewed. Old people were easy for them to find, whereas the younger him had been a catch. It's not a perfect method, but it's better than ignoring demographics altogether. In any case, you're still missing the point. It's not whether the survey was reliably done, it's whether it's due to mention the survey results even if there is doubt over their validity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I'm not sure which survey we are talking about. If a poll wasn't done by an independent company in the MRA then it should either not be mentioned or given little weight. If it was done in that way it will be possible to find out who commissioned it, who was polled and how. That information should be given. I found this report of a BMRB survey from 1999, which does seem relevant to this article if it is carefully described and not given undue weight (sorry). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Judith, the point is that the pricing move by Tesco was widely reported (it should be beyond debate that Tesco's actions are DUE content for this article), and in all those reports, Tesco's justification for the move (that 90% figure from their survey) was also reported. Do we omit all mention of the reason Tesco gave, which is - as far as I can see - the position of HiLo48, or do we make paraphrase reference to the results, or state the number but be absolutely clear it was Tesco's own survey? Those of us who think it should be included are happy to acknowledge that as a genuine measure of public opinion or even Tesco shoppers it might be rubbish, but because it gets mentioned consistently in RS, we should find some way of including it (without giving the impression we accept it as a good measure).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support the latter approach if it could be made 100% clear that we know nothing about how the survey was conducted. That's not going to be easy to put into encyclopaedic language. Do you have a proposed wording? HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you were offended by my remarks, which were intended as a measure of honest feedback. I did look at the talk page and spent an hour reading through it.  My impressions were of two editors claiming their "expertise" made them better equipped to give weight to a source than other editors.  Moreover, it seemed that rather than improving the article, it was about promoting the metric system as being more popular than it actually is in the UK.  I saw agenda driven editing behaviour and interpretation of sources.  As regards the question originally posed, the edit conforms to wikipedia's policy and whilst we give great latitude to editors in deciding content I see no real reason for excluding that information - it honestly appears to be as a result of WP:IDONTLIKE.  Honest feedback from an uninvolved editor, you can either accept it or reject it as you like.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * to HiLo48: Excellent - we're finding common ground. I agree it's very tricky to get perfect wording, as we can't say for certain that the details weren't put out by some RS somewhere at the time. (It's depressing that none of them thought to actually include relevant details like...er.... who actually did the survey.) What would be great is tracking down a press release to see if they give details there. Failing that, we could turn an IAR blind eye to a word like "claimed", which is usually seen as weaselly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The section on Questionable sources states: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight". The Wikipedia article Asda cites many examples of Asda being "economical with the truth" (my words). This means that Asda must be a rated as questionable source and therefore should not be mentioned in the article. How does this map onto the rules regarding public opinion and market research surveys?  I gave it some thought and this morning I wondered whether or not public opinion surveys should be subject to a "Devil's Advocate" type test - we assume that everything that was written is truthful, but assume that what was not written was prejudicial to the argument or had some hidden agenda? Martinvl (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But Martinvl, the source we're citing is Which?, not Asda. The reputation of the object of the sourced article is irrelevant.  As the first sentence of WP:VER starts: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...".  All we need to worry about is: is Which? a reliable source and is what we've put in the article supported by the cited Which? source. -- de Facto (talk). 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the fact that a primary source is quoted in a reliable secondary source does not make the primary source reliable - after all, the reliable secondary source might be saying something like "Source X is not only unreliable, but is a load of rubbish!". The actual wording in WP:RELIABLESOURCES is "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made". So what information is this artcile presenting? You have said that it was opening up discussion abouts its reliability - which means that the ASDA statement is questionable until its reliability has been sorted. My view was that Which? was questioning the reliability of ASDA's logic behind changing the sizes of their punnits which again put the reliability of the ASDA into the spotlight.
 * I think that you are reading too much into the WP:VER - Which? magazine have stated that one can reliably state that ASDA conducted sone research that ...." in muich the same way that some publication might reliably state "Richard Dawkins says that God does not exist". That Dawkins made this statement is a verifiable fact [I believe], but the truth of what he said cannot be verified. In the same way, another publication might reliably state "The Archbishop of Canturbury said that God does exist". Similarly, that the Archibishop's made this statement is a verifiable fact [I believe], but again, the truth of what he said cannot be verified.
 * Back to the article in question - I have shown that Which? have not added anything regarding the reliability of ASDA's claim. If your assessment of the Which? Article is followed, then we need to consider merits of the ASDA statement without the backup of Which?'s analysis; if my assessment of the Which? article is followed, then the ASDA statement is unreliable. Either way, it should go. Martinvl (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are still' missing the point. What we put in the article is what the secondary, and reliable, source is saying about the primary source.  Your quote from WP:RELIABLESOURCES is complied with perfectly - the source (Which?) directly supports the claims made - that Asda surveyed its customers and based on the result that 70% of them prefer imperial are experimenting with selling in imperial again, or whatever.  That's what the source says - the statement is verifiable.  We should not be commenting on (because the cited source doesn't) the basis of the survey - to do so without RS support would br OR.  Your argument about Which? questioning the reliability isn't logical - that they offer the discussion point that there are already enough labels on packages doesn't incontrovertibly imply that they therefore doubt the integrity of the survey!  Your Dawkin example is analogous - and supports inclusion.  We're not commenting on the "truth" of it, just that it took place and what the stated results and consequences were - and what we say is verifiable so passes the WP:VER test.
 * That Which? don't comment on the reliability is irrelevant to inclusion of what it does comment on. It just means that we can't use the Which? article to support claims of reliability.  It doesn't mean we can't use it to support what is does say!  The logical conclusion of your interpretation is that nothing can be included in any article if someone, as a result of their OR, can cast doubt on the motives or methods of those who created the primary source.  Fortunately, that's not how it works on Wiki - doubt needs to be notable and from an RS too. -- de Facto (talk). 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, DeFacto, do yourself and the rest of the Wikipedia community a favour and revisit the Which? article and explain how what you wrote in this article squares up with the Which? subtitle  Is buying by weight going out of fashion? to which the author writes ''I’d even take it a step further and say there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping. Most fruit and veg is pre-packed in supermarkets nowadays so we don’t have a clue what it weights.''. In other words, you have taken the Asda statement right out of context in order ot push your own PoV. Martinvl (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Martinvl, those asides don't detract from what was written. Your reading between the lines (aka OR) has no relevance here.  That the survey took place and the results and consequences stated are verifiable from the cited source.  I'm not sure what your grounds for objection are now as they seem to change each time your previous reasons are countered.  Remember too the Wiki civility thing about not personalising discussions of article content. -- de Facto (talk). 10:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite being disputed, Martinvl has edited in this interpretation and insisted that anyone who removes it is a POV editor (I removed it anyway, as it's clearly not based on consensus). Could we have some more eyes on the page? Discussion there is clearly not working with the few of us there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

References to non-English Wikipedias
The article Foot (unit) has a table of legacy feet that were used in various countries in the nineteenth century and earlier. Much of that information was gleaned from such Wikipedias in the appropriate language. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability and normally Wikipedia itself is not permitted as a source as this could result in a circular verifiability sequence. In the case of this particular article, the foreign language Wikipedia cites ofen a reference which is in the language concerned.

An editor has removed all references in this particular article on grounds of WP:CIRCULAR, but without checking that a circular definition does in fact exist – they don’t – the English Wikipedia references the X-language Wikipedia and the X-language Wikipedia references a work in the language X. In such circumstances, how should the English-language Wikipedia reference the X-language document? Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By referencing the X-language document directly. References are not required to be in English (though this is preferred).  References to other wikis are almost always not okay.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Even if I have not actually seen the document in language X? The guidelines for referencing are "Say where you found it". Martinvl (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Dragons flight; the problem is that wikis are not reliable sources. WP:CIRCULAR merely cautions about one way we might rely on Wikipedia as a source without realizing it. Of course, if you can not obtain, or read, the document in language X that are cited in the X language Wikipedia, you cannot support the statements in the article. If the statements are contentious and it appears no one else will find a source, the statements should be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the editor who removed those references per WP:CIRCULAR. I believe that Wikipedia can't be a reference to itself, regardless of language. It doesn't matter if there is an actual complete circle or not; using one wiki as a source for another opens the door to that absurd possibility. A quick look at some only of the other-language wiki sources that Martin has put back into the article seems to indicate that they are either entirely unreferenced, like no:Fot (mål), or sourced (in part at least) to comical pseudo-science sites as is de:Alte Maße und Gewichte (Römische Antike). I am of course happy to assist in directly referencing valid sources in other languages, though I regret I will be away for the next few days. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one way the Wikipedias grow, by translating information from other Wikipedias. We even have templates saying "this article could be expanded by translating from X Wikipedia". One reason a sourcing question then arises is because most other Wikipedias (like this one) have a rule or practice saying that information should be sourced when it might be challenged or controversial. So, in a case like this, the information might be obvious and uncontroversial to (e.g.) a Norwegian reader (therefore not requiring to be footnoted), but not at all obvious to an English reader.
 * This is not in fact WP:CIRCULAR. Justletters is right, surely, that the solution is to add proper references as needed -- and Justletters even offers to work on this.
 * So there's no long term problem. But meanwhile it would be dishonest of Wikipedia to remove a reference to the source we relied on for information while allowing the information itself to remain. Unless we are seriously doubtful that the information is correct (and I don't think that's the case here), the right time to remove the citations of other Wikipedias is when better citations have been put in place. Until then, the citations to other Wikipedias should remain, but a template such as Template:Ref improve section should be added above the relevant table, with an explanation on the talk page. And rew D alby  11:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct - we should not remove sources and allow (now) unsourced information to remain. The proper course of action is to remove the information, too, now that is has been challenged and found wanting of a legitimate source. ElKevbo (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The usual way of dealing with bad citations is to remove the bad citation. If the text needs citation then a citation needed should be put in rather than removing it immediately so some citation can be found. Of course if it seems doubtful and isn't cited it should be removed immediately. And there's next to no circumstances where another wiki is a reliable source though sometimes they can provide some such reference in their citations. Dmcq (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * +1--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If we can trust the other language Wikipedias enough to cite them (which we're not supposed to), then we can trust that they had reliable sources and cite those sources instead. Any reason to not rely on the original sources the other language Wikipedias cited is a reason to not rely on the other language Wikipedias. Either way, we should cite the original source or look for new sources, and not cite the other language Wikipedias. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's about verifiability
This isn't really a question of reliability but verifiability WP:V: Does the summary in the Wikipedia article corresponded to cited content? The cited work itself contains the content which makes the summary reliable, not its appearance in another Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This does constitute a confusing area on Wikipedia though. Our guidelines on sourcing quite clearly state you must state where you find the information, not the original source if you haven't seen it.  That seems to imply that even if the X-language claim is sourced, we can't use the source without checking it first. Similarly, Wikipedia articles are categorically not reliable sources, even if sourced by a reliable source, so we can't source the English language claim using the X-language Wikipedia.   But I then wonder if that violates AGF: for instance, if someone adds a source to Morrissey's article claiming he is vegetarian, would it be unacceptable for us to copy that source over to the List of vegetarians article to list Morrissey as a vegetarian? If we assume good faith i.e. the editor has been honest and neutral in his interpretation of the source's claim then there shouldn't be a problem with that, and by the same token we should be able to just copy the X-language source with the claim into the English language article, so the policies seem to conflict. I would be interested in some concrete clarification on this one. Betty Logan (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies here. If an editor can't personally verify that the cited content corresponds to the summary of it that he or she is adding to a Wikipedia article, then it shouldn't be added. WP:AGF extends to the editors of the English language Wikipedia who are subject to its editing policies and are part of its community processes. patsw (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stronger reference needed for City Title
With reference to an ongoing discussion here Talk:Thiruvananthapuram about whether the city title "Evergreen City" is from a valid source or not.

In my opinion:

1. The city title needs a much stronger reference

2. Existing encyclopaedic material, both online and in print, do not seem to have this statement

3. There has been no mention of this on government documents or publications

4. There is no mention of this title even by the city corporation

5. Book results could not be found

6. If anything Kerala Tourism should have used the title to promote tourism in the city. Even that does not seem to be happening

The statement first appeared on the article in April 2006. In June 2010 a reference was provided but coming from a tourism website Destination360.com and a recent reference from a local news channel website asianetindia.com. The reference is again on a banner or heading. The web search results essentially point to the wikipedia article. Does this still make it a Reliable source? - Amazer007 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I could see that this was already discussed in the article talk page, and was closed. There are some government websites which is used as the reference, such as this: website of DistrictCourt. Thank you, --Samaleks (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That district court is the ONLY govt site available. It also says the area of the city is 2192 sq km. Evidently unreliable. Why no other govt source exist?

Theses
I'm just wondering about how to assess master theses. WP:SCHOLARSHIP only indicates "significant scholarly influence," but how should that be assessed? The only measurement mentioned is citation impact/indexes, but that seems like a very shallow assessment of quality. I'm encountering an editor who believes they generally fall into the category of self-publishing, and I'm just wondering if this is the consensus. Reading WP:SELFPUBLISH, they certainly don't seem to fit the description. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Cbakker (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Theses for the masters level aren't really self published, the question is more how reliable they are as academic sources. If a thesis has been cited by other academic sources, it may be a reliable source, but generally speaking, they are not inherently reliable. Part of the rationale for this position is that pretty much any concept of significantly scholarly value found in a thesis will wind up in an article or dissertation, which are reliable. Also, theses generally meet a lower set of criteria for scholarly work. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response--it's very helpful. The position makes sense, but it does seem a bit problematic. The work, being associated with academics in the field (supervisors and thesis committees) would indicate that there is some academic worth in these texts. Furthermore, there are many reasons why a work might not be published in a journal (or, if published, perhaps the journal article would not be the best resource to cite). Are there no other criteria that wikipedia editors use to assess quality? Cbakker (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, PhD theses count as reliable sources, Masters theses don't. Betty Logan (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Masters do if they have "significant scholarly influence," but I'm hoping to get a definition of that beyond being published in a journal. Cbakker (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is the "traditional" response given here and one which I support. Although some theses may be exceptional, Master's theses are not held to near as high a standard as doctoral dissertations or papers intended for publication in major peer-reviewed journals.  Master's students are simply not expected to be able to do work of that level because they are not yet experienced or knowledgeable enough.
 * Cbakker, I'm sure that you could find many other potential ways to argue that a thesis is reliable and should be included as a source in Wikipedia. Offhand, though, I'm not able to think of any other than "significant scholarly influence" (which is a formal way of saying that "it has been cited or discussed by many others"). ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea behind that is that if they have "significant scholarly influence" then you should be able to easily find a secondary source that reiterates the central claims of the thesis; if you have to cite the thesis directly (other than maybe sourcing some peripheral data) then it most likely doesn't qualify as being influential. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact-checking and oversight for masters' theses is not strong enough. Master's theses are part of an overall degree. The theses have to be good enough to pass the student overall, rather than pass muster as reliable and scholarly work. PhD theses are examined far, far more closely, and typically by people with greater expertise in the area. PhD supervision is also usually done by people more familiar with the topic. (And even then we should be circumspect about PhD theses).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, essentially, a masters thesis either needs to be published in a journal or, presumably, falling into the WP:SELFPUBLISH category of sources published by experts but in formats not deemed to be reliable by wikipedia's standards? Of course, that also brings up the question of what happens if the thesis is published in a journal. Is the journal then to be cited, regardless of whether it's subscription/open access? I also wonder what happens in more practical fields, for example, Social Work, that are less focused on publishing than other fields of study Cbakker (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have to be published in a journal. In some fields, presenting papers at conferences and having them included in conference proceedings is the standard. Theses could also be published as book chapters or, more rarely, monographs.  And it's relatively rare but it's certainly possible for a thesis to become well-known and reliable by our standards if established scholars widely cite the thesis itself.
 * Your question about professional and practical fields is a good one. I don't know the answer.  It's my experience and general impression that the work done by students who are planning to become practitioners is rarely published or advanced because those are not goals for practitioners.  Students who are in research-based fields or those who plan to become researchers or faculty are more likely to aim for publication. ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Publishing works differently in every field and therefore perhaps peer reviewed publication isn't necessarily seen as the best outlet for work. My concern is that works in these fields may not conform to the standards laid out here, and therefore will be discounted even if they are valuable resources to consult on certain topics. Cbakker (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For history and social science theses, it depends entirely on the University, the nature of the masters degree, the nature of the thesis, the article, the statement of claim being supported. There's no hard and fast. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The MA thesis in history generally gets little scrutiny--certainly far less than the PhD dissertation. They are rarely cited in scholarly books or articles. Furthermore they are very hard to obtain and thus of minimal value to Wiki users. Thesis supervisors recommend that good ones be submitted as articles, which are then scrutinized by a scholarly journal. Bottom line: Wiki should rarely cite MA theses, in my opinion, and we should let the WP:RS rule stand. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most theses and dissertations are now available in electronic format, many of them being open access, which would actually make them significantly more accessible than journals or books. Cbakker (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe in your system Rjensen; in the system I work they get quite a bit of scrutiny, which is why it is why we accept MA thesis on a case by case basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with accepting on a case by case basis is that to do that we need corroborating evidence of reliability - such as RS saying the same thing. In which case, use the RS, not the master's thesis.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My criteria would be: a substantial body of work (40K), in a research programme (MA by Research, as opposed to MA by Coursework), from a Research University (ie: they are legally permitted to award research degrees). I'd also look for external assessment of the thesis by experts, rather than internal assessment by whomever was on hand.  Some MAs meet these criteria, a number of Australian system ones for example, and are effectively little Doctorates (reduced scope, etc)—evidencing it would depend on the quality of the University's calendar etc.  I'd expect to see this kind of thesis supporting _local_ or _restricted_ history claims: horse husbandry in a regional centre, the politics of the Melbourne sewer system; where the primary original contribution of the work is the accumulation and analysis of primary sources according to relatively standard historiographical and interpretive positions.  I wouldn't be looking to them for large claims in new territory with new techniques. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean - what would be an MPhil in the UK. And I see your point about local information.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm from a (UK) social sciences background, I certainly couldn't recommend using a Master's or MA thesis, as often they simply represent the bare minimum needed to past (a 40% grade) and may be riddled with errors or misunderstandings. Also I think people are getting a bit confused - if *elements* of a MA or Master's thesis are published in RS, then it is that publication that might be reliable not the original document. They may be similar in content but most MA or Master's documents are simply not suitable for publication in their original format and so will need alternations. I'd also completely dispute the idea that finishing an MA or a Master's indicates (by itself) any form of expertise or endorsement by supervisors or the academic body. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The standards for theses seem to vary quite a bit depending on the institution and field of study. I've certainly never seen a thesis that was accepted though it was "riddled with errors and misunderstandings," but perhaps I've just been very lucky. I do find it odd that the general consensus seems to be that if a work is published in a journal, that indicates its reliability. As we all should know from the Elsevier debacle in 2009, journals are not necessarily indicators of quality. Cbakker (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is why I guess we do it on a case by case basis as standards differ so widely between universities and countries. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

http://christianmusiczine.com
Is http://christianmusiczine.com/ a reliable source? Reliable enough to add as reference for album reviews? anon user 68.8.236.40 has been adding a lot of them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to go against large amounts of advertising and being a zine, but then again, it's just for album reviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping refs
“Looking something like a cross between the Ents of Lord Of The Rings fame and good, old-fashioned stick men, these extraordinary trees would be more at home in a surrealist painting. They were created by a pair of nature-lovers using a painstaking technique known as tree shaping.” daily mail Tree shaping There is some disagreement ranging over multiple talk pages as to whether or not Tree shaping has any reliable refs. My question is, would the above citation be 1. a reliable source 2. support the use of Tree shaping as a title. This citation below is using the wording as a describing term, would this support the use of Tree shaping as a title. The citation is from the same source as above. "'We've been shaping trees ever since.'"
 * Daily Mail Reporter, Associated Newspapers Ltd Published on 29th July 2011 in the UK. Article Title:Root-and-branch transformation: Pair of green-fingered grafters create 'human' trees. Extract from paper.

Due to the large number of refs to check, is it better to check them one at a time or in small groups? ?oygul (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I think this is a case where the Daily Mail is a reliable source. You can bring sources here for discussion in small groups. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"'Swedish American farmer who shaped trees as a hobby'" Published by General Books LLC in 2010 Google books  Book about different American Swedish people, with some text about Alex Erlandson's life and his trees.
 * Book Title: People from Halland: Axel Erlandson, Olof Von Dalin, Fredrik Ström, Niels Valdemarsen
 * Is this citation, 1. a reliable source 2. support the use of Tree shaping as a title. ?oygul (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * please check this ref, can we have some opinions please. ? ?oygul (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Are reader anecdotes from Weird NJ reliable?
I noticed that our article on Clinton Road (New Jersey) is cited almost entirely to a book/web page called Weird NJ and the majority of those cites are anecdotes emailed in by readers with anonymized names such as "SlyC", "U101", and "Scot" who attribute their tales to people such as [http://books.google.com/books?id=XwnJbNeytFcC&pg=PA201&dq=Weird+NJ:+Your+Travel+Guide+to+New+Jersey%27s+Local+Legends+and+Best-Kept+Secrets+castle&hl=en&ei=AY2VTqyjLabq0gGFy8HjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false "Two friends, brothers who I will call John and Bill..." and "I had a friend once who..."], etc. Weird NJ's disclaimer declares that the publication is intended for entertainment, denies responsibility for factual accuracy, and states that oral stories and legends cannot be confirmed independently. I'm all for articles about legends and folklore, but I feel that we should rely on higher quality sources and avoid those like Weird NJ who publish readers sensational 'friend of a friend' stories under the guise of "legend gathering". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly unreliable. Any material based on this source should be removed unless there is a reasonable glimmer of hope that reliable sourcing can be found, which I highly doubt in this case. I've added the article to my watchlist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Context is important when it comes to assessing the reliability of any source... If the article is merely noting that the legends exist and are told, then Weird NJ is a reliable source for that fact (since the book is retelling them)... If the article is noting the fact that some people are of the opinion that these legends are true, I would call it borderline reliable (but we would have to phrase the material as being an opinion, and attribute it) ... If the article is stating (or implying) that the legends are true, then no, it is not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really about reliability but about weight and synthesis. Is there really enough written, in enough places, to allow us to go on at such length about how this road is regarded as such a uniquely weird place? If it is only one website saying that, I wonder. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, whether the legends really "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word requires a lot more than extremely poor-quality anecdotal evidence. I, for example, could go on the site and claim that there is a legend about a mad cow outbreak at a secret government laboratory outside of Trenton that was secretly hushed up by the USDA, which is in the paid services of the beef industry, and now the ghosts of the cows prowl the local pastures until the truth is finally told. There is a realistic chance that my "legend" will be selected for the next edition of the book. After all, why would my anecdote (though clearly fabricated) be any less credible than any of the other anomously submitted anecdotes at the site. There is no evidence that the editors of the site or the book have done any fact checking whatsoever (in fact, they assert that they haven't even tried), so they cannot be considered a reliable source to confirm even the existence of any of the legends, never mind their relevance and notability. There are reliable scholarly sources on local legends, but this isn't one of them. Not by a long shot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is about anecdotes. If it were about facts cited to a reliable source, then it would not be an anecdote.  Our editing decisions to be made about the inclusion on an anecdote which would include The ghost boy at the bridge and exclude others from Weird NJ would be based on relevance and expectations  of reader interest.
 * The Weird NJ site editors do have an editorial filter. (See "How come my story hasn't been published yet?" http://www.weirdnj.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=37  So the claim they are a pass-thru for anonymous nonsense is false.  As Blueboar mentions above context is important.  What would the name of a reliable source for anecdotes about weird places in New Jersey other than Weird NJ?  It is a reliable source for what it claims to be. patsw (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "editorial filter" does not qualify as fact-checking. Based on the disclaimer, stories are selected solely on the basis of their entertainment value. If they found my "legend" about the mad cows entertaining enough, they would have published it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the road is notable, the article should cover the main facts about the road. As in road articles. The long traffic light wait is well sourced. If the haunting stories were significant they would have been mentioned in guide books and the mainstream local press. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Judith, the claim is that the road is notable BECAUSE OF the legends given in the source. See: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Weird NJ is the compiler of anecdotes about New Jersey and has written two books of anecdotes as travel guides. It isn't fact-checking because they are not facts.  It is vetting them as anecdotes and not nonsense.  If one could show that they have a track record of failing to distinguish anecdotes from nonsense, it would be a mitigating factor, but their failure in doing so cannot be presumed.
 * Regarding Weird NJ site editors "editorial filter" : one stated criteria for rejection is "not weird enough". Again, if we are weighting the article toward "weird" rather than WP:V as shown by multiple verifiable sources, we are violating WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This book ranks #2 in travel books on New Jersey
 * This book ranks #1 in travel books on New Jersey
 * If Weird NJ is not a reliable source for New Jersey anecdotes, then who or what is? patsw (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about deleting the article. The Seattle news piece about how rumors draw visitors to the area and the NYT reference saying it has long traffic lights are reliable references for stating those facts. But the bulk of our article consists of excessive detail drawn from one single source, i.e. Weird NJ. That we are giving one source so much weight goes against WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, here is another reliable source for the fact that there are myths, The Travel Channel. But I have an alternate or additional suggestion. You can write the fact that Weird NJ has popularized these myths. You can cite that fact to the New York Times. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here disputes that there are myths. The question is which myths are notable outside the pages of Weird NJ? (e.g. satanic rituals, hellhounds, ghost cars, etc.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said at the article talk page, I have only added to the article those aspects of the folklore which WNJ reported multiple instances of ("motifs" as folklorists call it). The special volume they put together on Clinton Road has a lot more stuff than the article does, much of which is definitely entertaining but didn't, when I was reviewing it, merit inclusion as there was only one claim that this had happened. Come on ... give me some credit, I understood WP:NOT and WP:CRUFT even back then. As for the claim that we're overreliant on the one source, I can understand that facially, and the AfD was helpful as far as finding other reliable sources besides WNJ. I certainly would like to have more, and of course anyone who finds them is free to add them to the article. But, as with most folklore, the raw data is usually collected by one researcher, and subsequent research usually just cites the primary accounts in the originating research, because it's often impractical and/or unnecessary to do the same fieldwork again. I mean, there's a lot of local folklore that was collected by the Federal Writers Project during the 1930s that's been cited and recited so much since that it's hard to tell it all basically came from the same original source. I think we need to recognize some nuance to an understandable wariness of articles that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on one indisputably reliable source (I have gotten this from time to time at DYK over WP:NRHP articles, where I have sometimes had to rely on the nomination form as an exclusive or nearly-exclusive source). It has been established that there is nothing in policy that requires multiple reliable sources, despite the existence of a warning template suggesting otherwise. It seems, as far as I can tell, that that template exists for situations where new users have relied on one source, and usually a primary source at that. It is well and good to remind people that the memoirs of a notable person are not and should not be the only source for his or her biography, but I think there is not only a distinction to be made in this regard between primary and secondary sources (and I would consider a fair amount of WNJ's Clinton Road coverage outside of the letters section to be secondary sources, since it is editorially filtered and is sometimes balanced with independent historical research (i.e., that's where the bit about the road's reputation a century ago came from) but there is also one to be made where it is reasonably likely that there may not be second reliable secondary source. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering its disclaimer, your suggestion that Weird NJ is on par with academic sources or in some way comparable to Federal Writers Project is a bit of a stretch. I think we all appreciate your work on the article and the personal decisions you've made regarding what to include and exclude, however in my opinion, these matters are more appropriately decided by a broader consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience collections of folklore, regardless of who undertook them, generally boil down to transcriptions of what informants told the researcher interspersed with explanatory text and (sometimes) commentary. I don't find this too different from the way WNJ presents its Clinton Road material, even if the accompanying text is less scholarly. The hardback book, which I credited as a source around the time I wrote most of the article, is filtered from stuff in various issues of the magazine, as well as material from the special issue they did on Clinton Road, most of which was written by Joanne Austin, not Messrs. Sceurman and Moran who edit the magazine and the books. I only had the book at the time; perhaps I should now use the original issue since it goes into more detail and I've had it for quite some time although I'm not sure where in the house it is anymore. But it's in the house. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence should be punctuated thusly to avoid the comma splice: "'' I think we all appreciate your work on the article and the personal decisions you've made regarding what to include and exclude; however in my opinion, these matters are more appropriately decided by a broader consensus". Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * More sources for Clinton Road hauntings being notable outside the pages of Weird NJ: Ghost investigator: New York & New Jersey, Volume 4 By Linda Zimmermann; Spooky New Jersey: Tales of Hauntings, Strange Happenings, and Other Local Lore By S. E. Schlosser, Paul G. Hoffman. With Weird NJ and the Travel Channel episode linked above, that's 4 sources. This is about ghost stories, folks, we aren't going to find them written about in Science or the New England Journal of Medicine. --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Less hysterical sources such as this exist and are thankfully free of WP:FRINGE view pushing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. We're not talking about the article's point of view here as far as I know. As long as the article doesn't improperly include a publication's point of view, why should that matter for purposes of including facts from said publication? I don't see how it's WP:SKEPTIC's, or indeed Wikipedia's, job to steer people to sources with the correct point of view (and unless those books are self-published, they can be considered reliable sources for the existence of claimed paranormal activity, apart from any assessment of the veracity of such claims. In fact, I would consider a book of local haunted spots to be a better source to use to support such claims than (ahem) a hiking guidebook. In fact, you do realize that both my book and the one you linked both give explicit credit to Weird NJ for compiling all the accounts. (And before you ask, we have different publishers and I don't know the people who wrote the other one). Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Before we get too far off track, I don't think anybody wants to keep legends or ghost stories about New Jersey out of Wikipedia or steer readers to some point of view. In the case of Clinton Road (New Jersey), it's simply a matter of due weight and notability. Having been around WP a while, you know that we include material in proportion to attention it's been given in multiple reliable sources. You also probably know that WP does consider certain sources less reliable and independent than others. For example, a book by an author attempting to make a case for hauntings and ghosts isn't considered an independent source of fact about legends of hauntings. That's why material about legends found a hikers guide is less problematic. Any particular legends in Clinton Road (New Jersey) that are covered by more than one source (in addition to Weird NJ) should certainly stay. But I advise trimming the stuff propagated by WNJ alone from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily consider Weird NJ as attempting to argue for the verifiable existence of such hauntings simply by reporting at length on them ... they've carried material that debunks or finds rational explanations for such claims as well. And even if they didn't, to me imputing an agenda simply in the volume of coverage is sort of authoritarian-government logic ... "they carry lots of stories critical of the government, therefore they must be trying to bring the government down". And I honestly think using a hiking guidebook to more reliably source alleged hauntings makes about as much sense as using haunted-house guidebooks to more reliably source descriptions of hiking trails because the hiking guidebook is published by an organization that (as mine was) actively promotes hiking and conservation. But ... I do think we've reached sort of a a happy medium here, as I can see enough of your point that, when I get the chance later, I will add the additional sources for most of what's in the article (So I'll have to cite myself, but as the research for the hiking guidebook also allowed me to do research and photography for Wikipedia this was inevitable at some point anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. Perhaps I did not express myself well. "The verifiable existence of hauntings" is not an issue here. I have been trying to tell you that rumors, legends and stories need to be verifiable as notable rumors, legends and stories by being given attention in multiple reliable sources. You feel that one single source (Weird NJ) is enough. Of course I disagree. But I am glad to know you'll be adding additional reliable sources and welcoming input from other editors to help improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

middle name is wrong
the middle name for Randol is not O'Doyle, it is simply Doyle. i know this because I am Randol Doyle Choate.


 * Does this relate to our article on the baseball player, Randy Choate? Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr. Choate. I checked with Baseball-reference.com and they list your name as "Doyle" just as you said.  We apologize for the error.  I've gone ahead and fixed the article. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Infoplease?
Is Infoplease (www.infoplease.com) a reliable source? This site is apparently run by the organization that compiled the Information Please Almanac for many decades, but I'm not sure if that publication's presumed reliability has carried over to their web site content. Someone recently tried to cite Infoplease as a source for a claim made at Dred Scott v. Sandford. Rich wales (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to their copyright page it is still run by the information please people but is owned by Pearson education. I would say it is reliable. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should refer to the specific edit when asking. Here is the link.  The source does not support the statement, and the text was removed from the article as original research.  TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

members.tripod.com
These sources  from the website where anyone can build their own website  are being used to source David Barton (author), a BLP. There's no way of verifying that the reprinted content was not edited or modified. The sources should be disallowed. Relevant previous discussion here. – Lionel (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those two pages claim to be "reprinted with the author's permission" from Church and State. If that's true, what we're really citing is a couple of articles in Church and State, with convenient links to online copies: no problem.
 * Copies of all kinds of things can be doctored, but is there any reason to suppose that these copies are doctored? Copyright statements can be made without the copyright holder's knowledge, but is there any reason to suppose that's happened here? If yes, then just cite the original articles in Church and State and omit the link to the website.
 * The previous discussion, to which you link, is about an original web page at members.tripod.com, not a copy of published material. And rew D alby  12:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS states "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." This personal website has no reputation and no oversight. What they do have is a self-admitted bias: "First, and foremost, there are a number of anti-separationist web pages in existence attempting to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. We feel the need to counter these efforts with a web page of our own. " Using a source like this circumvents WP:V. This source should be disallowed for the same reason Youtube is generally disallowed: we do not know that the content uploaded is a genuine and true copy. This means that anyone can launch a website, upload doctored articles, and trick us into citing them. It is a backdoor past WP:V that must be stopped. – Lionel (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming that the version of the article posted online is doctored? As you know, two articles from the same journal are hosted in the same place. An official copy of one of them has been found and it is identical. The material in question is not exceptional.   Will Beback    talk    02:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If an official copy has been found... cite that and not the one hosted on the questionable website. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two articles from the same journal and author that are cited in the Barton bio. Both of them are reprinted on the Tripod site. After Lionel complained, one of them was found on the journal's website and that link is now being used instead.   Will Beback    talk    03:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.members.tripod.com - is not a reliable source for anything here on wikipedia en. If challenged they can and imo should should be removed. Replace with the details of the article they are claiming to be, if the original is not available on line you should really somehow access the original to verify content details, especially if it is contentious/disputed content. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Query for National Front (UK)
I am wondering if this is considered a reliable source for supporting the National Front's ideology of fascism. There is already one reference in there, but I feel another would be helpful. The reason that I am curious is because, despite being a mainstream news source, it doesn't appear to be (in this editor's humble opinion) as reputable as sources such as The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Independent. The article appears to be somewhat informal and very opinionated. I was the one who re-added this link to the article, but I'm not wholly sure if it was the right decision: could you guys give your opinion on whether or not I should be using this source? Thanks. –  Richard  BB  21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO this does pass RS, but it is, as you say, somewhat opinionated, so think another source should be used for the statement if possible. And I think it should be possible. You should be able to use this book without even having to open it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As it happens, someone has already cited that book. Thanks for the suggestion, though! –  Richard  BB  21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mirror is a major tabloid newspaper in England. The website in question is its on-line version.  Tabloids are generally less reliable than broadsheet news outlets... but that does not mean they are unreliable. As for it being opinionated,  there is nothing wrong with a source having an opinion. As long as we present that opinion as being opinion and attribute it ("According to the Mirror...") we are fine.  Opinions can be balanced with counter opinions (and each given its Due weight). Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, from that, it seems that using the Mirror reference in the article itself (such as under the policies section) is acceptable, but it probably wouldn't be wholly appropriate for the infobox itself. What are your thoughts on this? –  Richard  BB  21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... yeah... I would agree with that. Not reliable enough for the info box.  Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think a newspaper is reliable enough for what is effectively an analysis of a political ideology. The Mirror is fine for reporting facts, but this is an analysis. Is there any indication that the reporter has any background or a serious publication record in assessing political ideologies? Just because a reporter calls something "fascist" doesn't make it so; it's an opinion not a fact.  For the record I don't actually dispute the claim that the NF is fascist, but I think an academic source is required here, or a book or a writer that is clarly informed about political ideology. If the journalists' claim really does reflect contemporary thinking on the NF it shouldn't be too hard to track down a better source than the Mirror newspaper. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Betty - this is just a newspaper (and a red-top), and the Mirror is on the left anyway (i.e. would their editorial use of "fascist" always be careful and precise?) Academic books and articles are far better for this kind of analysis, and I'm sure there's enough out there for this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well; I'll remove the Mirror citation from the infobox under this advice. Thanks for your help, guys. –  Richard  BB  09:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to call a group fascist, or attribute any other ideology, you need a source that substantiates that that is how they are normally viewed. A whole bunch of sources that each call them fascist does not do this.  Academic sources are preferable because it is usually clear when they call a group fascist whether they are expressing a personal view or the generally accepted view, and often they will explicitly state what the general view is.  Otherwise, it is wrong to provide numerous weak sources rather than one good source.  TFD (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A useful source, apparently not used in the article, is The New Fascists by Professor Paul Wilkinson. This is a popular book by an academic specialising in political violence. Wilkinson describes the NF as a "neo-fascist movement" and its leadership as "deeply imbued with Nazi ideas". I am happy to provide detailed citations, or to scan relevant pages, if that is any help. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I always prefer to avoid popular books, in this case Pan Books, because it is often difficult to distinguish authors' opinions from facts and usually does not explain the degree of weight that should be assigned to various views. Sometimes popular books are just a reflection of their academic writings, but sometimes they can be of poor quality.  TFD (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Roland, if you could provide the citation info on EDL being called fascist, it would be so very much appreciated. –  Richard  BB  20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The book says nothing about the EDL; it was published in 1983. RolandR (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, apologies! I meant the NF (sorry, I keep various far-right groups, EDL included, on my Watchlist). –  Richard  BB  23:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, apologies! I meant the NF (sorry, I keep various far-right groups, EDL included, on my Watchlist). –
 * OK. After discussing the Italian MSI, Wilkinson writes: "The only other case among the western democracies of a neo-fascist movement making some progress towards creating an effective mass party with at least a chance of winning some leverage, is the National Front (NF) in Britain. It is interesting that the NF, like the MSI, has tried to develop a 'two-track' strategy. On the one hand it follows an opportunistic policy of attempting to present itself as a respectable political party appealing by argument and peaceful persuasion for the support of the British electorate. On the other, its leadership is deeply imbued with Nazi ideas, and though they try to play down their past affiliations with more blatantly Nazi movements, such as Colin Jordan's British National Socialist Movement, they covertly maintain intimate connections with small neo-Nazi cells in Britain and abroad, because all their beliefs and motives make this not only tactically expedient but effective." Paul Wilkinson, The New Fascists, Pan Books Ltd, London 1983, p 73. ISBN 0330269534.
 * Thank you very much for that, Roland! It is incredibly appreciated. –  Richard  BB  13:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

www.abttf.org
A publication by the organization www.abttf.org, in English the "Association of the Turks of Western Thrace" is being used by some Turkish users to assert violent incidents against the Turks of Western Thrace. Because this is a self-published advocacy source, and almost none of the incidents it mentions have been corroborated by third-party sources (e.g. human rights organizations), I deem it unreliable. The source is used to make the claim of "frequent attacks" against this group. I would like a third party opinion. Athenean (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response
Is this source "Wilkinson, Paul (2011) Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response Routledge ISBN 978-0415587990 pp 136" suitable for this edit An editor has removed it saying it is opinion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Paul Wilkinson is Emeritus Professor of International Relations and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) at the University of St Andrews. He is author of several books on terrorism issues and was co-founder of the leading international journal, Terrorism and Political Violence." I previewed the 2006 edition of the same text, Wilkinson makes as a fundamental claim in his introduction and chapters that Al-Qaeda is a network, that Al-Qaeda is terrorist, and that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist network.  Routledge is (in part) an academic publisher, and this book was published as an academic text.  While the claim that Al-Qaeda is a "terrorist network" may be an opinion, E/Prof Paul Wilkinson is precisely the kind of academic entitled to have his opinion on whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist network treated as the scholarly academic opinion.  reliable for this use. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The quality of the source is not questioned and this section is pointless. The reason why it must go is that wikipedia is suppose to be a neutral website, organizations are not to be stuck with opinionated labels like terrorist or freedom fighter, but are to be factually stated what they are, mainly militant groups. See WP:Terrorist. Public awareness (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely reliable for this purpose. Labels are no reason to exclude. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of what is placed on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Terrorist says we should avoid these terms "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." I admit I haven't done a formal survey, but I'll make a wild guess that a lot of reliable sources refer to Al Qaeda as terrorist, including academic ones. Try a google books search limiting publishers to "university press" - you'll find an awful lot of examples.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to explain what the source says. Is he expressing his opinion or explaining the academic consensus?  TFD (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I note from the talk page that other sources have also been mentioned. I think there is really no justification for this deletion. It looks like wikilawyering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the talk page PublicAwareness has been invited to cite sources that say Al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization. If reliable sources can be found for that view, it would be good to cite them in the article. But there is a strong consensus in neutral and reliable sources that Al-Qaeda's methods are accurately described as terrorist. It makes sense to put this description, citing a good academic source, in the lead paragraph. And rew D alby  12:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found the source used, which is part of the chapter on "Aviation Security" on p. 136. The source does not appear to support TLAM's edit.  The irony is that it would not be hard to find a source that did.  Much better to use a chapter that specifically describes terrorist groups or al Qaeda.  TFD (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"The size of bin Laden’s organization, its political goals, and its enduring relationship with a fundamentalist Islamic social movement provide strong evidence that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but an insurgency." - US Lieutenant Colonel Michael F. Morris, 2005, A military paper based solely on whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization or an insurgency. Public awareness (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As discussed on that talkpage (where there seems to be a clear consensus), the guideline has been mis-characterized by PA. Vsev above clarifies what the guideline actually says quite correctly.  I see the same was done on the talk page in question, after it was misrepresented starkly.  I'm supportive of TLAM's view here, though I would suggest he not let this get him any angrier ...--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The great Will Rogers said (paraphraing from memory) "It is not what we don't know that gets us in the most trouble -- It is what we know that just ain't so." Various contributors here, and on the talk page, have argued that the article on al Qaeda can state that al Qaeda is a terrorist group as if this were an accepted fact, and that it is not necessary to state who has described AQ as a terrorist group.  I think User:Public awareness has made a number of excellent points.  We avoid stating what we regard as "common knowledge" as if it were a fact.  Doing so is necesary to comply with the neutral point of view, as public awarenes has pointed out.  In addition "common knowledge" can be wrong.  Consider Abu Zubaydah -- Back when he was captured, and for years afterwards, the Bush administration routinely described him a senior member of al Qaeda -- one of Osama bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, in his inner circle.  This too was "common knowledge", repeated without question by just about everybody.  More sober, mature elements of the US counter-terrorism establishment quietly acknowledge now that Abu Zubaydah was never a senior al Qaeda leader, that he was never even a member of al Qaeda.  What Abu Zubaydah first volunteered to his original interrogators was that he was part of the management of a rival training camp to Al Qaeda's training camps.  That a key ideological point separated his group from al Qaeda -- his group did not believe in attacking civilians or in launching a first strike against the USA.  More sober elements of the US counter-terrorism establishment are now willing to quietly acknowledge that he may have told everything of value he knew, prior to the hundreds of hours of extremely brutal torture he was subjected to, and that the confessions and denunciations wrung from him, under torture, were completely useless.  You will find that hysterical over-reaction over Abu Zubaydah's role still infects the less sober elements of the US counter-terrorism establishment.  Bensayah Belkacem, for instance, remains in Guantanamo, while his five friends were released, because of (as yet unsubstantiated) reports that Belkacem and Abu Zubaydah exchanged three dozen phone calls in the weeks following 9-11.  Really, to whatever extent we should be concerned that our articles affect public opinion, and the opinion of decision-makers, and to whatever extent we should be concerned that our articles affect policy decisions, it is really important that we stick strictly to our policies on the neutral voice, and attributing opinions to verifiable reliable sources.  I don't think anyone has objected to stating that al Qaeda is widely characterized as a terrorist group, providing those characterizations are properly attributed and referenced.  I don't think anyone objects to properly referenced explanations as to why RS call AQ a terrorist group.  But stating it as a fact is both counter-policy, and unwise.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Geo Swan, it is good to see someone else agree that "it is really important that we stick strictly to our policies on the neutral voice, and attributing opinions to verifiable reliable sources." and yes I do not object one bit to "stating that al Qaeda is widely characterized as a terrorist group, providing those characterizations are properly attributed and referenced.". Public awareness (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Public awareness (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT reliable as the NYT and not the U.S. government on the ISI?
This NYT profile says this about Inter-Services Intelligence: "The agency helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the 1990's, and many American officials suspect that those ties still are at work. It has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks." I sourced the parts that weren't attributed to U.S. officials in the article. In this part of the talk page, however, an editor is concluding that the NYT is only sourcing its statements to the U.S. government. "They have not mentioned any other source. They have not refered to any other party. If you read the full article in a flow, the only impression you get is that they are conveying US govt's POV", they say. I've argued that no, the article is reliable as a product of the NYT for statements not attributed to the U.S. government. Is it? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The NYT article itself is stating all the facts in reference to US govt's opinion as they credit all along the article (So for this article, there's no question of NY times' own POV). The quoted part by above user is in a paragraph that starts with:


 * "In the minds of many American officials..." (hence giving US gvt as source, which is POV)


 * Also gives a neutral reference (and so many other sources are given on the article talk page) to claim the opposite.


 * 2. Being based in US, neutrality is disputed on such a topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor, Hassanhn5/1TopGun1, has taken it upon themselves to determine the answer to this question. However, I believe this is a POV violation by presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Is the NYT reliable as the NYT for the italicized information: The agency helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the 1990's, and many American officials suspect that those ties still are at work. It has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks.? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its RS for the fact the NYT claimes it, not RS for it being true. it would be RS for The NYT claims that The agency helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the 1990's, and that many American officials suspect that those ties still are at work. The NYT also claims that it has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why attribute? Right now the lead states: Its work has included supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s (with U.S. and Saudi funding) and supporting the Taliban's rise in Afghanistan in the 1990s.[1] Its precise and current relationship with the Afghan Taliban is unknown.[1] to the satisfaction of me and 1TopGun1. The source for this is a LSE study by a Harvard guy. Jesanj (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Becasue thats not the only claim being made by the source.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But the decision to attribute suggests to readers it's just the NYT's opinion, and it is not factual per se. Isn't that a decision that can only be made after analyzing a variety of sources? Anyhow, thanks for commenting though that the source stands on its own as the NYT and should not be attributed to the U.S. government. That's really the reason for the discussion. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In a sence the opposite is ture, if a source makes a claim then its not a fact, its an opinion, if that fact is repeated by other sources (independant of the first sources) it a fact, not an opinion (not very well worded). Thus is the NTY is the only source for this claim its the NYt's opinion (and thus cannot be presentedm in a way that inpplies its not a view only held by the NYT, if however other sources also make the claim its a general claim and not just one made by the NYT then we do not have to attribute it as long as we give ma few sample sources for the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is not how WP:RS works. If a reliable source (and the NYT is such for recent events and history) makes unattributed claims, the presumption is that they are correct. If there are significant diverging opinions, then we present all significant points of view. We don't require multiple independent reliable sources for one statement of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So we do not attrubte this to the NYT?Slatersteven (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if its in an opinion piece or editorial, or if there are significant, reliably sourced divergent viewpoints. See WP:YESPOV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The claims are not unattributed. They have been attributed to the US officials. I would advise editors to review the source article for themselves so as to give a more neutral opinion on which one is true. Secondly, If they did make unattributed claims (for the sake of argument), we do need other independent sources not related to any of the countries in question for reliability. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two different kinds of attribution. On the one hand, the NYT does attribute some claims to other sources, and we need to fairly reflect that. But Wikipedia will not, in general, attribute an uncontested claim by a RS to that RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Newsofap.com
Newsofap.com. Is it a reliable source for precise statements which are not mentioned in any other RS??  Secret of success  Talk to me  07:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Be specific. What page? What statement? And rew D alby  17:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to be potentially OK but arguable. Their self-description makes them look like a regular reputable news organization, so it's not like it's just some blog. Whether there's any rigor to their editorial oversight I can't say. It's an online-only entity, which is kind of a red flag, since there's essentially no cost to publish material. If the material is not contentious and is within their scope of expertise it might be OK. Echoing Andrew Dalby, I'd like to know what statements exactly are being referenced. Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My query is about this link which talks about the sister cities of Hyderabad, India. In the article you can see six cities Osaka, Orlando, Munich, Taipei, Bloemfontein, Medellín being claimed as sister cities of Hyderabad and none of them claim a similar relation with Hyderabad in their articles or in their official site. No third party also supports such a claim. Then how can it be a good source? Also, have a look at the "About us" page of the site. It lists out barely 10-15 people who are neither notable nor experts in the field they take care of. The website also doesn't satisfy WP:WEB criteria.  Secret of success  Talk to me  13:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked Orlando and the claim does not seem to be correct, so newsofap should not be used as a source for this info.--FormerIP (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Could you kindly post this in Talk:Hyderabad, India page?  Secret of success  Talk to me  13:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Royal (author) on John Cornwell (writer)
John Cornwell (writer), in his book Hitler's Pope, advanced the controversial view that Pope Pius XII was antisemitic, and supportive of the Nazi regime. This 2004 article on The Claremont Institute website by editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal (author) is being used to support a claim that the picture on the book's cover was used misleadingly "in an apparent attempt to portray Pacelli as cozy with the Nazi government". Is this a reliable source for this claim? Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Royal a reliable source for the factual comment about when, where and how the photo was taken? Most certainly given his academic credentials and experience. Is he a reliable source about whether or not there was deliberate misrepresentation going on? No, but then again who is except the people who chose the image for the cover? I agree that the information at least needs to be rewritten with attribution if it makes any accusation of deliberate misrepresentation, but that is par for the course when it comes to criticism in general. Whether or not this is noteworthy criticism is another matter, one that has nothing to do with reliability.Griswaldo (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm even more confused by this issue now. The entry already contains a lengthy criticism from Ronald J. Rychlak which includes the cover photo issue, and is sourced to this article. Why didn't someone just add that Royal has made the same criticism and source it to his article and be done with it? Much ado about nothing.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit there to that effect has fixed the problem, in my opinion. Case closed. As you might imagine, having an outside editor make that edit often makes the edit more likely to "stick". Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Question - Why is this thread title not about the article in question, Hitler's Pope? As written it is misleading and makes it sound like the issue involves Cornwell's entry, or indeed involves Cornwell at all. There is no indication whatsoever that Cornwell chose the image for the book cover. It is indeed my understanding that the publishers often do that, and to be clear the edits in question are at the book entry not Cornwell's. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The thread title is about the source for the allegation, and the subject of the allegation. In my experience, that's how it's normally done. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

About.com article on the Superman Curse
Is this About.com article reliable as a source for the Superman curse article? Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not for statements of fact. It might be appropriate for text along the lines of ""paranormal researcher" Stephen Wagner says that...". Under no circumstances would I trust about.com articles on fringey subjects for anything more than a claim of the writer's own belief. For examples see ., . I'd go so far as to say that some about.com writers use it as a platform for pushing deeply fringe views. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * About.com is really equivalent to a primary source, since there is virtually no editorial oversight. Reliable for the what the author thinks/believes, but then it's a question of whether what the author thinks is suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, because I did rely on it both for the author's arguments against the curse, but also for some factual statements, like what Bob Holliday did after playing the character. Can you guys look over the seven passages in the article where I cited that source, and tell me which you think are inappropriate? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello? Nightscream (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All of them. About.com does not guarantee the expertise of its authors, "guides". Stephen Wagner's main claim to fame seems to be a book published by PublishAmerica. Read our article, or Atlanta Nights, about the quality of PublishAmerica. The source you're using is actually by Brian McKernan - I have no idea who he is, but I can't find any evidence he's a reliable source published expert on the topic. Without that, your source is basically one guy writing something and another guy putting it on the web. Not RS. --GRuban (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, the IP posting in Articles_for_deletion/Superman_curse_(2nd_nomination) seems to have a reliable source or two for you. ABC News is a fine source. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I posted more sourced in the AFD. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban, so the CNN and People sources are not RS either? Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a case where WP:SENSATION applies to sometimes reliable sources. No, under the circumstances, not reliable. It's tabloid trash. About.com is much like IMDB. It's user-created content. Certainly can't be used to establish notability. BusterD (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What about CNN and People? Just because the topic is sensationalistic doesn't mean that content is unreliable. CNN is either unreliable a source, or it's not, isn't it? Nightscream (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I stopped keeping track of this topic because I thought it was done. The CNN source is fine, I linked to it myself in the AfD. I don't like the People source because it seems to be merely an off-hand mention, rather than devoted to the concept. But in the AfD there are now plenty of fine reliable sources devoted to the concept. Please use them in the article, so there won't be a 3rd AfD. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon sales links
Hi, I was under the historic impression that we don't add links to amazon sales externals such as this http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004QXZYYE - am I wrong, are such links fine? Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazon is a reliable primary source for their sales figures. However it is problematic primary source because of some instances of manipulation of sales figures. Since they continually change, any link should probably be to a date-specific archived copy, such as WebCite. How is it being used in this instance?    Will Beback    talk    20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So the sales page can be used as a reliable source for the amazon sales figures of individual books? - Duplicated now at Murder of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox - can you point me to where the sales figures are in the external http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004QXZYYE and if such usage is ok for sales figures do the sales figures need to be included in our article?  - Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sales figures at those articles, nor do I see why we'd report the sales figures of one book out of the many that are listed. I'd discourage their use, but more because of NOR than V. If there is a good reason to use them, they should come from archives, as I wrote above, other wise they will quickly go stale. BTW, I don't see any sales figures at all on the Amazon page. Am I missing something?     Will Beback    talk    21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to progress, it was you that said it was ok to use them for sales figures - I thought these sales links to Amazon are not allowed full stop? Are you suggesting the way these externals to Amazon are being used in the diffs I presented are correct or not? In this way, can I add this link to the Osho article - http://www.amazon.com/Book-Secrets-Keys-Mystery-Within/dp/0312180586 - Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't present any diffs. If there were a special reason for using Amazon's sales figures then it would be an adequate source. However they don't really provide actual sales, so far as I know, just a ranking that can change depending on the relative popularity of other books. The only instance I could see for using those ranking would be if a secondary source refers to them and we want to add a primary source for the exact number.   Will Beback    talk    22:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, Amazon is a reliable source for its sales figures. But if this information is really worth including on Wikipedia, a secondary source would have also covered this.  If you can give us more information, that would be helpful.  What content is to being cited to Amazon?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - Can I add this http://www.amazon.com/Book-Secrets-Keys-Mystery-Within/dp/0312180586 to the Osho /additional reading section of the Osho article ? and all other similar amazon sales links in similar situations at all other articles - the sales figures is a red herring to be better ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With few exceptions, we should not be adding links to Amazon sales pages. Sales figures are not an exception, because they are being reported by the seller and are thus self-published and may only be used in the article about Amazon itself, not about any third-party products. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't look like a good idea at all. I thought that we were talking about citing Amazon for a sales figure, not for promotional reasons.  This might be a violation of WP:ELNO #5 and/or #15. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the links could be used to show that a book exists and is published by an independent publisher where ISBN links are unavailable.LedRush (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't these books got ISBN numbers, or are they unverifiable anywhere else apart from a sales site? Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No we don't use book sales links to establish the existence of a book. We use book reviews. If the book doesn't have a review in a reliable source, then it's not a notable book and shouldn't even be mentioned. If it's a book that predates ISBNs, use the Library of Congress catalog number. If it's a recent self-published, on-demand, or vanity press book without an ISBN, again, it should not be mentioned at all. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I really can't tell what this is about - despite the heading I don't think the OP is asking about sales figures. Rather, this appears to be a question of whether an Amazon page can be used as a source for the existence of a book. Is that correct?
 * I disagree with Yworo that we should only mention a book if it has been reviewed. The existence can be shown many other ways. I do agree that self-published books shouldn't be mentioned (unless by an established expert), per WP:SPS.    Will Beback    talk    22:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(meant as friendly note) It seems as though things may have degenerated into a long wall of text which may be missing the mark from the original question. Reading it has given me a headache. Would it be okay to collapse some of it as off-topic in an effort to get it back on track? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - I removed the sales links from the Knox BLP - we don't add them at all, red herrings or not, as User:Will Beback will soon show you if you go add one to the article of someone he opposes. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's is that supposed to mean?   Will Beback    talk    23:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, you revert warred that Tripod external into a BLP article - discussion is above (I had to remove it after you supported and reverted it back into the article) and you seem to have no focused idea what this discussion is about - perhaps considering it s better you don't opine here. Huh? Do you accept Amazon sales links into the articles of subjects you oppose? No of course you don't - never - ever. I have removed the sales externals and reverted your revert of the tripod external, do you intend to revert again or do you object to my edits? What is it that you are claiming to not understand?  Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand much of this thread. Apparently, you were not asking about using Amazon as a reliable source for sales figures, but rather were asking about using it as an external link in a bibliography, where the objection would be to the commercial nature not the reliability. If so, this was the wrong noticeboard. Now, you are comparing a WP:convenience link to Tripod to a link to a commercial bookseller, which I do not see as comparable issues. And you are asking me about reverts to the Amanda Knox articles, which I've never edited. Further, you've chosen to turn in this inquiry into a personal attack on my character, for no good reason that I can discern.    Will Beback    talk    00:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can assure you this is not an attack on your character. - my comments have opined in relation to your position in regard to the external links - and my understanding that your position and revert has been against policy. You are the person that muddled the discussion as if it was about sales figures, it never was and how you considered it was is beyond me. Your input in this discussion was more disruptive than resolving, perhaps, if you accept to please do not comment about reliable sources at this noticeboard that will resolve this. Do you still support your prior position and do you object to my edits? Are you still of the position that disputed so called "convenience links" in that wp:essay,  when disputed in a BLP should be reverted back in?   - It seems Will that we need to update and get in line with the project - that essay you are using to support your reverts for example appears to have more or less been written prior to BLP becoming policy. You are having a larf - go on (as you did before..) then replace the tripod external again in the BLP...... I wouldn't do it but its an amusing thought to add some sales promotion externals to Sat Baba or La Rouche el al and see how you react. - I think you would understand the thread then. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is Off2RioRob's MO. He revert wars, accuses others of doing it, and tries to be as unnecessarily antagonistic in his edits as possible. The amazon links used in the MoMK article were the result of a consensus for notable audiobooks (and perhaps one other book) which didn't have ISBNs but which otherwise met WP reliability standards. But who cares...let the antagonistic posts fly!LedRush (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I have no standard MO - that is one of my strengths. Recently, I am working a WP:1RR position - that was the main reason I did not revert you - I moved to the talkpage and discussed and added an uncited template - it was when there was support in discussion and your position was disputed and you did not assert a strong position within policy and guidelines that I again edited the content you reverted with a false edit summary. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your mass revert and said there were sources. All the books had sources.  You are correct that the documentaries didn't, but I didn't think they were needed there based on the consensus reached on MoMK (which included several admins), that for the purpose of a bibliography those cites weren't necessary.  Honestly, I don't know which policy is correct.  Buy going around calling everyone else a liar, accusing them of edit warring when you are reverting with misleading information, and being as antagonistic as possible is not the way to address this.LedRush (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * as you call it, "liar" was only mentioned once in this thread and that was you that mentioned it - no one apart from you has referred to anyone as a liar. Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, because you have to use that word to convey that concept. Right.LedRush (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, yours was the conclusion reached by the editors and Admin on the MoMK talk page. Remember, we are talking about the inclusion of a book in a bibliography.LedRush (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

East Week magazine
Would East Week magazine be considered a reliable source for this section in the Foxconn article? There's currently a discussion going on about that section of the article. Unfortunately, the source is in Chinese print, and the editor who introduced the section has not been able to translate or provide an online version of the source, so I have no idea what it actually says. Thanks in advance! -Multivariable (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

When is a self-published source being "unduly self-serving"?
A group of previously uninvolved editors has been discussing some sources linked in the article on Semitic Neopaganism. The discussion is civil and as far as I can see none of us has a previous connection with the article, having all been drawn there by discussions at AN/I and elsewhere. I think the crux is our problem applying the policy on WP:SELFPUB. Rather than going into the problem here and risking me not setting it out impartially, the discussion is fairly concisely contained at this section of the talk page. Would someone be able to pop by and give us an opinion? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You really need some reliable source talking about a place in the context of the topic before including something about it. In this case it seems that nobody else noticed the site so what it says about itself is irrelevant, it should just be ignored. In general we only include self published information where they are the topic of the article or very directly connected to the topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

using trekcc.org for Star Trek Customizable Card Game
The article Star Trek Customizable Card Game uses sources from the site http://www.trekcc.org almost exclusively. The site is a fan-run continuation of the game from the original company (Decipher) that produced the game (and from what I've heard Decipher supports this site existing and continuing on the game). I'm wondering how reliable the site is, if at all? Is it a reliable source to support information given in the article about the original games prior to their being discontinued by Decipher? Can it support information about its own releases post-Decipher? Is it useful at all on Wikipedia? I don't want to start making rash deletions of sources before figuring out their collective reliability. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a reliable source, and can be used a primary source about the card game they release and a secondary regarding the game before its transition. The main writer for the site was a judge in the game's competition league and has 8 years of history with the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think it is a reliable primary/secondary: One of the developers/writers/members at that site is Brad DeFruiter, who was lead developer for Decipher Inc., so I think he could count as a reliable expert/professional as per WP:USERG.

Consulting Case 101 a reliable source?
Hi all, I was wondering if the website "ConsultingCase101" was a reliable source for consulting companies. www.consultingcase101.com/

Mainly I was looking at the "consulting firms" list www.consultingcase101.com/list-of-consulting-firms/ in terms of notability when it comes to article creation. In the article wizard it states a company must be "listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications" and I was just wondering if this website was independent enough to be a reliable source? Thanks. — WorkyJJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC).
 * In addition to the Mass spamming and abuse by site owner and multiple anon IP's, Blog sites are Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Capital New York reliable?
An editor has been attempting to use the blog at this link as a source for the article Zuccotti Park. I have said that in general, blogs -- unless they are connected with otherwise reliable sources, such as newspapers -- are not considered to be reliable except for the opinions of the blogger, but the editor continues to attempt to add information sourced from the blog to the article. I would like the editors here to weigh in on whether this particular blog can be considered to be a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks more like an online news organization, and the piece was written by a professional writer. I'm not sure SPS applies to this source. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable Source. Capital New York is a professional online media journalism company and not a personal blog.
 * Capital New York about us
 * I think it would be obvious from anyone reading a Capital New York article on Zucotti Park or Occupy Wall Street, that it was not a personal blog or a personal blog aggregator. patsw (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it was obvious, but apparently having staff information and ties to a news corporation isn't enough for some people. --Cast (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After checking out CNY's site, it's apparent that it is a legtitimate news source. Check out its About page--they're a fully staffed online news publication.--Togna bologna (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, we can all see that link easily enough. For some reason, Beyond My Ken didn't understand why personal blogs aren't used, and why sometimes that they are. That blogs are permitted when we can verify the user as a notable figure, or even just verify the person for the sake of the reference it is being used for -- perhaps for opinion purposes -- and that the staff information provided that verification. However, that doesn't matter in this case because this isn't a blog to begin with. Beyond My Ken simply asserted that this was a "blog" in the face of all evidence to the contrary and kept reverting it. This should never have needed to come to this point. --Cast (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough for any weblog to make itself appear to be a legitimate news organization site, which is what I was concerned about. Listings of "staff" on the site itself prove nothing (on the the Internet, no one knows your "staff" are dogs) and since this was the kind of evidence that was being offered, I brought the issue here.  I'm happy to see that that was the correct decision on my part, since at least one editor provided positive proof, via third-party sources (the kind we are supposed to base Wikipedia on), that Capital New York is indeed a legitimate news source.  As I said before, I'm more than happy to accept that, although I wish the process could have been concluded without ad hominem comments on my supposed lack of perception. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough for any weblog to make itself appear to be a legitimate news organization site, which is what I was concerned about. Listings of "staff" on the site itself prove nothing (on the the Internet, no one knows your "staff" are dogs) and since this was the kind of evidence that was being offered, I brought the issue here.  I'm happy to see that that was the correct decision on my part, since at least one editor provided positive proof, via third-party sources (the kind we are supposed to base Wikipedia on), that Capital New York is indeed a legitimate news source.  As I said before, I'm more than happy to accept that, although I wish the process could have been concluded without ad hominem comments on my supposed lack of perception. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

East-West Schism line of division
Two maps appear in the East-West Schism article, each purporting to indicate the line of division between the Eastern and the Western sides of the schism. One map is taken directly from the 1915 London publication Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land; the other is based (accurately enough, it is agreed) on the 2005 Belgrade publication Vodič kroz svet Vizantije (Guide to the Byzantine World - first edition 2004). It is disputed whether these two publications (more particularly the Serbian) are, in Wikipedia terms, reliable sources suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia for information on views of where the line of division should be drawn. The question has been discussed here without consensus. Esoglou (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the Talk page, which seemed to be stalled, has now progressed considerably and may be reaching a conclusion. Esoglou (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Source needed for TV shows that quote Animal Farm?
Help is needed at Talk:Animal_Farm_in_popular_culture. The question is:  If a TV show (or other item) quotes some famous line from Animal Farm (but does not mention Animal Farm), is the TV show itself a sufficient source to support including the TV show in the article  Animal Farm in popular culture? Or is it necessary that an independent source make the assertion that the TV show was referencing Animal Farm? PS: It may be best to provide guidance at that Talk page, to keep the discussion co-located. --Noleander (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted there, starting a small subsection for outside input. I don't think we should have references that have not been remarked upon by secondary sources. I'm surprised the page exists, to be honest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless a secondary source says, "And such and such TV show quoted Animal Farm", then it should not be included in the article as it is WP:OR, and also simple trivia that is not encyclopedic. Just citing the television show itself is not enough. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that a third-party or a secondary source needs to make the connection, unless it is very very obvious that the quote is from AF, which would mean it would have to be a long-enough quote to assure that its based on AF. eg, "Napoleon is always right." may be a statement from AF, but it is far too short that if another work repeats those words to know they are referring to AF.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I too would agree that a reference making the connection is needed. Many quotes from Animal Farm have entered the realm of common usage (especially variations on "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others")... and it is quite possible that a script writer might repeat them without realizing where the quote originated.  The same thing happens with quotes from the Bible or Shakespeare.  We may recognize where the quote originated, but that does not mean the person quoting it knows where it originated.  To claim that a quote is referencing Animal Farm implies that the reference was intended when it might not be.  I also agree that we should avoid trivial references. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, Blueboar, but one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who really would put AF up there with Shakespeare or the Bible. A lot of the sources currently in the article don't merely use a quote like "more equal than others" or "# ___ bad", but also use it in a context of animals, farms, and/or duplicitous conniving, etc. JesseRafe (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a better approach to see what material can go in according to sourcing policy, rather than set your heart on content that can't be justified. There is no law that says that page must have a substantial TV section. Some of the sourcing on that page is pretty poor - a lot of wikis and fansites. (The Lost citation is an example). Instead of covering Animal Farm's genuine impact, there's a big danger that you'll just have fans trying to boost the visibility of their favourite show now or when they were kids.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cross Rhythms
Cross Rhythms, http://crossrhythms.co.uk, is a registered UK Christian charity, operating since the early 1990's, with organizational roots in music and broadcast radio going back to 1983. They published a magazine from 1990 to 2005. Can they be considered a reliable source for reviews about Christian music?

The company won 3 national Christian broadcasting awards in 2009, and they testified before Parliament about legislation affecting broadcasters in 2010. (these aren't in their article yet)

The reviews I'm mainly interested in are from their magazine (1990-2005) in which (I suspect) record sales were not being pushed so hard. Example review: "Rebecca St. James Remixes"(1996) - it's not all "rah rah", knocking off points for some weak tracks and being priced higher than the import(1995). --Lexein (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943
Is QUALIFICATIONS This guy is being used as source in the article. Or at least some .pdf`s which are hosted on his site are being. Is this reliable at all? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source depends on the nature of the publication. Could you provide a reference to the the source provided and the edit it is meant to support.  TFD (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not an edit, an entire section appears to have been sourced to this guys website. Here are the pdf`s The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - there seems to be a great deal of WP:OR, and of pushing a particular POV, going on in the article. The usage of primary sources, regardless of where they are hosted, looks highly questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That source is the report an official British commission of enquiry from 1945. It has nothing to do with "this guy".  I agree however that the report should be treated as a primary source.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like there was an academic disagreement in the 1980s, with an exchange of papers. It could perhaps be mentioned, but only using the peer-reviewed papers and not giving the critique of Sen more weight than it deserves. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

airlineroute.net
Is http://www.airlineroute.net a reliable source for citing new routes for airlines? I see that people are still relying on it to add new routes/destinations for certain carriers. If this was discussed in the past, can anyone point me to the discussion on a consensus? Snoozlepet (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I run the website Airline Route. All information posted on the website are taken directly from airlines reservation system, and only provides flight information changes when they are in the system.

Karen Gillan incident - RS challenged

 * Not sure if this belongs here or in BLP:N, so feel free to direct me accordingly...
 * I have been following the discussion in RSN regarding the reliability of the Daily Mail - the recent Knox-Guilty reportage is, by any measure, an epic fail on their part. Part of the frustrating part of that discussion is that there are folk who think all media outlets are bad, and none are reliable. I get this point, and share it somewhat. However, following that extreme point of view would render Wikipedia irrelevant and make editing current events problematic to the point of an article never getting written.
 * I am on the fence about the issue of reliability, myself. Major news stories have indeed been broken by tabloids as well.
 * My problem is this: while the initial story appears to have been covered by the Daily Mail other, far more reliable sources with their own verification and editorial boards have also written stories about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) The last citation I list refers to an interview where she giggled about the incident "but refused to elaborate". More than anything, that appears to be confirmation to be. Why not just call it "bollocks" and be done with it?
 * As to relevance, Gillan is on the FHM's Top 100 Lists of Sexiest Women, so the story is indeed of interest, though somewhat of a prurient one. Additionally, when one searches the subject on Google, the incident lists over 472,000 hits (other engines retrieve approximately the same results as well). I am wondering what differentiates our treatment of this BLP from that of Vanessa Hudgens, Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton. I am not suggesting it dominate the article, but I think it should be noted, much like we note the details of Stanford White's murder by a jealous husband and many other examples. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actress drunk at party? Complete non-story from start to finish. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I've counted correctly, Jack Sebastian cites the Daily Mail itself, four sources that cite the Daily Mail and quote it verbatim, and two sources that lazily say the story was "reported". Even if all they have "their own verification and editorial boards" as Jack asserts, those resources were not called on here. No one vouches for anything in this story except a certain "Suzanne Leonara", on whom a Google search just brings all this stuff up again and nothing else: my guess is, Suzanne Leonara is a jealous Time Lord in love with Doctor Who.
 * Judith's right. Even if a reliable source existed, forgetting the way to your hotel room, dressed in a towel, is not notable. And rew D alby  12:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Andrew's analysis, I'd lean to unreliable. In general, gossip pages are unreliable, and the Daily Mail is a "use-with-caution" source. Sceptre (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has never really been an issue of reliable sourcing, it is simple WP:BLP. We make judgement calls as to what is relevant to a person's biography.  Being drunk and splashed all over the TMZ-style parts of the media has no relevance whatsoever.  If Ms. Gillan's behavior ever rises to the level of, say, Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan, then that is a different story. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not an RS issue, there are enough sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Proquest
The only source in Forebitter (band) is to Proquest, which requires an account to access. Is this a valid source? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it is a reference to an article in Journal of American Folklore which is a well-respected scholarly journal. User The Mark of the Beast should take him or herself to a library.  For the sake of politeness User The Mark of the Beast should also wait more than one minute after an article is created before complaining about references. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note that, at the time I made the change to the reference, the article was already listed for speedy deletion (not by me), and, and Crypticfirefly removed the speedy deletion tag from the article, which he created, and has been reversed on that by bot. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did accidentally remove the speedy deletion tag in an attempt to neatly restore the reference. The nice bot put it back for me before I had a chance to go fix that. (A speedy deletion tag added less than one minute after the page had been created, giving me something to deal with rather than actually editing content, but that kind of rudeness is another issue.) Whether it was tagged with a speedy deletion nomination is irrelevant, however. Speedy deletion nomination does not equal deletion. You do not help the process when you don't look at the reference on the article before removing it. If you are going to edit, I suggest that you read and evaluate as you do it. Are you now convinced this is a legitimate reference, or are you still looking for someone to tell you Journal of American Folklore is okay? Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you possibly say that I didn't look at the reference, when I can't see the reference? If you can find a link to the Journal of American Folklore, then that's fine, but I'm asking if a link to Proquest is legit, when it won't let you see anything without an account.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you hypothetically can see the reference. You can go to a well-equipped library and look up the hard copy, or if they have Proquest access to journals online you can use that.  Many large municipal libraries provide that service for their patrons.  Do you delete all references to hard copy books and articles that you come across if you don't have a copy of the book handy?  Admit you made a mistake, man, and move on. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A naked link always is a poor reference (but might be to a good source ;-). However, at least currently the article provides full bibliographic information on the article. That is an excellent reference. Sources do not need to be online and/or free to be valid - see WP:PAYWALL. If you have no easy library access, someone from WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first version of the article also included full bibliographic reference. The poster of this thread did not recognise this as a valid, although to him/her offline, reference. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark, I want to add to what User:Stephan Schulz said: helpful editors at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request have always come through for me when I requested academic journal articles that are behind paywalls. Not only are such sources valid, they are usually the very best and most reliable sources that you can possibly use for certain Wikipedia articles. Editors should be encouraged to consider using such sources more often. First Light (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

List of people who have run across Australia
I am looking at the sources of information on the List of people who have run across Australia (also its sister page List of people who have walked across Australia), can I have an indication on if the Australian Ultra Running Association Inc. is a RS - for example can this page which was Compiled by AURA President Ian Cornelius from AURA records and from information furnished by [the subject] be relied upon. ? Mt  king  (edits)  22:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed on newspaper site
In general terms would this qualify as a reliable source, or can it just be ruled out straight away? Van Speijk (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, "in general terms", as is says at the top of the page, it depends on context: what do you want to use it as a reliable source for?. I can't find much about The Bonaire Reporter, but it seems to be a printed newspaper, with online archives going back to 2000, and paper archives allegedly dating back to 1994, so it's not just some guy's blog. This is Bonaire we're talking about, total population 15,000. So despite having an amateurish-looking web site, this could even be the newspaper of record. We may be wary to rely only on it for highly controversial matters without knowing more about it, but certainly it can't be ruled out straight away. --GRuban (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with GRuban. Can you elaborate on what you are using the Bonaire Reporter for? --Togna bologna (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. I'm interested in this page from the website . The story makes this statement; The first of the new generation of ships was the HSS 1500, a 1500-passenger catamaran built by Finnyards Ltd., Rauma, Finland. She went into service as the Stena Explorer to ferry cars, trucks and passengers around the British Isles.. My interest stems from editing HSS 1500 where the point about the British Isles was made, but as is so often the case with the term "British Isles" (which is in everyday use and wouldn't normally require a reference) another editor objected to its use and forced the issue about providing a reference. I found this one. I think it's good enough, but what does anyone else think? Van Speijk (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as a statement of fact there are inconsistencies in the article as it originally talks about "around the British Isles" and then mentions a more specific reference to "crossings between Britain and the Netherlands". So if you fancy using it as a reference will you just pick and choose the bit that fits your POV? I also noticed that it doesn't attribute the article to an author either. Bjmullan (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's good enough, if there aren't sources that contradict it; "where a ship was built to work in" isn't such an inherently controversial issue. There is no inconsistency, there are just two interpretations of the word "around", one meaning only within the isles, and one meaning within the neighborhood of. Clearly the second is being used. The fact the article doesn't have an author byline is a style issue, for example, half the New York Times articles in Philip A. Payton, Jr. don't have one. --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My issue with this reference and the last proposed by Van Speijk is what makes the British Isles unique to High Speed Ferry design? This reference (which seems more creditable) talks about a more general "northern European waters". If Van Speijk can perhaps elaborate on why the craft is specifically designed for the British Isles, this might help. And yes I don't like the term British Isles unless it is clearly referenced and applicable. For more information see here. Bjmullan (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion GRuban. Since you're not, as far as I know, involved in the British Isles debate I'll take it as being impartial. The points made above by Bjmullan deserve further consideration but here is not the right place, so I'll copy the above paragraph to Talk:HSS 1500 and continue the debate there. Van Speijk (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it. Please do not copy my comments from one article to another. Bjmullan (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

callahan.8k.com
I wanted to bring this here, as the editors on this board are knowledgeable about the reliability of sources, and can hopefully clarify this for me. This source is being used on the West Memphis Three article, and seems to me to fall squarely into WP:SPS, as anyone could very easily go to 8k.com and create any website they wanted, that contained any content that they wished to insert. The user inserting this into the article was also inserting very odd websites into the article as "sources", which makes me question the reliability of this website further. - SudoGhost 05:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this falls into WP:SPS. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with the information being referenced, as it is relevant to the article.  The information stems from a criminal investigation report, however, the fact that it is cited as coming from callahan.8k.com, is as you mentioned, is troublesome.  If the article cited the criminal report from its original source, I think the material would be considered reliable.--Togna bologna (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anyone else offer an opinion as to this source? - SudoGhost 06:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly http://8k.com/ is not a reliable source as it is "Free Web Hosting from Freeservers.com". Unless the author of the particular free website has a good reputation as an authority in the field (as established by reliable sources), then the site is not reliable. It may be that in this particular case the information is 100% accurate, neutral, and generally excellent—nevertheless, it is not suitable for use at Wikipedia because editors have no procedure to distinguish an excellent self published site from one that is poor (no procedure other than to rely on actual reliable sources, which should be used instead of the SPS). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Master Thesis is RS
As far as I understand a master thesis is a reliable source. In Identifying_reliable_sources it says "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community;".

That would mean that this thesis is RS:

Evidence-Based Public Policy toward Cold Fusion:

Rational Choices for a Potential Alternative Energy Source

by Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D.

Professional Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin December 2008



There are maybe a few things we could use for Cold_fusion.

--POVbrigand (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The guidelines state Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This is a Masters dissertation, so for it to be passed as a reliable source you have to demonstrate its scholarly influence. Until you do that it is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for clarifying --POVbrigand (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about the reliability of the following sources
Dear Sir/Madam, I am going to write an article about Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund (local equivalent to the FDIC in the US). Could you please tell me if the following external sources of information for this article would be considered reliable by Wikipedia:
 * 1) Member profile of Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund on the website of International Association of Deposit Insurers: http://www.iadi.org/profiles/kazakhstan.pdf
 * 2) ATF bank’s website (one of the biggest commercial banks in Kazakhstan) http://www.atfbank.kz/en/about_2/depozit.php
 * 3) British specialized magazine Central Asia Finance: http://www.eufinancemags.com/CAF.pdf
 * 4) Website of the National Bank (Central Bank) of the Republic of Kazakhstan: http://www.nationalbank.kz/?docid=175

Also, could we use the same article about Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund already uploaded successfully (and not deleted) on Wikipedia in Russian language and translated word for word in English for this new planned article as a reliable source of information for the new article. A simple logic tells me that if the article about KDIF in Russian has already been successfully uploaded on Wikipedia, there should be no problem in uploading the article with the same information in English? Thank you very much in advance for your help! Best regards, Igor Zagorskiy


 * It partly depends on what you're going to use the sources to say. If you're going to use them to give opinions or say controversial things about the fund (that it is being mismanaged, or it is the only thing saving the country), then we will need to consider if these sources (the banks, especially) have an interest in the issue. #4 seems like it would be a source writing about itself, so take care not to just quote them about how wonderful they are. If you're going to use them for straightforward things, like names of directors, dates of founding, etc., they should be all right. I'd also be a bit more specific than just giving link #4, though, that page just seems to give a form to fill out (though links from it seem to go to more useful places). You want to give the actual page giving the statement you're referencing, not just the first page on the site. No, you can't use another Wikipedia article as a source. You can use it for inspiration, and as a place to find more information, but for sources you need to find information that can't be edited at any minute by a bored 10 year old. --GRuban (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If "how wonderful they are" is a snide reference to the notability of National Bank of Kazakhstan, please note the all central banks of recognized nations are notable and WP:BIAS is applicable. To the question of should Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund have its own article, I recommend adding it to the bank's article which is currently very short and would benefit by including this content. patsw (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing about notability was mentioned, merely a caution about the uses of WP:ABOUTSELF, hence the link. I'm a proud and contributing member of WP:CSB meself. :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

On Libertarianism
Hi, there are a number of questions in relation to content added at Libertarianism. I apologise for the quality of citations, I am not the editor who supplied these citations or advocated their use. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Is a tertiary source given as the bare link: superior to a peer reviewed journal article by a scholarly expert  in supplying a grounding definition of libertarianism?
 * 2) Is a bare link to wikipedia given as:
 * 3) * ("Left-libertarianism") reliable for the claim "Left wing libertarianism sides with the individual against the concentrated economic and political power of wealthy individuals and large corporations."
 * 4) Is the source given as: Peter Richards, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903): Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?
 * 5) *Reliable for the claim: "By contrast, right wing libertarianism defines the government as the only threat to individual liberty. Left wing libertarianism is often associated with human rights movements (which emphasize human dignity and equality), while right wing libertarianism is often associated with social darwinism (survival of the fittest)."
 * 6) *Is it an adequately detailed citation (Publisher, publisher location, date, location in text supporting claim), sufficiently detailed to allow other users to verify that this claim comes from the text?
 * 7) Is the source given as: Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought 1860-1915
 * 8) *Reliable for the claim: "By contrast, right wing libertarianism defines the government as the only threat to individual liberty. Left wing libertarianism is often associated with human rights movements (which emphasize human dignity and equality), while right wing libertarianism is often associated with social darwinism (survival of the fittest)."
 * 9) *Is it an adequately detailed citation (Publisher, publisher location, date, location in text supporting claim), sufficiently detailed to allow other users to verify that this claim comes from the text?
 * 10) Is the source given as: Alan Haworth, Anti-libertarianism: markets, philosophy, and myth
 * 11) *Reliable for the claims:
 * 12) ** "Left wing libertarians have described right wing libertarianism as propaganda that provides intellectual cover for increased corporate power and massive inequalities of income wealth"
 * 13) ** "Under this view, right wing Libertarianism's attack on government power is in fact a veiled attack on the broad diffusion of economic power through universal voting rights."
 * 14) *Adequately cited for verification purposes
 * 15) Is the source given as: Thomas Jefferson; The Jefferson Cyclopedia, University of Virginia
 * 16) *Quoted as: "Jefferson wrote: "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general prey of the rich on the poor." [7] "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."[8] "Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society." [9] "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." [10]" (edited at Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
 * 17) *A secondary source
 * 18) *A high quality reliable source in the sense of a modern scholarly source?
 * 19) *Is it an adequately detailed citation (Publisher, publisher location, date, location in text supporting claim), sufficiently detailed to allow other users to verify that this claim comes from the text?
 * 20) Is the source given as: Jane Mayer, Covert Operations, New Yorker
 * 21) *A high quality reliable source in the sense of a modern scholarly source?
 * 22) *Is it an adequately detailed citation for other editors to verify the claim comes from the text?
 * 23) *Does it support the claim, "The modern libertarian movement in the United States has in fact largely been funded by a small number of conservative billionaires, who exercise tight control over the "libertarian" institutions that depend on them for funding."


 * It seems typical. Someone wants the article to express a viewpoint and they google search for sources that appear to support their viewpoint.  TFD (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re #6. Is IP citing from http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tje ? Looks like WP:RS to me.--S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These are my impressions, subject to closer examination of what is to be sourced from each:
 * Both OK. Long as a secondary source better.
 * No.
 * Editor who wishes inclusion of the material should supply page numbers.
 * Ditto.
 * Good source in principle, publisher and date can easily be added. No use without page numbers though, not verifiable that the source is correctly summarised.
 * Not sure how to locate this one/these ones, so can't comment.
 * Not a top quality source for a political science article. Probably counts as op-ed, although at the top end of that category. Would have to be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't look at the others, but you're way off base re #7. It's not an op-ed, it's investigative journalism, and the New Yorker takes its fact-checking very seriously (see under WP:RSVETTING under "Journalistic entities known to have good fact-checking operations" for some proofs). You may be assured that every single statement of fact that appears in the New Yorker has been rigorously checked by a top-tier professional who knows that if they get it wrong Perry White's crankier brother will be all over their case.


 * Whether the article supports the material is a whole nother thing. This is arguable. The article is about the Koch family, and while the Koch brothers are "a small number of conservative billionaires" it might be more accurate to say "The Koch brothers". The Koch brothers are libertarians, but its not clear that what they fund is "The modern libertarian movement". They fund a lot of things. Their key arm, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, is libertarian -- kinda sorta. They don't (I think) take a stand on abortion rights, drug laws, freedom from surveillance, philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, or stuff like that. The are really focused mainly on lower taxes, lower services, and getting government out of the regulation business. It's more of an old-line pro-business conservative-Republican line, but on steroids. They don't use the term "libertarian" in their self-description, so you'd need notable reliable sources with standing, saying that they are libertarian. It's a long article, and it might be better to selectively quote it directly rather than synthesize. But you may be assured that the source is extremely reliable for statements of fact. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Herostratus that #7 is perfectly reliable for statements of fact, and also that, however, the source doesn't appear to support the content. Some of the libertarian movement is not the whole of the libertarian movement (unless I missed something in the article.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Opera website
This source is being used to support a long list of operas and roles for Keenlyside (I had tagged the list as unsourced). I reverted the addition of the source saying it was a WP:SPS, but the other editor reverted me saying it was not. On closer examination, it does not appear to be produced by Keenlyside, although I think it's fair to say he probably plays a large role (all puns intended) in what information is included. Apparently, it is produced by two people and their friends - see here.

I still maintain it's a WP:SPS pursuant to WP:USERG ("Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.").

I haven't reverted the editor's reversion. I'd rather obtain some comments here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The people who run the site have been following and documenting his career for years and and have a large anount of material on the website itself to document it. I've been attending the Royal Opera House for 25 years and I've personally seen him in virtually every one of those roles. My own view is that it is a very accurate source for the role list (and yes, I know that doesn't matter). Whether or not it is technically an "unreliable" and/or "self-published" source is another issue. Technically it probably is. However, an opera singer's role list is generally not a controversial issue. I personally don't see why even a clearly self-published source couldn't be used for that per ABOUTSELF. It's not a list of crimes committed, ex-girlfriends, awards, etc. Since there is no other one place that documents all the roles, it would require an inline cite for every single role. Is that what you are suggesting? It can be done, although it would be rather laborious and not particularly visually attractive. In any case, does it need complete removal of the source plus a humongous ugly tag for something relatively uncontroversial? Why not just add third-party-inline next to the current citation? Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started adding refs for every single role. I think what's there now gives a reasonable indication of how accurate the original source was, but I'll keep adding them until the list is a veritable sea of bright blue footnotes. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In my estimation B double flat's estimation of the quality of www.simonkeenlyside.info (to which I have not the slightest connection) is almost disagreeably uncharitable. If one takes a thorough look at it and its contents one will see that it is a rigourously maintained source of accurate information, one that puts a fair proportion of WP's own pages to shame. Yours dispairingly  almost - instinct 19:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've glanced at what Voceditenore has done to the page, and I think it's commendable. I have no problem with the "sea of bright blue footnotes"; many lists of this kind look like that. It all has to be sourced. My belief is when it comes to opera singers, actors, and other performers, many editors are happy to bend the guidelines when it's too hard to find sources for things.

As for the original issue, which when Voce is done will hopefully become moot, we're really talking about two different issues with respect to WP:SPS. If this were Keenlyside's own website, a list of what roles he's performed would be self-serving and therefore impermissible. As it is, the website is unreliable because it's a personal website (WP:USERG). I don't even think there's any wiggle room for that as the two individuals are not "experts", and even if they were, the guideline prohibits it for use in BLPs. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources in List of vegetable oils
Over at List of vegetable oils, we're near the end of a thorough cleanup of the references. We've probably replaced 60% of what we started with, and the article is much stronger, but we have a few left that we have questions on. From the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, which bills itself as "an electronic, national resource for producers interested in value-added agriculture":



From the Canola Council of Canada:



From New Agriculturalist:



From the Texas (A&M) AgriLIFE Extension Service:



There may be another few by the time we've crossed the t's and dotted the i's on the cleanup, but we'd love to have your input on these. Waitak (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really alarmed by the article. There are lots of health claims and implications. WP:MEDRS applies to those. The AGMRC material, on the other hand, appears to be oriented towards practical advice to farmers. On the one hand, it has a definite bias, giving reasons why someone should cultivate the crop rather than not cultivate it. On the other, it seems to be well researched and succinct. AGMRC could do with some more consideration here, would be interested to read other people's take on it. In the meantime, I am going to post at WP:FTN about the alt.health claims, as part of the trawl through medicinal herb articles that's going on there. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that you're alarmed. I just reviewed the article, and am having a lot of trouble finding any medical claims at all, other than "used medicinally", each instance of which is backed by a reliable source that says (usually a lot more than) exactly that. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how that constitutes a health claim, and having even more trouble seeing why that merits posting the article on a board dedicated to fringe theories. If I'm missing something here, would you please point out (on the talk page) what you're alarmed about so that it can be addressed? What is it that you think the article is claiming or implying? Waitak (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Esports news
I would like to ask, as in the case of Articles_for_deletion/Bu_Yanjun, is reliable official gaming media partners such as Gosugamers, sGamer and mymym.com (official site for oldest gaming organization MeetYourMakers ) could be counted as reliable sources?

Here is an introduction for gosugamers :

GosuGamers is a computer game community with 110,000 visits per day. The community, which has existed since 2002, focus on high quality eSport news and user created materials for the best-selling games by Blizzard Entertainment: StarCraft and WarCraft.

While the main office is in Malmö, Sweden, the people, also known as the “GosuCrew”, who work with the website, are from all over the world. The GosuCrew consists of more than 60 people who moderate, publish and polish the contents of the site, making sure it’s up to day every day of the year.

We believe that in electronical gaming, as in any sport, fair-play, sportsmanship, respect, and good manners are important. Further establishing these values in the online gaming community is the vision of GosuGamers.

The website has grown from being a small scale hobby project to a company that covers all the largest international gaming events, offers advertisement spots that reach thousands of gamers and organize our own national and international events.

Found from :

introduction for sgamer history of mymym.com


 * Let me answer to those:


 * dota.178.com: It's a fansite, by and for players of DOTA, as the address and banner clearly show.

-
 * mymym.com: It's about a DOTA team/faction/group of players, about and by them.

-
 * GosuGamers.net,': Doesn't "look" quite as bad, but is very MMO-centric focused on its coverage (on a couple of MMOs Multiplayer Online Games). "GosuGamers is a computer game community with 110,000 visits per day. The community, which has existed since 2002, focus on high quality eSport news and user created materials for the best-selling games by Blizzard Entertainment: StarCraft and WarCraft.''" I might consider it for fact-checking about gaming events and so-called "pro gamers" but it does not establish notability in my eye, being a platform dedicated only to a certain niche of information.  That is not "independent", as just about every staff member must be players or members of the games they cover, and the articles' target audience is undoubtedly players and fans of the game(s);  in that way, no possibility of neutrality is plausible.

-
 * I'm no chinese expert, but sgamer.com seems to suffer from the same flaws, covering a niche of specific videogames and offering advice and game guides more than "independent coverage".

Hope that answers your questions. Salvidrim (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosugamers is a "company that covers all the largest international gaming events" while the sGamer site, was official media partner with all the biggest dota competitions in the world (eswc, wcg, wdc). mymym.com is NOT only about their own dota team, but dota in general as well. I hope this gets noticed. And where is the video gaming notability page?


 * Note : WC3, SC2 and DotA ARE NOT MMOs.
 * Redefining history (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If sGamer is an "official media partner" of DOTA competitions, it is by definition not independent.
 * mymym.com, as you've said, is about DOTA specifically, thus not disinterested.
 * GosuGamers does NOT cover "all the international gaming events", it only covers those linked to a specific subset of games (GosuGamers is the main source for StarCraft, WarCraft and DotA news.), making it appear strongly tied or interested to these topics, reducing greatly the likelihood of any kind of neutrality.


 * However, you are correct that Warcraft, Starcraft and DotA are not MMOs, I was hasty in my use of the expression. MOGs would be more accurate (Multiplayer Online Games).  I corrected my statements above. Salvidrim (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that gosugamers does not cover "all the international gaming events", but it does cover "all the national and international gaming events in its specific area of reporting (warcraft, starcraft, dota) isnt that sufficient if i want to write an article about a dota player/team/event?
 * I would require some help here. What is by definition independent? mymym.com also covers games such as league of legends, heroes of newerth in addition to Warcraft, starcraft and dota. what would be a sufficient source for notability in this case? As i would like to point out in the case of sports, does a site need to cover all the sports out there (football basketball volleyball baseball) to be considered a reliable source? `Redefining history (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To quote WP:INDY:
 * An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).
 * I think in this case it is clear there is significant connection (as you've said, by being an "official media partner", or at the very least written by and for obvious fans of the subject), and is most certainly nowhere near being disinterested. It is unclear, also, if there is gain from reporting, either by having more access to the game themselves and/or special status inside these gaming communities.  In short, something written by a player and fan of the game about something related to the game is not independent/disinterested. Salvidrim (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as a secondary answer, if you want to compare to sports, here's how I see it:
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
 * For these reasons, I would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual player just because it discusses it, because it is written by and for fans. A site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability if it had significant independent coverage of a single player. At least, that is how I see it, others may think differently.Salvidrim (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as much as i would like to discuss that being a reporter for gosugamers and others earns next to nothing and they are heavily based on facts. I found this website pchome.net, which also covers about dota and these players. That would be an independent source right? I have changed most of the references of my articles to news on pchome.net, would that be sufficient now? Redefining history (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Redefining history (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what i think here : Covering sports at large would be akin to covering gaming at large Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (warcraft, starcraft, dota) Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single gaming club. Covering a single sports player would be akin to covering a single gamer. since you argued that "it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested" so if you spend time reporting about a game, you are a fan of every single team? and bias towards every single team? Redefining history (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary
The arguments on sources would only go on this section, I am sorry to have posted them in other talk pages. So there you go, this is a summary of the argument. Quoted from : Salvidrim (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * dota.178.com: It's a fansite, by and for players of DOTA, as the address and banner clearly show.

-
 * mymym.com: It's about a DOTA team/faction/group of players, about and by them.

-
 * GosuGamers.net,': Doesn't "look" quite as bad, but is very MMO-centric focused on its coverage (on a couple of MMOs Multiplayer Online Games). "GosuGamers is a computer game community with 110,000 visits per day. The community, which has existed since 2002, focus on high quality eSport news and user created materials for the best-selling games by Blizzard Entertainment: StarCraft and WarCraft.''" I might consider it for fact-checking about gaming events and so-called "pro gamers" but it does not establish notability in my eye, being a platform dedicated only to a certain niche of information.  That is not "independent", as just about every staff member must be players or members of the games they cover, and the articles' target audience is undoubtedly players and fans of the game(s);  in that way, no possibility of neutrality is plausible.

-
 * I'm no chinese expert, but sgamer.com seems to suffer from the same flaws, covering a niche of specific videogames and offering advice and game guides more than "independent coverage".

Hope that answers your questions.

Quoted from Salvidrim (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC) :
 * To quote WP:INDY:
 * An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).
 * I think in this case it is clear there is significant connection (as you've said, by being an "official media partner", or at the very least written by and for obvious fans of the subject), and is most certainly nowhere near being disinterested. It is unclear, also, if there is gain from reporting, either by having more access to the game themselves and/or special status inside these gaming communities.  In short, something written by a player and fan of the game about something related to the game is not independent/disinterested. Salvidrim (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as a secondary answer, if you want to compare to sports, here's how I see it:
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
 * For these reasons, I would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual player just because it discusses it, because it is written by and for fans. A site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability if it had significant independent coverage of a single player. At least, that is how I see it, others may think differently.

Quoted from : Redefining history (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which i have noted as a very very bad argument. In my opinion, it should be like this.
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering e-sports at large (this is very complicated, as e-sports isn't based on a single game)
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (dota, starcraft, cs)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single e-sports team
 * For these reasons, I would not consider a website about (for example) Moscow Five and Natus Vincere to assess notability for any individual player just because it discusses it, because it is written by and for fans. A site covering dota (gosugamers and others) would perhaps be able to assess such notability if it had significant independent coverage of a single player.

Quoted from Redefining history (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC):
 * For those who still has the misconception on gosugamers/sgamer/mymym and other such sites... I would like to explain. These sites actually has forums/blogs features, however, they are not the main focus of these sites being brought up here and does NOT satisfy being reliable sources. Hence, all content on these forums/blogs cannot be cited. However, i am talking about the news features of these websites. For example, the news section of gosugamers is maintained by journalists/editors employed (is there a better word?) by the company to update the latest news about players, teams and competitions in certain games (most prominently dota and starcraft). It is generally reputable and cited by other reliable sources (this is from the alexa rankings). It is disinterested (the argument is "if football sites reporting about football teams/players/competitions are reliable, so is dota sites reporting about dota teams/players/competitions). I think it has everything to satisfy as a reliable source.

Quoted from : Redefining history (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another Chatlog from the IRC:
 * [12:29] could you help me check this site? http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gosugamers.net
 * [12:29] does it count as well known or something?
 * [12:30] compared to this http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sgamer.com
 * [12:30] <+Alpha_Quadrant> redefinehistory: hmm, the first one appears to be used by other reliable sources
 * [12:31] <+Alpha_Quadrant> suggesting that it may be reliable
 * So check these sites out, it should be considered reliable
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/prodota.ru
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pchome.net
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mymym.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/178.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gosugamers.net
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sgamer.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/replays.net

So whats your opinion on this? I feel that it satisfies as reliable. Redefining history (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note, the above conversation occurred in (which has a no public logging policy). The comments above are a bit out of context. I told Redefining history that alexa could be used to help establish a source's reliability. I didn't say that it should be solely relied on.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For that, i am really sorry. But is there anything else out there proving me wrong? Redefining history (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Even more concise summary for everyone who thinks "TL;DR"

 * Salvidrim stated that gosugamers.net/sgamer.com/178.com and others are unreliable sources due to them being focused on a few games and therefore should be considered as "fansites".
 * Salvidrim then compared it to sports:
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
 * He would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual players, but a site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability.
 * Redefining History noted this as a bad argument, in his opinion
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering e-sports at large
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (dota, starcraft, cs)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single e-sports team
 * He would not consider a website about (for example) Moscow Five and Natus Vincere to assess notability for any individual player, however a site covering dota (gosugamers and others) would perhaps be able to assess such notability.
 * Redefining History offered an explanation for GosuGamers.
 * Redefining History asked help from the IRC, in which they replied that the alexa ratings should be referred to. It seems that Gosugamers is reputable and reliable enough.
 * Thus he requested source checking on the following sites:
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/prodota.ru
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pchome.net
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mymym.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/178.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gosugamers.net
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sgamer.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/replays.net


 * Any opinions? Redefining history (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You've already been told that you were guilty of forum shopping on two different locations. On IRC today, you were told that your question had been answered, and you were asked to not ask the question again. When some one provided you with an answer, you did not like the answer and continued to ask the question. You were told that you were being disruptive, and you continued to ask the question until a channel operator had to silence you because we were unable to help others in the room. While I am trying hard to assume good faith, it is hard. You aren't spamming: You're being disruptive and forum shopping to get your sources treated as reliable and help with notability. Some one has already told you if you don't stop, you'll be reported to WP:AN/I for this and you haven't yet done that. If you're seriously sorry, you'll stop engaging in the activities people have told you to stop with. Otherwise your la la la! I didn't hear that! will get you blocked.--LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Redefining history is haunting, asking people if his sources are verifiable and help with notability.  He also wants video gamers to be like sports, and that is why they need to be included. (Implication: Help him so he can win this battle.) He's been aggressive with this, and as some one who occasionally helps new users, I'm finding him incredibly disruptive as he's been told these things on this thread and in the room. This behaviour is beginning to feel like canvassing. --LauraHale (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I'll go to sleep first. Won't canvass anyone of you in chats, wont go aggressive again. I never knew what is the criteria for canvassing. Redefining history (talk)
 * @Laura I genuinely feel that the above argument is never answered, and thus the asking. But seriously, if you consider that spamming, i can only sit back for a while and hope that someone answers. Nite! Redefining history (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New sources for Bu Yanjun a.k.a. PIS or YaphetS Redefining history (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

CelebrityAccess
Is CelebrityAccess a reliable source usable in a BLP? Specifically, is the so-called "industry profile" here usable in the article Brian Camelio to support for instance that "he spent 15 years as a professional touring musician, composer and producer"? My opinion is no, it can't be used. CelebrityAccess is a business directory and these industry profiles should be considered self-published material since the subject of the page is likely to have full control on the content of the page. This, however, is disputed on the talk page. Is my assessment incorrect? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For BLP this should be fine. There seem to be different rules pertaining to biographical information even if it is self published:

BLPSPS

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

72.52.203.143 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi 72.52.203.143, your editing pattern (compared to User:Jamesrand's editing pattern) indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. --Edcolins (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Which WP:SELFPUB test(s) does the disputed content from Celebrity Access fail? patsw (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement "he spent 15 years as a professional touring musician, composer and producer" is unduly self-serving. He may have struggled for 15 years. This being said, I am not sure whether WP:SELFPUB applies to the portion of the source preceding the interview (i.e., preceding the first question "Why ArtistShare?" - the disputed content in the article is based on what precedes the first question). Regarding this portion, we are not in a case where the (living) person himself published material about himself. It seems we are just facing a source which, in my opinion, cannot be considered a high quality source, as requested in WP:BLP, second paragraph. --Edcolins (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed, why are you putting a spin on this? How does "spent 15 years as a professional touring musician" turn into "struggling" and being unduly self serving.  It doesn't say that at all and I think you may be reading into it.  It appears to be just a fact. As far as the other part is concerned your argument is not clear to me.  Why is this not a reliable source?  Because you are guessing that it is self published or that it not self published?  That does not make sense to me.  If the person conducted an interview, perhaps they asked the subject about their background first.  Either way it is all speculation and probably way too much attention being paid to it as the information is very factual and neutral in tone. Jamesrand (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * James, I was just asking a third opinion since I thought the statement was promotional and the source was not good enough for WP:BLP. I know we have divergent opinions on this. --Edcolins (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the statement is "self-serving" much less "unduly self-serving". See our own Self-serving bias article for what constitutes a self-serving statement. The statement seems descriptive and rather ordinary, and should be included unless there's evidence to show otherwise. patsw (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Patsw, many thanks for your opinion and pointing to our article "self-serving bias". Very useful. Let's say it's not self-serving. I had read the statement as being rather promotional and I had evaluated the source as not reliable enough for a BLP, because the site looks like a business directory and the overall tone of the source is pretty promotional. But for you the statement and the source are both fine, aren't they? --Edcolins (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad Edcolins has responded in this way, because I, too, don't see why such a statement should be "self-serving" or "promotional". And rew D alby  18:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiley - Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications
Wiley published a Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia

It covers every form of nuclear energy generation, i. all sorts of fission and fusion technologies.

I assume that this is without doubt a perfect reliable source.

It also covers LENR (aka cold fusion), therefore I assume that several WP-editors will go through lengths to find reasons to deny RS for this book, possibly also because the editor is Steve B. Krivit.

Now the status of acceptance of LENR by "mainstream science" is a bit unclear to me. APS and ACS have held sessions dedication to cold fusion / LENR in their annual meetings for some years now. To me that indicates that LENR is certainly gaining acceptance. Several peer reviewed journals publish cold fusion papers, amongst them "Naturwissenschaften".

side questions:
 * 1) are the proceedings from annual meetings by the APS and ACS RS ? Do they suddenly become non-RS if they contain cold fusion / LENR papers ?
 * 2) I would also like to know who defines what "mainstream science" thinks. Is it only the "Nature" and "Science" editorial team who decide for the rest of the world what is to be believed ?
 * 3) When does fringe science stop to be fringe science and advances to emerging science ?

Back to Wiley. Is this publication RS, and if yes with what "tone" might it be used in Cold Fusion.

Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any indication that the encyclopaedia is RS so far. Follow the instructions at the top of the page please.  In particular who authored which article of what length that you intend to cite in which articles to verify what statements?  Full citation please.  Unsigned tertiaries are rarely considered RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In particular this publisher description, "Filled with figures, graphs, diagrams, formulas, and photographs, which accompany the short, easily digestible entries, the book is an accessible reference work for anyone with an interest in nuclear energy" indicates that it is unlikely to be a scholarly tertiary. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to use: "Partially hidden among the unscientific claims in this two-decade controversy, a legitimate set of scientific phenomena has emerged." - Steve B. Krivit - Chapter 41 "Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research". Other authors are visible from the TOC
 * Ch. 41 - Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research - Steven B. Krivit (New Energy Times)
 * Ch. 42 - Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: A Three-Stage Historical Perspective - Leonid I. Urutskoev (Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation)
 * Ch. 43 - Low-Energy Nuclear Transmutations - Mahadeva Srinivasan (Retired, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre), George Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and Edmund Storms (Kivalabs)
 * Ch. 44 - Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs - Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA) and Steven B. Krivit (New Energy Times)
 * Ch. 45 - Potential Applications of LENRs - Winthrop Williams (U.C. Berkeley) and Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA)
 * --POVbrigand (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the sample article which was reprinted from Energy and Environment and was written by someone from The Heartland Institute. Not only is this type of source questionable, but the article itself has no footnotes and therefore can be seen as a tertiary source at best.  I would avoid it.  TFD (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiley is an RS publisher. Where opinions are found in any book, it is always proper to name the person or group with the opinion, but that is not the issue here. There is no "perfect source" on anything - I recall texts which stated "facts" about crystals - which are now disproven by a Nobelist. That "symmetry" was always true - shown now to be in doubt in matter-antimatter creation. The Mendel "coin toss" genetics, now shown to be "close but no cigar." It is not up to Wikipedia to know the truth - it is only up to us to record what others say. Period. Collect (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy London
It has been reported in the Telegraph that the protesters at occupy London go home at night with only 1 in 10 tents occupied, The people running the show have admitted this here  An IP has removed this based on the fact that the source is biased and junk. Is the source reliable for this edit? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The people running the show have admitted this here". No they haven't. You are misrepresenting the source, in further pursuit of your ongoing attempts to denegrate the 'occupy' protests. For another perspective on this, see the Guardian: . When there are conflicting versions of an event, we don't get to assert that one is the 'truth', and another is false - particularly by blatant misrepresentation. Take your smear campaign elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That guardian op ed it junk, the author questions whether thermal imaging actually works. There is a difference between an op-ed and an actual news report btw. The second link most certainly does have a member saying people go home at night. This has also been reported on by sky news and the BBC. Please remove your attack, this is the third time you have accused me of conducting a smear campaign. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the second link does support the assertion that people go home at night, but it does not support the assertion that only 1 in 10 tents are occupied, and the text of the first doesn't appear to support the 1 in 10 number (I did not watch the video). The diff words it as "very few protesters remain", and I don't think that's supportable either, I would suggest that "most" is as far as one should go. In regard to, Patrick Kingsley is listed as a feature reporter, and it is not presented as an op ed piece. That being said, these are all basically primary sources--reporters on the ground directly witnessing events, so caution is advised and I would suggest we not put too much weight on any of them. For example, I doubt any of the reporters are experts in the use of thermal imaging to determine tent occupancy. Also, some of the source appear to have a clear slant on the issue, another reason to use this sources with caution. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

All said and done - each source is RS for what it actually states, and the obvious conclusion is that only a small group remain overnight (the quibble that people do not sleep before 12:30 a.m. is weak, to be sure). All newspapers are "primary sources" if that is the quibble - but Wikipedia specificaly allows news reportage, so that quibble fails. And news reporters always use outsiders for such stuff as thermal imaging, etc. What we are left with is:
 * The Telegraph reported that a thermal imaging study at 12:30 a.m. on (date) showed only 10% of the tents being occupied. The Guardian reported that organizers state that people are free to come and go, and that only 250 out of 1000 protesters are full-time at the site.

or thereabouts. (I think I got he Guardian figures right?) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's always cherry-picking in covering current events that pass WP:NOT tests:
 * To make coherent articles on any of the OWS's sites primary sources were used, are being used, and will be used.
 * The whole point about primary sources is preference of secondary sources to primary sources to avoid original research. Using secondary sources only would result in 100 word summaries as opposed to the detail in the articles now.
 * In this case, the actual occupancy of the tents is a relevant question and multiple points of view can be accommodated in the article. The mere restatement of the claim made in the article is not OR. 159.53.110.143 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the BBC and Sky News have also reported on the fact the most of the tents are empty at night. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can this review from reuters be used?
http://blogs.reuters.com/indiamasala/2011/10/26/ra-one-this-aint-the-one/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs)


 * For what purpose in what article?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For a negative film review at the film article Ra.One. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a blog stream hosted by Reuters, so you have to look at the blogger to see if they are a respected expert on the topic. The topic is Bollywood films and the blogger is Shilpa Jamkhandikar. She used to review films for the New York Post, and now covers the film world for Reuters. The critic has been quoted by others, and is referenced on Wikipedia at a half dozen film articles.
 * I think the review can be used to a very limited extent, perhaps one quote, and absolutely attributed to Shilpa Jamkhandikar as her opinion. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's for the critic's opinion of the film then Reuters is a reliable source for the author's opinion. She seems a valid critic, her reviews count towards Metacritic scores, which are heavily utilised on film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A Reuters blog is a opinion feature - to use the more accurate traditional media term. In some sense, the Wikipedia's editors are quite behind the curve looking at what media companies call "blog" and think of the Wikipedia's 2001 definition in 2011. patsw (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't all movie reviews opinion features? If the author is a noted expert on bollywood films, then using this as source for a section treating critical reception seems appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Jailbreak developer blogs
At Talk:iOS jailbreaking, there's a disagreement between myself and another editor over whether developer blogs, such as the iPhone Dev Team's blog, are reliable, and I'm posting here for extra opinions. The argument basically is due to differing interpretations of WP:SPS: I believe that developer blogs of any kind fail SPS and secondary sources should be used instead, while believes that the technical and non-commercial aspects make them an expert source and can be used alongside secondary sources. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would lean to thinking they are reliable as expert sources, but may run into primary source issues. I would compromise this way : They are a valid source as to technical features/flaws/vulnerabilities etc in apple products. But they should not be used as reliable for their own products/actions/etc (to the degree that any primary source is not). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

datingskillsreview.com
While there are spamming problems with the links and references to datingskillsreview.com as well, I thought it would be helpful to get others' opinions on this site as a reliable source. Here are the current articles and references: --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * 

tiltmode army about skateboarder Caswell Berry
On the article there has been some dispute (but no talk page discussion) about the name of his girlfriend and/or fiance.

Is "tiltmode army", namely the "Kings Court" 19th April 2010 entry on this not-very-safe-for-work blog, an acceptable source for stating in the article that his girlfriend's name is, or at least was, Veronica?

(Despite it being spelled Veronika in the blog itself... I guess skateboarders are more phonetic than most.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite using a TV programme
I have a copy of a BBC documentary that provides information I need. Can I use this as an inline citation and how would I do it. I'm presuming a BBC documentary would be a reliable source of course. I can't find anything in the archives that would help. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can cite it if videos (download, CD, tape, etc.) are or were available. If it was only broadcast, and you taped it off the air, then it isn't available for verification. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) A BBC documentary in most cases would be a reliable source, but if the programme is not publicly available i.e. through iplayer/available on DVD/available through a publicly accesible archive then it is not a verifiable source. Sources have to be accessible in some for or another because every claim on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite episode can also be used for formatting, as it contains multiple fields which can aid verification for others. As a BBC documentary it's likely to be mentioned on their website, and may even be available on their iplayer service for online viewing, which you can link to as well. Whether or not it's readily available for others to verify does not prevent its use as a source, as unavailable newspapers or print sources are also still perfectly valid. Most, if not all, of these programmes are released on home media by the BBC anyway, which will make it verifiable. You don't have to own a copy, nor does anyone else, as the information is able to be viewed, which is the key. GRAPPLE   X  15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of BBC documentaries can be found in libraries, so if you can find it on WorldCat, that also makes it verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source. The aspect of access is covered in WP:SOURCEACCESS and was incorrectly stated above: "If it was only broadcast, and you taped it off the air, then it isn't available for verification". This is not the letter nor spirit of WP:V which actually states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources."  And it is the case for the BBC there are the BBC Archives. In the United States, there is the Paley Center for Media, formerly the Museum of Television and Radio. The availability of sourced content for personal purchase has never been a criterion for verifiability in Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that interpretation: ease of access still implies a level of accessibility. The policy states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The policy does stipulate that it must be possible for readers to check the claim.  A rare out of print book may be difficult to check, but it is still accessible on some level.  The BBC archives aren't, it is impossible for a reader to check them so anything available just via the archive fails verifiability IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Halt and Catch Fire
Hi, everyone.

Please view the talk page here: Talk:Halt_and_Catch_Fire. There is information that is being included in Wikipedia that sounds credible, but in fact it is a joke. I seek some way of being able to confirm that the cited "fact" is in fact a joke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions at the top of the page.
 * The question is whether private correspondence trumps Chow, Paul (May 1988). "MIPS-X Instruction Set and Programmer's Manual". Stanford, California, United States of America: Computer Systems Laboratory, Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Stanford University. p.65. in supporting or not supporting the phrases, "The MIPS-X was a processor supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Programmer's Manual for this chip describes an HSC (Halt and Spontaneously Combust) instruction, that is only found in a version of the processor designed for the National Security Agency."
 * The answer is: Chow (1988) is a reliable source. Private correspondence is not a reliable source.  The article's construction that the manual describes a   is correct.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution would be to have Chow state it was a joke in a reliable published source. Alternatively, he could (or perhaps already has) give the URL of his web site in a reliable published source and then place a statement about the joke on the website. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While this is being sorted out it is probably a good idea to keep in mind that we do not have to use all citations from reliable sources. If removing the possible joke would not distort the article's neutrality, editors should probably agree to remove while sourcing is being checked. If not, then at least consider whether the wording can be neutralized so as not to claim too much about whatever is considered controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to all who are contributing, I think that we've successfully described the problem but are no closer to finding a solution. I don't think that I personally have the resources to fix it. Can someone fix this? - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

bdfa.com.ar for Argentinian footballer BLPs
Hi all!

From the above:
 * 1) link to root page
 * 2) Many. Some examples: José Luis Ceballos, Claudio Arturi & Amilcar Adrián Balercia
 * 3) Not supporting specific statements, these are being used as ELs and are being given as a reason to avoid BLP Prod - would like this confirmed!
 * 1) Not supporting specific statements, these are being used as ELs and are being given as a reason to avoid BLP Prod - would like this confirmed!

Thanks!  Nik the  stoned  15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Lessig part of the Occupy movement?
Does Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" (Discovery / TreeHugger.com) support the fact that Lawrence Lessig is part of the Occupy Wall Street and "Occupy" protests movement, and in particular, does it support inclusion of this section below, which has been deleted as unreliably sourced?
 * Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

TreeHugger is an established Discovery Communications blog with a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy, in my opinion. Tackett has a journalism degree. And there are two videos of Lessig on that page, the second of which has him speaking to the Occupy DC protesters using their "human microphone" technique.

This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street. It is unbelievable and petty that people are seriously trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Froomkin and Shane, both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say it is a reliable source, although I question giving that much coverage in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you trim? Dualus (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources says that Lessig's book and conference were "part of" the Occupy Wall Street protest. There's an ongoing problem with you exaggerating perceived connections; for example, you were going around saying that Lessig was obviously "part of" the movement because he "wrote a manifesto" for the movement, when in fact the book was unrelated to OWS (instead, one reporter happened to mention that it "could serve as" a manifesto). Likewise, you cherry-picked a quote from George Will's sarcastic column ridiculing OWS, and presented it out of context as if it were gushing praise. And after this was pointed out to you, you still edit-warred to re-insert the material in total disregard of the objections raised.

It's fine to discuss reliably sourced connections, but it's not fine to exaggerate them or to imply to the reader that OWS somehow is responsible for, or deserves credit for, anything anyone does that bears any similarity or relevance to OWS. It's also not OK to present sources in a misleading way. I'd like to note that you have also been inserting and edit warring over all of this material without any effort to garner consensus at the talk page, and now have taken the additional measure of making accusations of bad faith against other editors, raising objections of WP:TAGTEAM and saying they are conspiring against you with sinister motives—without any basis whatsoever. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Dan Froomkin says Lessig's book offers a manifesto for the protesters and Peter M. Shane goes further than that. And here is Lessig speaking to the movement on the Maddow show and at Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dualus, as I already mentioned days ago, when you phrase it that way, you give the very misleading impression that Lessig intended the book as a manifesto for OWS. He didn't, and nobody has said he did.  Rather, Froomkin says:
 * "'The protesters occupying Wall Street have been famously without a formal manifesto. But if they wanted one, firebrand Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig's new book about how money has corrupted Congress might be a contender.'"
 * [emphasis added] That's a very, very big difference, especially when it comes to the question of whether Lessig's actions can be somehow attributed to OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can appreciate that take, Centrify. Not so much an RS question, then, more about whether the link is too tenuous, which it looks like it might be. A question for ORN instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't given thought to noticeboards. That said: It's clear that Lessig is someone whom OWS protesters should admire and who has made many arguments that are directly relevant to their interests.  And it's clear that Lessig shows support for the general spirit of the protests.  But Dualus seems to insist that the article say more than that and his edits tend to create the distinct impression that OWS is somehow responsible for Lessig's arguments, the conference he held, the book, etc.  As yet another example, he brought up the conference at the article talk page, noting that a Tea Party leader co-chaired the conference with Lessig, and suggested that this should be reflected in the article as "collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party".  As I said at the time, unless there was a major thread of sources that Dualus forgot to mention, this was an absurd conclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If co-chairing a conference isn't collaboration, then what is? I am happy to ask this question on WP:ORN as well. Dualus (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Centrify's point is that Lessig doesn't represent Occupy. If he co-chaired a meeting with the Tea Party, that is a collaboration between the Tea Party and Lessig. But all that has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which I why I suggest another board. --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict -- Yes, exactly, thanks] This is mind-numbing. Again, as I said several days ago, this is a clear instance of Prof. Larry Lessig collaborating with one Tea Party group's leader — not, it should be clear, an instance of OWS collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it mind-numbing that you continue to ignore Froomkin and Shane, who both specifically say that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. With quotes.  (You can't.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, and  are replete with support that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. With quotes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People can read for themselves by clicking on the links. Start with the headline of the first. Dualus (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The headline doesn't support your contention.
 * And we're not mind-readers.
 * And I have read the entirety of both articles and they don't support your contention. You've been saying this for days and editing combatively based on this assumption that you're right, but you have not yet bothered to demonstrate that any of these sources actually provide support for the (exaggerated) contentions you're making.
 * Cite specific article text or drop this argument. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are plainly mistaken. Readers can judge for themselves. Here are several more sources. Dualus (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we don't consider Huffington to be a very reliable source, see. As for  and, I don't think that's enough to support inclusion of the material in the article on OWS--it seems to me that would be UNDUE weight, especially given the question of reliability. It may be appropriate to include that material in the article on Lessig, since he's quoted. But those are not really issues for this board. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest version has seven additional sources, including two showing that the protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment, and a Slate piece saying Lessig adds credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article in question is either Lawrence Lessig or Occupy Wall Street, or both, then Lessig's view is presented in the Huffington Post. What possible concern about its reliability could exist about Huffington Post presenting Lessig's view? patsw (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lessig's view on OWS is in Huffington Post

I am working on replacing the Huffington Post sources with more reputable sources such as. Dualus (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In this context, what are your concerns with Huffington Post not being reliable in presenting Lessing's views? patsw (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The following sources have emerged:


 * On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published a declaration(ref name=99percentdeclaration>New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved 20 October 2011. of demands, goals, and solutions.(ref name=duda>Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange (ref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider (ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian The protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.(ref name=manning>Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch (ref name=crugnale>Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite (ref name=niose>Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want &mdash; Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today (ref>McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com 


 * Critiques of those sources are most welcome. Dualus (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do any of these sources mention Lessig or is this just more synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Asked—and answered. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm depending mostly on this Slate story and Lessig's speech to the DC protesters for that connection, but I will be happy to look for more sources associating the two. Dualus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That story demonstrates that Lessig has made supportive statements about OWS and encourage his followers to join the protests. As I said days ago when you first mentioned that source, there's no problem saying that in the WP article.  But you can't use it as the basis for some OR misadventure and make all kinds of claims not supported by any source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution. The discussions linked within the link above provided by another editor shows many reasons that don't hold water for total exclusion and one editor says this: "The HP is reliable only for opinions correctly placed with their authors." So the deletion of the Huff reference and statement from the lede of OWS violates this as it was pulled from the body of the article having used the HP in this very manner. The lede does not require the reference as long as it's in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand there were other sources. That wasn't in dispute. In this context, what are the concerns with Huffington Post not being reliable in presenting Lessig's views? patsw (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a letter from Lessig himself so it's opinion and not fact based.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This particular content dispute really doesn't hinge on reliability of sources. Rather, after starting seven individual discussions of this topic at the article talk page—no particular reason why he had to keep starting new sections—Dualus was determined to press forward but seemed to struggle with figuring out where else to raise the debate, and ended up starting four different noticeboard discussions, as well, as you can see at the NPOV noticeboard.  Despite the continued posting, I think this particular discussion is actually moot and should be closed.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're right. It's not (aside from the Huffington Letter).--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins.net
One thing I've come across is on the Jimmy Carr page, it states that Carr became an atheist due to becoming aware of dawkins's writings and it is sourced by a page from richarddawkins.net. Personally I think this could be a violation of WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:SELFPUB as its asserting a claim on (what is essentially) a personal website and is supposed to have been written by Carr himself (in what appears to be just a reproduction of a magazine interview). I just wanted to check if people agree that this particular example is an unreliable source and should be removed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a reproduction of an interview with Carr in Psychologies magazine. The interview is reliable for Carr's views and beliefs. Better to source it directly to Psychologies, but Dawkins' blog is OK as a convenience link. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Like Itsmejudith said, Psychologies magazine is the source, not RichardDawkins.net, but FYI the latter isn't really a personal site or blog – it's published by a nonprofit foundation set up by Dawkins. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC on excluding criticism of Nonviolent Communication
I'd welcome any input from editors familiar with RS in an RFC concerning exclusion of criticism of Nonviolent Communication. Joja lozzo  20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Salim Al-Hassani and muslimheritage.com
After noticing today that muslimheritage.com is being widely used across Wikipedia, I came across this thread about its employment. Can we do something about this with a bot or something? Also, the Salim Al-Hassani—is this not little more than a puff piece? I also note that he's behind the extremely dubious 1001 Inventions exhibitions (i.e. every claim made in this official trailer alone—the camera obscura, flight, surgery, astrolabes, clocks, etc.—is blatantly pre-dated by a non-Islamic source). After the massive Jagged incident not long ago, it would seem to me that some sort of bot may be appropriate. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked over the article. It is phrased somewhat positively, but seems ok overall. Sourcing is a mixed bag, but I checked that many of the claims are supported by reliable sources, and none seems wrong. Notability is not a question. The "1001 Inventions" exhibition is shown by major museums and has won prices. Thus, while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Schulz, click any of those articles I link to; camera obscura, aviation history, surgery, astrolabe. They blatantly and demonstratably contradict the claims made by this "1001 Inventions" exhibition; we cannot simply use this as a source when it's blatantly wrong and misleading. These are by no means reliable sources, and they shouldn't get some kind of pass because the exhibition and its creator are famous. Rather than attempt to push a serious concern off without doing the necessary research to understand the situation, please step to the side until someone else who is willing to put the time in may appear. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note that I have been asked to contribute to this debate, but anyway, with that disclaimer: as your link to the previous discussion shows, bloodofox, it has been previously agreed that muslimheritage.com is not a reliable source, especially with regard to scientific history, and specifically with regard to claims of "being first". I've had to try to pin down some of the references used by the 1001 inventions exhibition, and I've not been wildly impressed. In one case I looked at, no page reference is given for an 800 page work! When I tried to pin it down how this 100 year old source (not exactly modern scholarship) supported the claims that the medieval Islamic city of Cordoba had public lighting and litter collection, I didn't have a great deal of success. The source said that the city was well lit and kept clean, but I could find absolutely nothing to support the assertion that there was public litter collection (as opposed to, say, efficient street cleaners). According to other Wikipedians, the "public lighting" in Cordoba was essentially half a dozen lamps in the main square, provided by the local ruler. I should check the other source given, which has page references, but in any case that source is not anything as helpful as a history of medieval Cordoba by a specialist in that area; it's a book on "The Mind of the Middle Ages", which apparently mentions Cordoba in passing. So in both cases, the 1001 inventions assertions are not well referenced, and to the extent that they may be true, 1001 inventins seems rather slanted to give an impression of a more advanced society than actually existed. The suggestion of it being first in these areas strikes me as nearly impossible to prove, given our incomplete knowledge of the ancient world (and the fact that writers rarely bother writing about litter collection). I'd be surprised if a reputable ancient scholar would be prepared to make such a claim without much more conclusive proof. Cordoba was certainly an advanced city for its time, but to say it had public litter collection and public lighting (with bad referencing) gives the reader the impression of weekly bin collections and public lights on every street, which as far as I can tell wasn't the case.
 * In terms of the specific question of using a bot for muslimheritage and 1001 inventions, I guess a bot could at least find all the references for checking, but I'd be wary of it doing automated deletion or whatever, at least until a significant sample of the references had been checked by a human.--Merlinme (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that all these need checking against good historical sources. Gies & Gies on medieval technology have a chapter on the transfer of technology from Asia to Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably most ancient cities had street cleaners. There is some story about an emperor of Rome having mud stuffed down the toga of an official who was in charge of keeping the streets clean because they were muddy. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As always WIkipedia has something about it, aediles were in charge of street cleaning. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit more on why Muslimheritage.com is unreliable: It was previously discussed at RSN#18 and RSN#27. In summary, muslimheritage.com is unreliable because, among other things, it releases a lot of non-peer reviewed work, has no clear review board or process, sometimes publishes articles with no author attribution, and has published a number of works with numerous citation problems, including the Arslan Terzioglu article mentioned in your RSN#27 link and 'Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times' discussed on my talk page User_talk:Dialectric. As to the cleanup process, fortunately muslimheritage.com as a string is unique enough that wikipedia's special search page will pick up most (all?) instances of it. I've used the search to remove the site when it was used as a sole reference for a number of claims in history articles. Dialectric (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Use Special:LinkSearch to find external links: this shows 296 occurrences of muslimheritage.com (which includes usage in 119 articles). One of the non-article occurrences is this report by Spacepotato, and another, which explain some problems with the site. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Stephan Schulz's statement was clear: "while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we". Therefore, any removal of MuslimHeritage links will be reverted as it appears to be a unilateral decision not based on any strong argument. Dialectric linked to several pages where some editors have discovered some mistakes in the works published on MuslimHeritage.com. Issues like failing to note an earlier European invention, and thus reached the conclusion that it is an unreliable and biased reference. By that logic, Dialectric will have to remove any works by any Western academic who has failed to mention an earlier invention by Indian or Chinese scholars. It is also astonishing how an editor in one of Dialectric's linked pages argued for its unreliability, claiming that it "exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" because one work contrasts the advancement of the Medieval Islamic civilization with the darkness which enveloped Europe during the Middle Ages. In other words, a scholar is not allowed to criticize the European Middle Ages, and it's worse if that is followed by a praise for a non-European civilization, because ridiculing Medieval Europe is only permissible when talking about the Renaissance, otherwise that scholar is exhibiting a strong pro-Islamic or pro-Chinese bias. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Attempts at lawyering like this do not help any of us. It has been well illustrated that this source is deep red on the "unreliable" scale by the various users above who have checked into it here (and those that have done so prior, as illustrated by the unsurprising amount of incidents where the issue has come up before). It must thus be treated as such, no matter what religious beliefs any of us may hold or what cultural sphere we may stem from. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" was in reference to a specific paper hosted on muslimheritage.org, and not the site in general. That specific paper, Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times link has problems well beyond just an unfavorable comparison of medieval European and Muslim civilizations; I will elaborate on the issues with this paper on Al-Andalusi's talk page. Dialectric (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)