Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18

Linux websites
Would these websites be considered reliable sources? Specifically in regards to Linux-related topics? Can they be used to establish notability and critical commentary?


 * http://distrowatch.com
 * http://linux.com
 * http://tuxs.org
 * http://osnews.com
 * http://reviewlinux.com

Thanks for your input. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia War
Got a question - is this source (http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=86442) reliable? Some folks are alleging it's "Azeri propaganda" and I truly have no idea. Kingnavland (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to mention the context first. The source is alleging that Russian aircraft attacked Georgia from a Russian airbase in Armenia. The source obviously has an axe to grind. See: Nagorno-Karabakh War. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not sure why that's relevant to the situation at hand. Let's leave Azeri-Armenian politics out of it and just get a ruling.Kingnavland (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you leave that out of it when a non-authoritarian Azeri online publication is making an unsourced allegation against Armenia? Quite frankly that comment just boggles the mind.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Azeri Press Agency is not reliable on this issue because Armenia and Azerbaijan are technically in a state of war with each other. The press agency (read propaganda agency) of Azerbaijan is naturally going to want to sour armenia's relations with it's northern neighbor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense really.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's start over. I would like to hear from someone who is neither Armenian nor Azeri about whether or not this is a reliable source. Kingnavland (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am neither Armenian nor Azeri. Not that it should matter. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances, I would completely agree. However, since the Azeris and the Armenians are in a state of war (and from the looks of things, the war extends to Wikipedia edits), it appears that any Azeri would say the source is valid and any Armenian would say the opposite; there's too much bias. Kingnavland (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is irrelevant. Look at the source's source: "Gruziya Online website reports that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Armenia." It's not a defense source. It's a website, whose reliability we don't know. I say that until this can be corroborated by independent reporting, it should not be included. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Energy Sites

 * I have been attempting to edit some of the fringier energy topics including

Hydrogen fuel enhancement]‎],[[Water-fuelled car‎, Oxyhydrogen]‎], [[Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell‎ , Fran%C3%A7ois_Isaac_de_Rivaz.
 * Editors continually insert references that I consider unverifyable and unreliable and I'd like to get some intervention from an admin.  It seems that many have an agenda on fringe energy that they will use any reference no matter how minor, and attempt to use it to continue their cause.
 * Examples include youtube.com, www.padrak.com, www.waterpoweredcar.com,  www.thorionproject.com
 * An example of a particularly disuptive user is user:gdewilde who has alaready had several blocks under both his current and previous login, and may be sockpuppeting. In fact, I challenge you to find an edit by the user that wasn't objected to by several other editors. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of a particularly disuptive user is user:gdewilde who has alaready had several blocks under both his current and previous login, and may be sockpuppeting. In fact, I challenge you to find an edit by the user that wasn't objected to by several other editors. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of Op-Eds and Non-neutral sources in Climate change denial
I'm a bit concerned with the reliability of the sources in climate change denial. First, a number of op-eds are used as a basis for the presentation of factual evidence. For example:

8. ^ a b Ellen Goodman (9 February 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.

9. ^ Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect Peter Christoff. The Age AU.com, July 9, 2007

10. ^ Deniers of global warming harm us Joel Connelly. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2007.


 * Erm. Correction here. None of these sources are used as a basis. These are given as examples, of media representation. And they are correctly inline described as "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism.[5][6][7][8][9][10]". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point. My bad. Nevertheless, the op-ed nature of the sources isn't clear from the inline citation.  J. Langton (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim is that since these are not the sole citation for the phrases which refer to these, that it's not a problem. My understanding of WP:RS is that these references should nonetheless be deleted.

There are a couple other references which I would maintain are examples of opinion journalism; another editor maintains that they're "investigative journalism" and as such are kosher. They are

28. ^ Hertsgaard, Mark (May 2006). "While Washington Slept". Vanity Fair. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.

40. ^ Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Rolling Stone. Retrieved on 2007-07-14.

They are not marked in the magazine specifically as op-eds, but the titles and the actual content of the pieces make it clear, in my opinion, that the articles are advocacy rather than neutral commentary, and as such should be subject to the same restrictions as clearly-marked op-eds.

Also, I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone as sources for this particular issue -- both magazines have pretty clear political leanings, and as such shouldn't be considered more reliable than, for example, National Review or similar political newsmagazines. (Along those lines, if VF and RS are considered reliable, would NR also be fair game?)

In any case, I think that the extensive use of op-eds and other slanted sources in this article contributes to a subtle but definite POV problem. I'm posting here because another editor disagrees with my assessment and suggested that I request additional input here. So any comments would be much appreciated! J. Langton (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on pseudonymous authors
"WP:V says 'The word 'source', as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.'"

We have a question at several places on this article's talk page about whether an anonymous or pseudonymous "letter to the editor" or "comment" in a highly respected scientific journal on sexology can be considered a reliable source. The comment criticizes specific aspects of the research behind a psychological conception of transwomen, such as whether the correct kinds of control groups were used. It's (apparently) the only published critique on certain aspects of this idea, as (apparently) no professional has been willing to publicly own these specific critical comments (although various professionals have criticized other aspects of this conception). Some editors feel strongly that the comment should be accepted as a reliable source in the related Wikipedia articles. Others find it weak, even too weak to be accepted. Here's what we know about the three aspects of verifiability:


 * the piece of work itself: As a comment, it is not subject to the peer-review process.  In this specific instance, the journal promised to publish every comment they received on the topic, so it did not undergo normal editorial review, either.


 * the creator of the work: The author's identity is unknown and therefore we simply can't evaluate this aspect.  The author claims to be both a developmental psychologist and a transwoman.  The author also runs a website under this name.  This comment is the only publication under this pseudonym at PubMed.


 * the publisher of the work: Worldwide, this is probably the single most important scientific journal for sexology.  A normal research paper in this journal is obviously a reliable source.

Is the fact that the journal itself is a reliable source "good enough" to meet WP:V standards? Do you generally accept anonymous or pseudonymous comments as reliable sources? For example, would you cite a letter to the editor in The New York Times if it was known that the author was not writing under his or her correct name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As an example, the Cheryl Chase (activist) article describes the founding of the Intersex Society of North America via a pseudonymous 1993 letter to the editor in The Sciences, a respected publication. Chase used this pseudonym for 15 years and is still cited by that name. Even though Chase has used at least three names and provided inconsistent biographical information, the verifiability of the 1993 letter as concerns Wikipedia is indisputable: it appeared in The Sciences, it can be looked up by anyone, and its contents are even available online. It is thus cited in her Wikipedia article. The same is true in the case of Madeline Wyndzen (the pseudonymous author): the materials in question were published by a top sexology journal (Archives of Sexual Behavior) and are available for purchase just like any other article in their publication. Wyndzen's work is listed in PubMed, Google Scholar, etc.
 * One aspect of this debate worth noting is that Wyndzen is critical of key personnel at the Archives of Sexual Behavior, where her paper was published. One of those people is an editor here (User:James Cantor), who is leading the push on Wikipedia to expunge any materials published by Wyndzen. Further, in the paper in question, Wyndzen specifically mentions Wikipedia articles that she feels cite psychologist Yolanda Smith erroneously. This has led the Wikipedia editor who cited Smith (User:Hfarmer) to push for expunging any materials published by Wyndzen. In other words, they wish to claim that the Archives of Sexual Behavior is reliable for the purposes of materials with which they agree, but unreliable for the purposes of articles critical of them. I believe this case is less about who Wyndzen is and more about what she says, which is disliked by the editors seeking to expunge her. In the links provided by User:WhatamIdoing, you can see that some are even calling for determining Wyndzen's real name. I see this as part of an ongoing attempt to suppress and discredit criticism of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where most key personnel from Archives of Sexual Behavior work, including User:James Cantor. As a matter of disclosure, I have cited Wyndzen in my own published work, so I consider her reliable and her publications verifiable. Jokestress (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It presumably matters to neutral editors how the source is being used. "Somebody wrote a pseudonymous letter" can be trivially supported by a ref to the letter itself: if a letter exists, then it was very clearly written. However, this pseudonymous source is being used to support "The following serious scientific charges have been made:", which requires a more robust source. I'm open to any outcome. I am, however, specifically seeking the opinion of experienced Wikipedia editors that are not involved in this issue in their real lives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Just giving context. Jokestress (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording and sourcing in question above would seem to give majorly undue weight to a source of no known reliability. I don't think the existence of a letter to the editor alone, anonymous or otherwise, indicates "serious scientific charges". Lots of journals print letters to the editors from cranks that they do not support. "Scientific" charges, to me, should either be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal by one or more scientists (not merely a peer-reviewed journal discussing science, as the bar is much lower there) or by a highly reputable scientist in another source. "Serious" scientific charges would need to additionally prove that they are "serious" in some way -- like multiple reputable RS scientists making the charges and not just some off the cuff hasty letter to the editor. 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record I merely wish to establish the authority of Dr. Wyndzen or the lack thereof such as the case may be. If this requires "vectoring and exposing" her ( no less than Jokestress's own words in relation to other anonymous parties in this debacle) so be it.  As for the seriousness of her scientific charges...If she is genuine then those charges have some weight.  A journal need not publish a critique of a theory for that critique to be valid.  If she as one single individual scientist points out flaws in Dr.'s Smith and Blanchard's research that is enough to cast some doubt.  Her opinion could at least be considered a minority opinion and mentioned with due weight.  I would not object to this.  I just object to the true double standard being applied by Jokestress and those who think like her.  The supposed "Dr. Wyndzen" says things that agree with her pov therefore she is believed uncritically.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy's response to this question has been criticized as not being repeated by enough other editors here to properly establish consensus. If you could oblige us by posting your views, even if it seems like a "vote" instead of a rational discussion, I'd appreciate it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I would say that pseudonymous and anonymous letter to the editor of a scientific journal should be regarded with suspicion as sources. In some cases (where a journal makes no promise about publishing all letters and selects among letters) some bare minimum of editorial control can be assumed.  However this is not sufficient in most cases.  In the case of scientific disputes one of the critical elements in ascribing reliability to published work is the reputation economy behind publication.  If a scientist publishes a patently false or misleading paper, we expect that the scientific community will "punish" (or at least not reward) him or her.  This strong reputation economy (along with the long training time and presumably selective PhD process) allows us to give a wide latitude to scientific sources.  An anonymous letter circumvents this economy and prevents the scientific community from rewarding or punishing the scientist for making claims.  As such, the normal incentives for a scientist to speak tentatively are removed.  that needs to be considered when looking at the source itself.  So even if the author is a respected scientist (which we could assume for the sake of argument), the authority of the comment cannot be derived from the presumed expertise of the commenter.  If the scientist wants to publish a critique of the study, that may be done.  alternately, if the scientist wants to stake their reputation on an unpublished critique of the study, that is possible, too.  But in this case, we can't judge a pseudonymous letter to the editor as a reliable source, even as the opinion of the author.  The fact that this particular letter was published following a promise from the journal to publish all letters makes it even more suspect. Tl;dr=no. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Letters to the editor, and similar non-vetted commentary, should be treated like self-published sources and op-ed pieces. In this instance, that would lean towards the exclusion of the source. Additionally, there are due weight concerns present here, as we should not be presenting extreme minority views of a topic. If a pseudonymous letter to the editor is the only source of the criticisms, it's unquestionably a violation of our policies and principles to present such a view in the mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vassyana on almost every point. My only quibble would be that letters to the editor, and authors' responses, in a high-quality medical journal normally would be given greater weight than a random self-published source or op-ed piece. I have found these letters to be quite helpful in pointing out limitations in studies, particularly when acknowledged by the authors. A lot of it depends on the case, of course, and in this particular case from the evidence presented above (which is all I've read) the source sounds a bit dubious. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also agree with Vassyana. It should not be used.Momento (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this discussion is that it was framed in such a way as to hide the bias and agenda of those who seek to suppress the source. While User:WhatamIdoing is typically less extreme that User:James Cantor, he follows pretty much the same agenda and POV. Cantor is on the editorial board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which published the long commentary by Dreger that the editor Zucker characterized as "controversial" and "peer reviewed", along with 23 commenataries to it, and Dreger's response to those commentaries. Fourteen of the 23 commentaries have been counted as strongly critical of Dreger's article, conclusions, or methodology. Wyndzen's pseudonymous comment is one of these; she has also published other articles and a web site under this assumed name, to protect her identity as a transwoman and academic from those academic sexologists who in this dispute seem to be teamed up against poeple of her POV. The wiki tactic of the sexologists such as Cantor is to push the Dreger piece as reliable and authoritative, while arguing that the other side of the argument published in the same journal is unreliable, just "letters to the editor." There needs to be a way to balance Dreger whenever she is cited by talking about the other side as published there and commented on by her. I think that this can be easily achieved by being clear in the article about what opinion is being cited, and then referencing the journal for the letter that is the source of that opinion. Treating these letters as reliable sources for opinions is not the same as treating them as reliable sources for facts. So, with appropriate edits to the article, it should be possible to represent the opinions of Wyndzen and other commentators. Wyndzen's commentary is actually one of the most thoughtful and insightful and non-polarized of the lot, as it concerns the underlying scientific controversies, but is extremely critical of Dreger's approach and pro-Bailey conclusions; email me if you'd like a copy of the whole lot. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

www.fungitecture.com
I noticed recently that an editor has been adding text and an external link since May to Doric order. It has problems to my eye with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:QS, and WP:SPS. They are editing against consensus using multiple ips (see Doric history), and now spreading it to other articles. I've already reverted so I can't block or protect, but I think they are being disruptive and spamming this link, and unreliably sourced theory. Not sure where else to post this. dvdrw 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I just checked out the site, and I can confirm that it miserably fails the requirements for a reliable source. I don't even see room for discussion on it, honestly, and this extends to the content it's being used to source. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought. I protected the page since they are using proxies. dvdrw 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Labouring under such trivial arguments, it is no wonder Wikipedia is such an incredibly long way behind FungiTecture.com. O8TY (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, dvdrw. Wikipedia needs to stay free of this kind of road-company discordianism. --Wetman (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is in response to the above complainants of fungitecture.com and is provided for the benefit of those readers who have stumbled across this page and are wondering what it is about.

This response should be read in conjunction with the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the following Wikipedia articles, which provide a record of this dispute:

Doric Order 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_order Ionic Order 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_order Corinthian Order 	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_order Form follows function 	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function Mycenae 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae Aeolic Order 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_order

The dispute begins with the insertion of select material from fungitecture.com into the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, and the subsequent removal of same by the above complainants, amongst others. Although fungitecture.com has since expunged most of its material from these Wikipedia articles, traces of the inserted material still exist in the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the Wikipedia articles dating from May 1 2008 through to the end of July 2008. The inserted material can also be viewed in its original context in corresponding articles at fungitecture.com.

It needs to be recognised that fungitecture.com only ever added material to the Wikipedia articles, and that no pre-existing material in the Wikipedia articles, except for spaces and punctuation marks, was ever overwritten or deleted by fungitecture.com. As the inserted material was also referenced back to fungitecture.com, Wikipedia readers were never denied access to the arguments supporting the inserted material at fungitecture.com, unlike the vast majority of other material pre-existing on Wikipedia. However, as none of the above complainants has published any objective criticism of the inserted material in the relevent sections of Wikipedia, but rather have schemed variously to denigrate fungitecture.com, such as posting to this Reliable Sources noticeboard, the complainants give the impression of themselves being insufficiently versed in the subject matters concerned and incapable of rational or reasoned argument.

Further support for this view may be gathered from the personal Wikipedia pages of the following complainants:

Wetman 			- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wetman DVDRW 			- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DVD_R_W and archives Someguy1221 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Someguy1221 Cluebot 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot Mdebets 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdebets The_Cat_and_the_Owl 	- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_The_Cat_and_the_Owl El_Greco 		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_Greco Michael Slone		- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Slone

While most of the above complainants have chosen to conceal their true identities through the use of faceless nicknames, their personal Wikipedia pages generally do not yield sufficient information to determine their level of education, experience or other competence in the relevent subjects, that includes but is not limited to ancient Greek culture, including its architecture, and mycology. Although one complainant claims to have attended a school of architecture, this is not the same as having graduated as an architect, and it is left to our imagination to determine the capacity and duration of the attendance, and indeed the reason for premature departure. But as none of the above complainants is prepared to let themselves be scrutinised as a reliable source, none of the above complainants can themselves be regarded as a reliable source, let alone a reliable or qualified critic of fungitecture.com.

The first objection to the material, as evidenced in the "History" section of the Doric Order article, was raised by Wetman, who ventured to remove the initial entry made by o8TY of fungitecture.com on May 1, 2008. As Wetman provided no objective reason for this removal, the material was promptly reinstated by o8TY. What followed was a series of alternating removals by Wetman and the other complainants, many of whom have been active in editing various Wikipedia pages for many years, and then reinstatements mostly made by o8TY. However, even at this early stage of proceedings, many of the removals were accompanied by a variety of subjective comments, some of which could be classed as uncivil according to the Wikipedia's policy on Civility. After a few rounds of removal/reinstatement, Wetman then extracted the disputed text to the Doric Order "Discussion" page and appended a comment to this action. In this comment, Wetman admits "Dorus is an invented eponym" (ie an invented name), which contradicts the widely espoused view that the Doric style of architecture was attributed to the Dorian peoples, but which in no way refutes the interpretation of the name "Doric" offered by fungitecture.com. Having thus placed the entire Wikipedian, and possibly Western, understanding of the Doric style in jeopardy, Wetman then attempts to undermine the rationalisation of the Doric temple provided by fungitecture.com as "...a private dream". Upon exposing Wetman for his contradiction and ad hominem, Wetman then childishly blurts: "Adult supervision of this article is urgently requested. The account O8TY was opened for the purpose of inserting this intentionally disruptive nonsense". As if Wetman could presume as much.

Wetman then proceeded to post excerpts from fungitecture.com together with disparaging remarks upon various Wikipedia pages, including upon pages that fungitecture.com had not previously inserted any of its material or had otherwise shown any involvement (eg Aeolic). By this action, Wetman has not only violated the fungitecture.com Terms of Use, but shown disrespect for the intellectual property of others. Furthermore, by posting false and misleading information concerning fungitecture.com, Wetman has demonstrated incompetence or a deliberate intention to mislead. However, as none of the above or other complainants of fungitecture.com, some of whom may also be administrators of Wikipedia, has notified fungitecture.com or o8TY, whether privately or through Wikipedia, of any attempt to censure Wetman for these actions, fungitecture.com can only regard these other complainants as acting in league with Wetman and not without prejudice.

Further indications of collusion and bias may be gathered from the above sequence of posts by the complainants. The first post by Dvdrw occured at 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC), which was followed five minutes later by that of Someguy1221 at 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) and then fourteen minutes later again by Dvdrw at 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Thus, within five minutes of Dvdrw having posted the initial complaint, Someguy1221 purports to have independently discovered and read the initial post by Dvdrw, to have opened and thoroughly "checked" the thirty-odd pages then comprising fungitecture.com, and to have composed and posted a reply in support of Dvdrw. Strangely, however, site activity logs at fungitecture.com do not show any extensive visitation to its website in the hours immediately preceeding these times. Notwithstanding superfast internet connections and superhuman reading and typing abilities, the rapid sequence of posts suggests a collusion between Dvdrw and Someguy1221 in their attempt to denigrate fungitecture.com. However, as the complainants have only ever posted subjective opinions of fungitecture.com and have altogether failed to objectively address any of the scholarly material at fungitecture.com, the complainants can only be viewed as acting from personal bias rather than in the academic interests of an encyclopedia ("all-round-education"). Indeed, the lack of objective criticism from any of the complainants, together with their collective failure to identify and address any of the ancient sources from which fungitecture.com compiled its material, suggests the complainants are not well versed in the subject matters concerned.

An inspection of the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, as it existed before the insertion of any fungitecture.com material on May 1, 2008, is also instructive for what it reveals about the calibre of the complainants of fungitecture.com, many of whom had been editing or contributing to this and associated Wikipedia articles for many years. Besides being poorly written and containing numerous syntactical, terminological and other delinquencies of fact, the article fails to adequately address the origins, essence and intent of the style. Instead, the article devotes considerable space to a supposed design flaw, yet fails to convey the triviality of this issue, nor the context that fostered this issue. To make matters worse, the article draws heavily upon the writings of the Roman architectural historian Marcus Vitruvius Pollio who, besides admitting to having never practised as an architect himself, has long been regarded as an unreliable source due to the overwhelming number of errors, ommissions, inconsistencies, biases and other failings in his treatise. With the "Doric Order" article thus already grossly polluted with erroneous, misinformed and unreliable source material, the complainants of fungitecture.com do not present as capable correspondents, let alone strict adherents of Wikipedia policy.

Having thus exposed the complainants of fungitecture.com for numerous and diverse deficiencies, a picture emerges of a perverse class of self-appointed Wikipedia editors unable to comprehend nor objectively deal with scholarly material beyond their own misguided beliefs and limited understandings, yet willing to gang together in some vain attempt to denigrate the learned. For this and other reasons, fungitecture.com has sought to remove its material from the Wikipedia website and has withdrawn its consent to Wikipedia and its successors from further using any fungitecture.com material.

But with Wikipedia itself widely regarded as an unreliable source, not least because of its ever changing content, this Reliable Sources noticeboard can only be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. O8TY (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the book Cosmopolitanism published by Duke University Press a reliable source for the claim "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations"?
Is the book Cosmopolitanism published by Duke University Press a reliable source for the claim "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations"? is blanking cited material in the article Sangh Parivar. The book is written by Sheldon Pollock, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Homi K. Bhabha.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's reliable, but there's a legitimate question of whether or not using it is a weighting concern. Is the subaltern view significant enough in relation to the topic for inclusion? That is the question that's at hand, rather than any questions of reliability. Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is written by highly reputed writers. How will it be undue, especially while dealing with a highly controversial organization like the Sangh Parivar. It is common knowledge that the SP is a Hindu chauvinist organization which seeks to establish Hindu hegemony and destroy other religions, if not destruction, then assimilating other religions within Hindu tradition.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good gracious. That's not "common knowledge". I certainly do not know any such thing. We do not put POVs into articles, we cite sources for what they say, if they are significant enough to mention in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right we do not put POV, we put reliable sources, and this is what going on here.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope so, but your phrasing makes me skeptical. As described below, the statement as quoted in this section heading is not just citing reliable sources, it's advancing a POV. Cite what the reliable sources say, do not try to make he article say that what those people say is a fact. You need to understand the difference. DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I have made a mistake, I should have said "anyone who has a good knowledge on Politics of India knows that the SP is a Hindu chauvinist organization".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify an important point people seem to miss all the time: Nothing is a reliable source for "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations" *If* the book is reliable (which I haven't looked into), it could be a reliable source for the statement "The authors of the book Cosmopolitan have described Sangh Parivar as a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations." Do you see the important distinction there? The existence of a reliable source saying something (again, not saying this one is reliable) does not mean that that something is true, just that they SAID that. Wikipedia does not take sides in such issues, we just report what reliable sources say and let the readers decide for themselves. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's completely and utterly untrue, and a comprehensive mis-interpretation of WP:NPOV. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, you are the one who is wrong. NPOV doesn't mean a thing at all if you present mere opinions as if they were facts. We report what the sources are and what they say, not try to declare that sources are right. We do not take sides, period. You need to go reread policies here if you don't understand that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinions about political orientation that are generally held are presented as fact. I frankly don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a point that you seem to miss: if all reliable sources agree, a statement like "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations" is just fine. Just like Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, instead of Mars is widely considered by astronomers to be the fourth planet from the sun. There's nothing wrong with a bald statement of fact if there isn't any credible controversy. Gray areas occur when there is controversy that only some editors consider credible. Kww (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn;t miss any point. The point here is that some reliable sources can make a a claim, but that's only a claim unless it can be objectively verified. Mars is objectively verified. Chauvinism, etc., are labels and not as objective. If any reliable sources dispute the claim then it's not an objective fact but merely an opinion. Explain who says what and leave it at that. Picking one side as right is a violation of NPOV in a major way. DreamGuy (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to know something more about the Sangh Parivar, this google search will be helpful. Everyone, who has the minimum knowledge on Hindu politics, knows Sangh Parivar is a chauvinistic organization with a quasi-fascistic ideology and methods.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While this information can be presented as criticism in a separate section. And it will be also good to add some more information by using pro-Hindutva writers.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Google Book search, this source refers to "moderate voices within the Sangh Parivar [that] acknowledge the plurality of Hinduism and its non-partisan character. The one-time militant proponents of Hindutva [...] currently spare no effort in highlighting the accommodative and 'melting pot' nature of Hinduism ..." This source appears to speak of a "Hindu chauvinist wing of the Sangh Parivar", so it's perhaps overstating the case that all sources equate the Sangh Parivar as a whole with Hindu chauvinism. The Sangh Parivar also includes the BJP, one of India's mainstream political parties (though it is explicitly right-wing and Hindu), which formed a recent government in India. For more background see Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh; the RSS does have historical links to Hitler and fascism going back to the 1930s. Jayen 466 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:

Jayen 466 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sangh Parivar" nationalist: 768 matches
 * "Sangh Parivar" fundamentalist: 378 matches
 * "Sangh Parivar" "Hindu fundamentalist": 64 matches
 * "Sangh Parivar" chauvinist: 60 matches

Toll Roads News, again
This was discussed above and determined to be self-published, which I agree with. However, might it still be a reliable source? It has apparently been published by Peter Samuel (we have an article about him, but I'm not sure if he's actually notable) for 13 years. He does seem to be recognized as an expert - and of course as a pro-toll road advocate. Would it be acceptable to use facts about specific roads, such as from in Adams Avenue Parkway? --NE2 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks like proper use of a self-published acticle by an expert, for basic facts about roads. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh. the books he has written or contributed to change the issue a little bit.  I was the quick respondent before.  I made by suggestion on the basis of information on the website by itself.  This is probably a good case for the exceptions listed at WP:SPS. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CombinedFleet.com
CombinedFleet.com is an oft-used reference for Wikipedia articles related to the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Pacific War of World War II. During the FAC for the Battle of Tassafaronga, someone questioned the reliability of the site as a source. Since the same concern may come up again, as I'm using the site as a source in another article that I plan on nominating for FAC once it's ready, I thought that I should get some other opinions on it in advance.

I believe the site is reliable because the site owners are Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, authors of the book Shattered Sword, a source used in a variety of Wikipedia articles, especially the Battle of Midway which is a featured article. Perhaps more important, though, is that the site lists its sources of information here and here. Those two lists represent a definitive work of English Pacific War literature. If the site's operators are reputable, published authors and they clearly list the sources of their information, and those sources are valid primary and secondary sources, does that make the site a reliable, secondary source? Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thirty books cite it, which is quite a lot. One could check how they use it, as far as possible, but together with the above info, it seems quite good.John Z (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe that answers the question. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia useable as a source
This small section of a much larger dispute contains the assertion that Wikipedia rules are flexible enough to allow using Polish Wikipedia as a source if your goal is to create articles about every Polish village. Anybody care to comment on that assertion? Kww (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not RS, it is a self-reference. You need to use the source used at pl.wiki. --Soman (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Soman has it right. You can link to the polish Wikipedia article (I am not sure if it would go in the External Links section or the See Also section... probably the former), but you can not use another Wiki as a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. I wouldn't want to canvass for support over in the linked discussions, because that would be against the rules. Kww (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Query about four websites
Following some feedback I offered at Featured list candidates/Screaming Trees discography, I would like some assistance here in figuring out if the following sites are considered reliable or not: I have opposed the FLC based on these sources, because they appear to be fansites and stat sites built by someone in their bedroom with too much time on their hands. The FLC nominator insists they are Reliable though. My issue with clipland.com is the fact that Firefox blocked two pop-ups for me, and because uses pop up ads, it shouldn't be used. Additionally, it is being used to reference the director of a music video, and it does this by linking to a YouTube-hosted video. It was my thought that YouTube does not meet WP:RS.
 * 
 * ,
 * and, and
 * CKB

Any help that can be given on this is appreciated. Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a Petition signed by Eminent Academics a RS?
A British scientist, Michael Atiyah, was accused of academic misconduct by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju. There are several sources involved and a heated discussion on this talk page. The specific question I have regards a petition signed by several eminent academics in support of Raju.

In this petition, several eminent academics, like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon, and others (see complete list of signatories)supported Raju's position. They stated that there is a "prima facie case that [Raju's] work was initially suppressed" and expressed their "suspicion that there are no answers to Raju’s charges".

Given that the academics involved are very eminent, should this petition be considered a RS?

thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also see the official website of Society of Scientific Values, where they have published their findings, after having it reviewed by three independent experts (http://www.scientificvalues.org/cases.html) .-Bharatveer (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For what do you want to use the source? I'd accept it as showing that a controversy exists, but not as a source for what happened. I'll have to say that I've never heard of the SSV before, and it seems to be an institution whose work is mostly restricted to India. The SSV also is fairly circumspect - I could not find the promised material, but only a short statement that talks about a prima facie case, not a final determination. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Schulz that a notable controversy exists but not a source of what happened. Therefore we can add this in controversy section. 192.11.225.117 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephen Schultz did not write that this controversy in India is notable. Suspicions are raised by the fact that it does not seem to involve the mathematical community in India, many of whom like M. S. Narasimhan and C. S. Seshadri have had close contacts with Atiyah through their work on moduli spaces. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SSV was used earlier today as a source for the attack page Raju - Atiyah Case created by User:Bharatveer, currently under ArbCom editing restrictions on other WP pages. It has just been destroyed after I put a speedy delete template on it. User:Bharatveer and his fellow editors (meatpuppets, socks?) seem set on disrupting this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Stephan Schulz and Mathsci. Irredeemably unreliable stuff, all posted on the scientist's website: www.ckraju.net, but nowhere else.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we please stick to the topic. This section is about whether a petition signed by eminent academics can be used as an RS. Yes, Stephan, I would like to use it as a source to show that the controversy exists. Perusnarpk (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What eminent academics? Have any prominent Indian mathematician signed the petition?  These academics are (in the order of their appearance above): a political psychologist, an ex-physicist who is an environmental activist, two historians, and a retired experimental physicist-administrator.
 * In contrast, the many prominent Indian mathematicians: M. S. Narasimhan (Tata Institute, Bombay), C. S. Seshadri (Tata Institute, Bombay), S. Ramanan (Tata Institute, Bombay), M. S. Raghunathan (Tata Institute, Bombay), Raghavan Narasimhan (University of Chicago), M. Pavaman Murthy (University of Chicago), Madhav Nori (University of Chicago), and Gopal Prasad (University of Michigan); the prominent Indian quantitative economists: Amartya Sen (Harvard University), T. N. Srinivasan (Yale University), Jagadish Bhagwati (Columbia), or Partha Dasgupta (Cambridge); prominent Indian statisticians like C. R. Rao (Penn State), have not uttered a single word of support for Raju's cockeyed claims. Why doesn't he elicit their signatures?  They all have web pages with emails?  It's easy enough.  Again: this is a waste of time: Recommend speedy end to this and other discussions on this bogus issue on Wikipedia.  Seriously, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not trying to waste the time of productive editors with trumped up diversions.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a petition has no relevance for writing a WP:BLP. It fails WP:V and WP:RS entirely. There is no way of assessing it by wikipedia standards. How can eminence be judged? Why did some Indian mathematicians not sign it? Why was only the opinion of Indian scientists relevant? And so on. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell, before a petition like this can even be discussed as possibly being a RS itself we'd need a RS or three that the petition itself was truly signed by those people, that those people have any real notability (User:Perusnarpk just asserted they were eminent and expected us to accept him at his word) and that they endorse what the petition says and that it's notable. Lots of activist groups out to mislead others (fringe science groups, political groups, etc.) claim that groups of important people signed things and say whatever and then turn out to be false or misleading. Some conservative groups are running around now claiming that an entire scientific body now refutes global warning based basically upon a the content of a letter to the editor in a regional newsletter (so the whole group does not dispute global warning in the slightest), and Bigfoot supporters and Creationism true believers and paranormalists routinely talk about eminent scientists supporting their causes who only end up being engineers or high school teachers or those holding degrees in theology. A petition by its very nature cannot be a RS, in my opinion, as a true RS has to say if it means anything. DreamGuy (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * hello dreamguy, You state that "User:Perusnarpk just asserted they were eminent and expected us to accept him at his word". This indicates a misreading of my original post. To quote:  "In this petition, several eminent academics, like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon, and others (see complete list of signatories). ..." If you follow the links you will see that they are links to biographies, on Wikipedia, of these academics. It is easy to verify, from these biographies on Wikipedia, that these signatories are eminent. There are several other famous academics, who have signed this petition, like Harish Trivedi, who do not have pages on wikipedia, but a quick google search will suffice in these cases.
 * My logic here, is that a newspaper article or a peer reviewed article indicates that an editor, journalist or referee carefully vetted the article and have found it trustworthy. It is rare that the referees/editors/journalists involved have the standing of the signatories above (and please at least have a look at the Wikipedia links, before posting a long post contesting this). If these signatories are willing to put their reputations on the line by signing this petition, I think that should meet the standards of a RS. However, I would like to hear some more neutral viewpoints on this. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still disagree, but thanks for your explanation anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Newbie User:Perusnarpk has elsewhere shown that he is fully aware of the editing restrictions imposed by ArbCom on User:Bharatveer. This would suggest that he has had previous editing experience and is possibly a sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Bharatveer. Please could some administrator investigate this so that good faith editors do not have to waste more of their time on him? Please also look at User:Abhimars. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As other have stated, the petition signed does indicate that there are some who support Raju's allegations, but IMO, that itself can't be used as the basis for inclusion in Atiyah's article. When thinking about this case, we should refer to WP:HARM; we're supposed to write biographies of living persons in a matter which does no harm to the subject. I believe these accusations, which remain unfounded at the moment, does significant harm to the subject. I also think that since the accusation of plagiarism remains unfounded, it can be considered as libelous material per WP:GRAPEVINE. Furthermore, I believe this source, which has been questioned about its reliability by a number of individuals, can be considered under this point of the BLP policy: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above)." Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nishkid64. I'm would like to use the petition as an Reliable Source to show that the controversy exists, much as one would use a mainstream media article. My point is that the petition is far more reliable than a mainstream media article. I'm not sure, I understand correctly, when you state that this "source has bee questioned about its reliability by a number of individuals". Dreamguy made a point above that the petition was available only on the website and that we would need an RS to demonstrate the existence of the petition. Is this what you are referring to? Apart from that there is no dispute as to the reliability of the petition itself. As I pointed out, the signatories involved are well known and include academics over a wide spectrum.


 * Apart from this specific dispute, I think this is an interesting abstract question for the Wikipedia community. I understand that there is an established policy regarding mainstream media sources and peer reviewed articles, but what about petitions and statements by eminent academics(assuming that their existence itself can be demonstrated by a RS). I think these are at least at the same level of reliability, if not higher, than newspaper articles and refereed journal publications (which are typically vetted only by one or two referees). It would be interesting to consider this abstract question also, particularly since there seems to be no well established policy regarding this. cheers, Perusnarpk (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for advocacy. We report what has already been reported by secondary sources.  The petition is a primary source.  Until this petition is deemed relevant by an independent, reliable source, it has no place in a Wikipedia biographical article. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. Let's also note a couple of other points. First, some petitions can be inherently unreliable; cleverly worded or sneakily promoted ones can be (mis)used to overstate the strength of feeling on an issue and misrepresent the true views of signatories. Take a look at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism for a case study of this. Second, petitions are fundamentally not an academic or scholarly source, even if they are signed by academics and scholars. They are first and foremost a form of advocacy. They are intended to convey strength of feeling, not the latest academic viewpoints. As such, a petition may have a place in an article as being indicative of a cross-section of academic opinion (assuming that a reliable third party source has reported on it), but it certainly can't be used as a reliable source in its own right. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also agree that this type of position can be reliable to show the existence of a controversy and present the academics' opinion, but its contents should not be considered an independent perspective on the controversy because they are writing as participants and advocates in the controversy. Thus, the source should be used to present the fact that the issue resulted in comment and to present what the petitioners say, not to present what happened. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The source is a self-published website so comes under Verifiability. The information is also available on the internet, but mainly in forums and blogs - which are discouraged. There is a letter published by the American Mathematical Society which would be a reliable souce, but the letter doesn't reveal much. This is just under borderline stuff - it does suggest that while there is a petition, that the petition has not yet achieved the status of being notable. It appears that there is not enough reliable sources yet for an article, and not enough perhaps to support even a mention in a parent article, given the controversial nature of the topic.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can unreliable sources ever be used as refs ?
Hi. I have a slightly unusual situation, and I hope someone can shed some light. Generally, blogs and forums should never be used as refs because they are unreliable. However, I wonder if they can be considered a reliable ref in a couple of types of statements in a Wikipedia article:


 * If the article simply claims that a blog or forum exists, wouldn't a ref directly to that blog or forum be the most reliable ref possible? Rather than a link to a secondary source which claims the blog exists.
 * If an article claims that people are discussing a topic (not claiming those people are reliable themselves), would a link to a forum where people are discussing the topic be a reliable source?

To me, naively perhaps, it seems that claims about the existence of something on the web are best referenced simply by a link to that thing, which must by definition be reliable, rather than to a secondary source, which itself might be questioned. Furthermore, if there is no such secondary source, what else could one do?

Specifically, I am trying to work out what is a reliable ref for a statement in the Robot article. The statement is: "While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots,". The three original refs were:. These refs link directly to the discussions themselves. Not that the article is not claiming that these discussions are reliable, it's just claiming that they exist. However two of them were removed per WP:EL.

If anyone could comment, I'd be very grateful. Rocketmagnet (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that anyone could throw up a site or blog post discussing the issue. It's really not worth pointing out whether people discuss it, but whether people that matter - probably scientists or philosophers - discuss it. --NE2 11:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first source (the CBC "Tech Bytes" column) is at least partially reliable... the introduction states that the debate exists and quotes a few experts. CBC is certainly a reliable source.  If we ignore the comments posted by readers, that introduction on its own can be considered a reliable source for the existance of the debate.Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, the news article does not state that any discussion exists. It only says that definitions vary widely. Remember this is a reference for the statement about discussion. IMO, the introduction on its own is useless as a reference. We need a link to either actual discussion, or to a news article that talks about discussion. Personally, I can think of nothing better than a link to actual discussion in a forum about robots. Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not include what you just said: "definitions vary widely" (since that's backed up by the reliable source) instead of trying to shoe-horn the word "discussion" in there using questionable sources? Siawase (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been thinking that may be the only answer. I don't like it as much because I wanted to get across the idea that defining robot is still an active area. But still, if it can sort all this out, then it might have to do.  I think Dannk55's having a go at the article Lead, so I might wait and see what that's like before making any changes myself. Rocketmagnet (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the problems of using a phrase like "there is still discusison about whether x" sourced to webforums is that it could be used to boost the credibility of some fringe or nonsensical claims. In that sense, there is still discussion about whether Barack Obama is a seekrit mooslim, or even whether the Queen of England is a reptillian lizard from Antarctica (I'm not making this up.) I agree that it would be best to quote the "definitions vary widely" from the CBC tech bytes source. There is also a master's thesis which calls the term robot "one of the more controversial to be defined[.]" You can probably use those, or find other sources if need be. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

←Exactly. Rocket and I have had a few discussions about this, and I support his goal, I just don't think we can get those particular two links to fly because of what happens in other articles when similar links are inserted, and the distaste the community has for discussion boards (as reflected in policy and guidelines, as well as practice on this page). But we can and should illustrate the point, by pointing to vigorous discussion, that one thing that's different about the Robot article is that no one knows what the heck one is; all anyone can agree on is "I know one when I see one". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing is primarily a question of notability. The blogs or forums should not be linked, nor mentioned, unless there is a reliable source specifically referring to these blogs or forums. If there are such mentions in RS, then text references to the websites concerned are enough, cited to the RS. Links to the blogs or forums themselves are not necessary. Jayen 466 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uruk edit - Personal page or Legit tertiary source?
Any opinion on the legitimacy of this source would be appreciated. http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sumerian-mythology/02-Sumerian-Mythology-History.html Please note at the top of the text: "This article is from the Sumerian Mythology FAQ, by Christopher Siren cbsiren@cisunix.unh.edu with numerous contributions by others" and links to sources; http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sumerian-mythology/19-Sources-Sumerian-Mythology.html I have tried to expalin the principle of "Cite the place where you found the material" on the Uruk talk page, but the reverter is insisting that "*Your* source must be the reliable one, not the source's sources." This is basically saying you can only go on secondary sources, and that all tertiary sources are questionable enough to have information removed from the article. Mdw0 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What you have here is not secondary source or even a tertiary source, but a link to references (heavily obscured by advertising), one (or several) of which might be a source to a fact presented in the Uruk article.  There is a granularity principle here that using a specific tertiary source, the reader is guided to the specific secondary source which would satisfy the usual RS criteria.  The link above is not a useful tertiary source for the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think both of you are missing the point. The stason.org page is what we call a convenience link. It is a repository of essays that are published elsewhere. The correct way to cite this would be to cite the original, but note the courtesy link to say where you got it.  as in: "  That said, I do need to point out that I question whether the Sumerian Mythology FAQ being cited is a reliable source.  Unless I am looking at the wrong person, the author of the FAQ Christopher Siren, has a Master's Degree in education, and nothing higher. For most of his carrier, he seems to have been a high school teacher.  His connection with UNH (implied at the stason.org site by giving his email) is administrative and not accademic in nature.  So I have to question his reliability as a source in Sumerian Mythology. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much - I'll keep digging. Mdw0 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SABRE
Would this be regarded as a RS for articles on UK roads? --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really doubt it; it appears to be self-published. --NE2 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it's widely used already, so i think the consensus has always been that it is reliable. Remember that everything is published by someone, we need to consider the reputation of the site based on the fact that their info there is easily verifiable. SABRE is the Society for All British Road Enthusiasts and the webiste is published by them. -- neon white talk 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it's widely used doesn't mean it's reliable; for instance see the section on IMDB. --NE2 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDB is a completely different site. Bios have to be very carefully sources. SABRE isnt that controversial. It's info is very easy to fact check. It's from the known accuracy of it's info that it has gained a reputation as a trusted source. -- neon white talk 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gained a reputation from whom? I don't see any use of it as a source by the media: Can somebody else please comment? --NE2 02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gained a reputation on wikipedia. It's incredibly unlikely that the media would have any need to quote such a site -- neon white talk 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Gained a reputation on Wikipedia" is meaningless. If it's not a reliable source, and it doesn't appear to be, then it's not a reliable source regardless of how often some editors on Wikipedia used it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

SABRE is used widely by Wiki editors with an interest in and knowledge of roads. It is an organisation, rather than an individual. The information is peer reviewed and constantly updated. It is considered by those with an interest in UK roads to be the most up-to-date and informative source on road information in the UK. SABRE would be consulted for each UK road article on Wikipedia and given as an external link. But should SABRE then be cited as a reliable source for points that may be challenged? Well, WP:RS says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and that to a certain extent applies to SABRE. At the same time we have Reliable_source_examples, into which SABRE sort of falls, which says "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics." So its reliability would depend on the reputation of those in charge of SABRE these people. Though many of them have their own websites, they are not published authors in the conventional sense - they are in the same sense of an editor on Wikipedia. So, SABRE is widely consulted and trusted in constructing a road article on Wikpedia, and - like IMDB - can be and is used as an external link in a road article. But in terms of using it as a definative source to support a challengable item in a road article it should not be regarded as reliable. In short - SABRE can be used as a source of information for writing an article, but not as an authoritative expert source in a dispute.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Champions League Final
Hello. There's a bit of an edit war going on with the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final article. Both myself and another user have been constantly reverting an IP address who continuously adds two references to the article, claiming both to be valid. However, PeeJay (the other user) has stated that the two references&mdash;which happen to be a blog and a Q&A-esque article&mdash;are not valid, though the IP continues to disagree. Both PeeJay and I are convinced that the two references are not a valid reference point and I was hoping to get feedback.

Please help if possible. :) – LATICS   talk  18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. The incident in question has not been reported by any reliable source so is purely speculation and should not be used in the article until a reliable source mentions it. It is possible that it happened, but it is also possible that people have misunderstood what they saw. As there is some dispute and uncertainty about the incident it would require a reliable source. No mention should be made of the incident in the article as it casts a slur on a living person, unless a reliable source can be found.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Columnists
I would like to ask, whethere columns like this or this are reliable source. Thanx for help.--Kozuch (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Op-Ed pieces such as these are only reliable for statements about the opinion of the columnist, and not for statements of fact. The question then becomes: is the opinion of the columnist worth noting, given the context of the wikipedia article's topic.  That depends on the reputation and qualifications of the columnist. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that op-ed pieces are at least in theory vetted for fact as well, although writers have considerable latitude to be selective or slanted in their presentation of facts. It doesn't always work that way, especially in smaller-market publications, though. And if a writer is published by a major publication, that in itself points to the reputation and qualifications of the columnist. I usually find that op-eds in reputable publications can be cited, as long as they are summarized in an "arm's length" fashion and not allowed to crowd out the rest of the article. And yes, of course any opinions have to be attributed as opinions rather than facts. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Op-ed pieces typically aren't vetted for fact at all. Urban legends (even ones debunked by a quick Snopes visit) are common, political spin and talking points replace solid sources, and so forth and so on. Computer ones aren't as badly slanted as, say, FOX News, but they still have very clear biases. Op-eds are only representations of what an individual claims, not what's real. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they are vetted for fact in many places. If they repeat urban legends, they will not usually be permitted to do so as fact, but as "it is said..." type weaseling. They NYT frequently publishes corrections when its op-ed columnists get a fact wrong that wasn't noticed by his editor. -- Relata refero (disp.) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated or official Olympic results database?
The article for Natalie Coughlin currently references Sports Illustrated for her results from the 2004 Olympic Games. Is Sports Illustrated a reliable source under WP:Sources or should the article instead reference the official Olympic results database maintained by the IOC?

The problem with the official database is that you cannot jump straight to a page for a competitior/event but rather have to fill in a search/query form to access specific information. However, it is certainly "the horse's mouth".

Thanks. Sitush (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think SI is reliable for these kinds of things, noting only that as a periodical one issue may have stats or results that are incomplete (the issue came out during those games, and the subject had more events after press time), and that subsequent issues did not mention the subject, even though her results may have been augmented. So if there is a difference between SI and the database, I would probably prefer the database, noting it is a primary source, so long as accessing it is not browser/operating system dependent, etc.  Are there other extenuating circumstances surrounding this content? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your view. I am not aware of any other extenuating circumstances but was rather thinking along a general (notional) policy line which would go, broadly, "if there is an online database provided by the official body then use that rather than some alternative, unofficial source". Against which I'd already spotted that the official source is slightly more cumbersome to use (although not browser-dependent etc as far as my testing has gone). I'd stress that this is a general query, not specifically related to the article I mentioned, which is used merely as an example. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Swimming World magazine has the most comprehensive stats IMHO.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it has, and thanks for bringing it to my attention, but it is no more official than SI and so does not really address the issue I'm querying, sorry. Sitush (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Constant Changes
User:Trip Johnson, who also uses User talk:82.28.237.200, is continuing to make edits that favor the British in military history. He has been blocked for this before, and I have asked him many times(he blanks his talk page)to stop doing this, or at least add a source. He never does. Here are some of his more recent changes.







At least there was an edit summary for this one











These are just a few of many, many, many thigns he has done. I hope you understand, I am quite tired of asking him to source things, and reverting his edits. He does not listen to anyone, admins or non-admins, has called everyone on this site a "dickhead" and told me I'm an "asshole". I am not the only editor who has experienced problems with him, you may ask these two, who I know have had some experiences with him.

User:Tanthalas39 User:Tirronan

I simply do not know what to do anymore. I really don't know what can be done, as he is not really doing anything that can get him blocked, but anyways, I figured I'd see what can be done.Red4tribe (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A new one.



Red4tribe (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another one, telling me to "shut up".

 Red4tribe (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just a place to ask about the reliability of sources. People here generally do not handle user conduct complaints and the like. I have copied your complaint to WP:AN/I, which is better suited to address this kind of situation. Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is sohu.com a reliable source?
There's a discussion regarding if sohu.com is a reliable source. A comment from has been used in Cradle of civilization, and the source has been challenged.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, it is a very reliable source of lots and lots of spam. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

a source on the Bo Derek biographical article
On the Bo Derek article, the text - She supported Rudolph W. Giuliani's abortive bid for the Republican nomination in 2008. - comes with this source;. I cann't find anything relating to the text, should I remove both text and reference? Talsurrak (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done and done. Thanks for the help. Talsurrak (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about source solicitation
I seem to remember that it is either unacceptable, or considered poor form, to simply drop a reference in the "External links" section of an article and then invite other editors to use that as a source for substantive edits. I remember this allegedly bad conduct being referred to as "source solicitation". Any suggestions on where I might have seen this or whether it is in fact a policy? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing wrong with suggesting a source (or set of sources) for an article. That's common and perfectly acceptable. The practice you mention is often seen as problematic because it has been used for link spamming. Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is at WP:SPAM, but that's for spam. If someone is doing this in good faith, ask them to take it to the talk page instead of dropping links in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Science
Are the websites MuslimHeritage.com and History of Science and Technology in Islam reliable sources for claims pertaining to the history of science? JFD (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Muslim Heritage seems a bit shaky. The Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation is the org that claims to run Muslim Heritage. The org has no real presence; the org's website redirects to Muslim Heritage, they've received little to no press coverage, beyond MH the only real note of their existence is through directory entries and letters from the org itself. In the topic area, Muslim Heritage is a reasonably popular website, but it is probably not a reliable source.
 * The History of Science and Technology in Islam is a self-published source, but it is written by a notable (if biased) expert. A.Y. Hassan is notable for establishing an institute to study the history of Islamic science at the University of Aleppo. His expertise has been recognized in the area, for example by UNESCO, who recruited him as an editor for a publication on the topic. So long as his work is not inappropriately emphasized, it should not be a problem as a source.
 * That all said, the important place of Islamic culture in the history of science is fairly uncontroversial. It is fairly well-covered by clearly reliable sources such as encyclopedias, textbooks and university press publications. The article should really be relying on this body of (relatively) easily available top-tier reliable sources. However, including a few citations to the self-published site of an established expert should not be a problem.
 * tl:dr answer: No and yes, respectively. Vassyana (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to The History of Science and Technology in Islam, I was specifically concerned with instances where A.Y. Hassan's views either conflict with or are not reflected in the mainstream literature (i.e. third-party, published sources), especially with regard to "firsts" or claims of invention. JFD (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Muslimheritage is not RS. I found no editorial board or anything in this site.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree... Muslimheratige.com is a personal project website, and not reliable. The History of S&T in Islam is more reliable... if the subject is controvercial, state things as "According to A.Y. Hassan". Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How to tell if academic authorities are actually academic authorities
One editor has attempted to use as a reference on lexicography a person (Grant Barrett) who has no apparent academic credentials (after an extensive web search, I've been unable to discover where he got his education or what his degree is in - even on web pages affiliated with him it's absent) and has no record of having peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals (a Google search turned up nothing). Lexicography is the study of the meaning of words and to his credit this source did co-write a book with James Carville, a highly paid spin doctor, on the subject. But his book doesn't appear to be referenced by any scholar working in the field. His writings appear to be completely of the popular (Dr. Phil/Sean Hannity) sort, writing in newspapers and the like. My instincts are to just dismis this source out of hand, but the consensus appears to be to support the source. Third party opinions are desired. -66.213.90.2 (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources don't need to be credentialed scholars to be authoritative or just plain useful. William Safire is an authority on lexicography, but I don't believe he has any academic credentials on the topic (in fact he's a college drop-out). Are there other, better sources that contradict the disputed source? If so then we should try to use those. Does the disputed source represent a significant point of view? If so then it may be appropriate to include the source's opinion, identified as such. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Safire is not an expert on lexicography. He's an expert commentator.  Do you understand the difference between 'commentator' and 'lexicographer'?  They are two entirely different things.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Practical lexicography - the writing of dictionaries - is not an academic discipline. The most authoritative sources such as Oxford University, which through its publishing subsidiary Oxford University Press produces the Oxford English Dictionary and many more specialized publications, handles the business of lexicography through a hierarchy that is outside of the academic track of tenured professionals, accredited degrees, and academic journals.  Indeed, the business of writing dictionaries is handled by experts in a peer-reviewed fashion - just not through journals.  The output of practicing lexicographers is measured in their contributions to dictionaries and books on language, not faculty appointments or academic journals.  There are some inherent limitations in the scope of a dictionary definition, and there are more authoritative and less authoritative dictionaries, but in terms of word usage these experts are at the top of the reliability scale.  The question at hand is the use in our encyclopedia of the newly-coined neologism anchor baby to describe United States-born children of illegal aliens, who are by the United States Constitution automatically US citizens at birth.  Some anti-immigration factions use the term in an incorrect, thinly-veiled racist way to disparage as a class these children's parents, who they imply are bearing children (or at least came to United States for the birthing) in some scheme that the children would serve as "anchors" to further their own hopes of obtaining visas.  One problem is that there's no evidence it's happening - it's just a partisan political buzzword of a group that believes the Constitution should be changed to deny citizenship to certain babies.  More to the point this one expert, Grant Barrett, writes that the term is a bigoted slang word and not an accepted term to describe the class of people.  Barrett is himself part of the Oxford Press hierarchy, having written their guide to American Political slang.  As such he is as good an expert at word usage.  This IP editor, who has been mucking about the immigration articles, contends that because Barrett is not published in journals he is not an expert.  The problem is that word definitions are not published in academic journals.  There don't seem to be any comparable sources on the other side that say anchor baby is a legitimate term, just usages here and there in blogs and an occasional stray newspaper or periodical that has repeated the term.   Wikidemo (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I'd like to get a third source to input on this. Wikidemo overwhelms the casual reader with a long list of fabricated claims for which he has no sources.  Here are some of them in the post above;

-198.97.67.59 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Practical lexicography - the writing of dictionaries - is not an academic discipline(the Wikipedia article on lexicography says that lexicography is a scholarly discipline, I've seen him provide NO source to back up his claim to the contrary despite his having been asked repeatedly)
 * handles the business of lexicography through a hierarchy that is outside of the academic track of tenured professionals Actually, Oxford University scholars (not to be confused with employees of Oxford University Press such as Barrett) vett all the books published by Oxford University Press.
 * Indeed, the business of writing dictionaries is handled by experts in a peer-reviewed fashion - just not through journals (titles of several academic journals on lexicography have been provided to Wikidemo, but he continues to assert, as he's done here, that nobody is writing to them)
 * The output of practicing lexicographers is measured in their contributions to dictionaries and books on language, not faculty appointments or academic journals This appears to be another completely fabricated statement on Wikidemo's part.
 * newly-coined neologism (Anchor baby has been in use in the English language since the 1990s - it's not a neologism)
 * More to the point this one expert, Grant Barrett, writes that the term is a bigoted slang word and not an accepted term to describe the class of people. Wikidemo's personal political views are completely irrelevant. Wikidemo has spent half his post above pointing out that Barrett's politics agree with Wikidemo's.  The question of Barrett's status as an academic authority has nothing to do with the fact that Wikidemo agrees with Barrett's politics.
 * Barrett is himself part of the Oxford Press hierarchy, having written their guide to American Political slang Actually, as was pointed out earlier, he co-wrote the book alongside a well known spin doctor (James Carville) and a well-known political strategist (Mary Matalin).  Hardly a glowing reference for academic neutrality or even credibility.
 * I am not sure what the basic question is here. If the argument is whether Barrett's opinion about this term is reliable or not reliable, I have to say it is reliable... the fact that he has won awards and has been hired by Oxford Press as an editor shows that he is a "recognized expert", even if he does not hold degrees.  Thus his opinion on words is both notable and relevant to the article.  As long as his opinion is stated as being his opinion, I don't see any problem with discussing it.  Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What awards has he won? I can't find any source for that - though there is an unsourced claim in his article that his site won an award, it should be removed on grounds of verifiability.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of this alleged expert's grasp on the English language (taken from his site), "This is, too, was nothing very novel. The idea of focusing on interesting numbers (totals, percentages, proportions, rankings, whatever) I borrowed from French newspapers, which often have a box devoted to chiffres." My ten year old neice writes better than this.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... you obviously are not looking very hard... within five minutes, I was able to discover that the "about us" page of one of the dictionaries that he edits (Double-Tongued Dictionary) states that it won the 2005 Laurence Urdang award given by the Dictionary Society of North America. But even if he hadn't won any awards, the very fact that he was hired by Oxford Press as an editor gives him enough credibility for his opinion to be notable. I have to ask again... what is the underlying dispute here?  Why is this being challenged? Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question of why it's being challenged seems to have been stated in the first thread of this discussion.

-198.97.67.57 (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Grant Barrett) has no apparent academic credentials (nothing listed in Google Scholar)
 * He has no record of having peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals (a Google search turned up nothing).
 * His book was co-written with James Carville and Mary Matalin - well known politcial wags - not academics
 * His writings appear to be completely of the popular (Dr. Phil/Sean Hannity) sort, writing in newspapers and the like.


 * Can you, 198.97.67.57, please confirm that you are the same editor that started this thread by making the above mentioned posting as 66.213.90.2? Terjen (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To address these individual points:
 * Barrett does not need academic credentials to be a reliable source. Non-accademics can be reliable.
 * He does not need to have peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals to be a reliable source. He has articles published in other reliable forums.
 * Books do not have to be written by academics to be considered reliable sources (even those co-authored by "political wags").
 * Given that he is an editor of several dictionaries under the Oxford Press banner, I think it is incorrect to say that his work is completely of the "popular sort". But even if his writings are of the "popular sort", that does not make them unreliable.  It might be enough to limit how we discuss his views (stating them as his opinion rather than fact, for example,) but not enough to omit them.
 * In short, none of these points is a valid reason to challenge the source's reliability. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, your points are That's a fine precedent set for reliable sources on scholarly subjects, Blueboar. I'm certain that editors who support intelligent design, anti-global warming, etc. will be very happy to see that sources don't have to be written by people with actual academic credentials to be considered reliable academic sources.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A person can be considered an authority in a scholarly field without having any identifiable academic credentials nor ever being published in an academic peer-reviewed journal.
 * A book written in a non-academic context with the assistance of two people who are, also, not experts in the field (but rather well-known political hacks) is a sufficient substitute for lack of being published in peer-reviewed academic journals
 * Even on subjects which are academic in nature, books co-written with political wags who aren't academics working in the field can be considered reliable sources.
 * You misinterpret what I said... and what I said isn't a precedent... its long established Wikipedia policy. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is generally not constructive to mock another's points by pretending to summarize them. But basically, I agree with Blueboar, and to some extent even your mock of him.  The notion of "reliable source" is not really about being an expert or academic.  He should be cited for his opinion or interpretation.  In other contexts, where what is being cited is something like the science of evolution, you have a more complicated picture involving proper wieghting of minority views and such. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a pretty good summary which highlights the flaws in Blueboar's arguement. If that counts as 'mockery', well then *shrug*.  As for your claim that reliable sources are not really about being an expert, the actual wikipedia policy on reliable sources disagrees with you.  It states that reliable sources are authored by people who are "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (the italics are in the policy, not added by myself).  Blueboar argues that sources on academic subjects don't have to be written by people with actual academic credentials to be considered authoritative.    Everything about that should raise issues of trustworthiness.  The fact that certain editors in this discussion are confusing him with an authority on a scholarly subject despite him not having any credentials (neither an identifiable education nor a track record of peer-reviewed articles in academic journals) raises the issue of undue weight.  Considering these two issues, how would you reference him in the article?-66.213.90.2 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably we'd have to go back and look at how he is being used. As a source of commentary, opinion, and interpretation on the meaning of a political neologism, he seems perfectly reliable.  As a lexicography expert, not at all.  What statement is his citation being used to support? Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He seems to be used as a source of commentary, opinion, and interpretation... see Anchor baby. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took care of the problem in the lead (let's see if it gets reverted) where his characterization of the term as "derogatory" was included as if accepted fact, even though it seems to stem from a single commentator. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two Anonymous IP Users posting in this section, with very similar points of view. Are they the same person, or different people supporting and thereby strengthening each other's viewpoints and perspectives? Would the Anonymous IP Users please be kind enough to clairify whether or not they are the same person? Absent such a direct confirmation or denial, this gives the appearence of an attempt to "stack the deck". --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Barret is a man who has co-written a book with a couple of political spin-doctors which lists the meaning of a couple of words." There has been quite alot of discussion of one particular dictionary which was edited by Barrett and which contains an introduction written by James Carville and Mary Matalin, aparently as some sort of Guilt by association arguement. Does the specific dictionary that has been causing all this controversey even contain the term in question? I would think that if it did, the term would be likely to appear on page 31 right between American Taliban and angel. But page 31 is available on Amazon, and I don't see Anchor baby at all on that page. So, what gives? Why are we spending so much time discussing a dictionary in which the term in question doesn't even appear?--Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with two anon IP editors having similar opinions, but you shouldn't delete stuff from the talk comments of others. And since that book point is so irrelevant, just ignore it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the IP editor's bizarre attempt to promulgate a bigoted slang term for a class of US citizens seems to involve discrediting Grant Barrett, the foremost expert who has written about the term, as an unreliable source. In a New York Times article on buzzwords that became prominent in 2006 Barrett calls the term anchor baby derogatory, and in the Double-Tongued Dictionary Barrett specifies that the term is applied blindly to all children of immigrants without regard to whether the disparagement applies to them, then goes on to opine that the term is used by anti-immigration people "as a mask for racism and xenophobia."  Barrett's statements are not being used as a source in the article in question, but rather as an argument on the talk page as to why Wikipedia should use more accurate, neutral, common wording - as such, WP:RS does not even apply.  The IP editor has been disruptive on this point and others in various immigration-related articles lately, is suspected by some of being a sockpuppet (if memory serves), and is forum shopping here after an unsuccessful attempt to curry support on WT:NPOV.  Given all that, I think we're done here.  Can we close this one up?  Wikidemo (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is indeed nothing wrong with two anon IP editors having similar opinions, but there is a problem if one editor uses multiple handles in a discussion without making it explicit that it is the same editor. Particularly if the multiple handles seems to be supporting each other. In this case, 66.213.90.2 started the thread by asking for Third party opinions, with 198.97.67.59 later replying that The question of why it's being challenged seems to have been stated in the first thread of this discussion, phrasing it as if it is made by another editor than the one making the first post. An explicit request to confirm whether the latter is the same editor that started this thread is ignored. Later, 66.213.90.2 states that I thought it was a pretty good summary regarding a previous post made by 198.97.67.59. This is questionable behavior if the same editor is behind both IPs.  Terjen (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Using multiple accounts to skew consensus is a violation of WP:SOCK. This editor has been sanctioned for it before, and responded by using a registered account, user:Psychohistorian. He's since abandoned that account and gone back to using unregistered accounts. If he's not making it clear that he's a single editor then that's a problem and will need to be addressed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In your latest edit restoring "derogatory" in the opening sentence, you note in edit summary that "every commentator who has actually addressed the issue has agreed with Barrett (who is a lexicographer, not a commentator) on this." If that's true, then you can't really expect a single citation of Barrett to be accepted as the support for it, can you?  And there seems to be considerable disagreement on whether it makes sense to consider him to be a lexicographer in any authoritative sense, just because he has helped write dictionaries and glossaries of political slang.  I think you'd do better in this controversial article by sticking closer to strict policy on WP:RS and such; find a good secondary source that says it's widely considered derogatory, or leave that bit for the opinion part where it is now. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several citations of opinion commentators and others throughout the article when they are specifically cited, where the term is described as "derogatory", "pejorative", "dehumanizing", "hate speech", etc, etc, etc. The reference to Barrett is of a different sort, since he is not an opinion commentator, but rather a lexicographer, so the citation to him seemed to me to be the primary one to use. I could add the other citations, but I'm not sure that it makes sense to have a long string of citations simply to source the single word "derogatory". If need be, we could do that, but it will make the initial sentence harder to read, and the references are already included in the article, anyway. I should point out that, dispite extensive searches, we have been so far unable to find even a single commentator who directly states that the epithet "Anchor baby" is not derogatory. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More to the problem

As this edit makes clear, Barrett is being cited via a reader comment he made; this is a completely different story, I think. It's not subject to any editorial review; we don't normally cite forums and blogs for this reason. His status as an author/commentator is not enough to make him a recognized expert of that sort whose blog would be cited, never mind a random comment on a web page. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the disruptive IP editor has moved from the articles about immigration to the article about the term itself, trying to take out the statement that the term is "derogatory." It's obviously derogatory as a matter of logic, given the usage of the term, but rather than perform that kind of original analysis on the article page we rightfully include a citation to Barrett, the most solid source on the topic.  Barrett is plenty reliable as a source on the meaning and usage of words - he writes dictionaries for Oxford, for goodness sake.  Promoting the term here on Wikipedia without pointing out that it's derogatory slang would raise a serious WP:NPOV problem.  His commentary in the user feedback area that those who use it are xenophobes is a matter of opinion, and we're not citing him for that as far as I know.  However, in discussion here in meta-space we can certainly use his user feedback response  as an indication of what he meant by the definition.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with "As a lexicography expert, not at all." (reliable). From a look at his page, and Blueboar's arguments above, he is accepted as an expert lexicographer by fellow lexicographers.  To answer the anon's question, no, no particular academic credentials are necessary to be considered an academic or expert.  He is on the editorial board of an established, university press academic journal of the academic society he holds an office in. (All the other board members I checked are professors)   His expertise is also vouched for by Oxford by editing books for them. He won an award.  Every case should be looked at individually, and no particular credential is definitively necessary. There are academics at the very best universities in the world without B.A.'s or Ph.D.'s. The best test of whether someone is an academic (or academic-level expert, whether this is an academic field is an academic question.) is whether other experts think the person is an expert, and he clearly passes.  The anon's argument, while quoting a relevant rule : that the person is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"  argues in contradiction to it, supposing that wikipedia-editor-devised criteria of being a professor, having a degree or credential, should definitively outweigh the judgment of  the relevant experts expressed in other ways.  In addition, "grant barrett" gets 28 gscholar hits, with many false positives though, but some citations or reviews of his work. But it also misses most of the publications (a column?)  in the journal he helps edit that list him among the authors .John Z (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. A bit more looking convinced me that he's a lexicographer, even if a non-traditional or informal sort of one.  It's still worth a lot of extra care in citing his comments on a web forum; especially where his comment is attributing feelings and motivations to all who use the term; this is clearly opinion, not lexicographic analysis. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we call this done? Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a consensus has been reached. A person can be an authority on an academic subject despite having no academic credentials.  Barrett is such a person.  His statement about anchor baby being derogagotory, however, is (I assume I'm not misquoting Dicklyon) "clearly opinion, not lexicographic analysis" and, so, should be used as a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact.  Should the more recent definition at his web site, "anchor babyn. a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship. Also anchor child, a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad." be treated as lexicographic analysis or another statement of opinion?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither... unless by "Lexiconographic analysis" you mean a dictionary definition of the term. And before you ask... the Double-tounged Dictionary is a reliable source for that definition (it won awards). If you are concerned about NPOV, you can include contrasting definitions from other reliable dictionaries. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep saying that Grant Barrett has no academic credentials, when he aparently graduated with honors with a BA in French and in Literature from Columbia University in the City of New York, and also studied journalism at University of Missouri-Columbia prior to that? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that while Barrett is, in principle, RS, I have some reservations about the use to which this source is being used in the context of the article. First, "Double-tongued Dictionary" strikes me as pretty close to SPS. I don't think it's excluded, but I don't think it should have the same weight as books or newspaper articles, which presumably have been through some sort of formal review/editing process. More importantly, the unqualified classification of "anchor baby" as derogatory is sourced to a comment on DTD, and as such, that really isn't RS, in my opinion. J. Langton (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that DTD isn't RS I disagree. According to the "about us" page of the Double-Tongued Dictionary webpage, it won the 2005 Laurence Urdang award given by the Dictionary Society of North America, so I think it qualifies as being more than a SPS (and should thus be given more weight than a book or newspaper article). But I do agree that we need to differentiate between the dictionary's definition and the oppinion of Barrett, who happens to be the editor of that dictionary. Both are reliable, but for different reasons. And Barrett's opinion needs to be qualified as being his opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK... I have made an edit to the Anchor baby article which will hopefully end this. The key is to first define the word (citing DTD), and then state that Barrett considers the term derogatory (citing Barrett).  This separates the definition from opinion as to usage.  The article will need some clean up, but if you stick to this basic idea it should solve your POV and RS concerns. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Due to its constantly changing nature, Wikipedia itself cannot be considered a reliable source.

For further discussion of Wikipedia as a reliable source, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Hence this Reliable Sources page must be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Removal of this notice from this section will confirm that Wikipedia is not a reliable sources. O8TY (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

O8TY (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are mainstream newspapers reliable sources on law?
A discussion on the WikiProject Law talk page has preliminary concluded that newspaper articles generally are not WP:Reliable sources on the law:

"The issue of whether a journalist's characterization of the law is a reliable source is, I think, still murky. My experience in areas where I am an expert (IP law, not immigration law) is that journalists get it wrong all the time. I gave a specific example germane to this specific discussion, above, but that's just one of many. Reporters confuse copyrights with trademarks, and patent applications with patents. A couple days ago I wrote to a journalist who erroneously reported that Gregory Reyes was in prison; the reporter assumed that because he was sentenced, he must be in prison by now, having no idea that he could be out on bond pending appeal. Based on countless examples like this, I do not think a news article that states what the law is is a reliable source for what the law is."

Terjen (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. For an argument I point you toward Dalia Lithwick, Slate's excellent legal correspondent.  She feels, as do many in the journalism profession, that court beat reporters can provide excellent commentary on the law and that some fine work is done on those beats.

one two three


 * Read those and let me know what you think. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The position that mainstream newspapers are categorically not WP:Reliable sources on law applies to much more banal issues than court coverage: If a mainstream newspaper editor for example reports that something is a crime, we can no longer say so in Wikipedia and cite the newspaper as source. It sets a dangerous precedent for whether newspapers are reliable sources on any issue. For my thoughts on this issue, see the end of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. Terjen (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of those issues that will always have to be judged on a "case by case" basis. We can not make sweeping statements.  A lot depends on the reputation of the newspaper (is the statement from the Legal Times, or from the New York Post?). A lot depends on the journalist who makes the statement (is he the paper's legal analyst or is he Joe Reporter?). What was meant by the newspaper's statement that something "is a crime"?  What was the context?  Without these specifics, we can not say whether a newspaper is or is not reliable.  I think a newspaper is capable of being a highly reliable source... I also think it could be highly unreliable.  Too many variables. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the question should be "Are newspapers good sources on the law"; they're most definitely considered "reliable sources" for citing in WP. Newspaper articles vary widely; some are "breaking news" crime stories written under deadline pressure by reporters who arent familiar with the law; other times a newspaper of the stature of the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal does a multi-page "analysis" piece on Sarbanes-Oxley or whatever.  The former case isn't the best cite for a WP article about the law involved, unless it was the only information available or it was about an unusual interpretation of the law.  The latter case is a good cite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The general consensus on the Wikiproject Law page is that journalists and editors are not reliable sources on law. Terjen didn't like that answer and, so, is now fishing around for a different answer.  Journalists and editors are -not- considered reliable sources on law by WP.  As per policy, reliable sources  "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". (the italics are in the policy)  Journalists are no more authorities on law than they are authorities on anything else they write about from Harry Potter to local government in some distant state to barbeque grilling.  Journalists regularly get stuff wrong that they are reporting on - basic stuff that an authority on the subject wouldn't.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "law" wikiproject doesn't have any say in the RS policy. And by your logic, journalists aren't reliable sources for anything, which is clearly at odds with policy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, journalists are authorities on news. The legal code isn't news.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the legal code is part of the news. Also, I checked out the Law project's talk page and there is no "consensus" on this at all.  As far as the original issue on immigration law, if the media keeps reporting that this is a civil issue, then that's important enough to include in the article whether it's true or not.  Please note that it's not unusual for enforcement of various laws on the books to be blocked by an injunction or other means.  I'd suggest that the editors on that page find a source that specificially discusses the issue of whether illegal immigation is treated as a criminal or civil offense, which may explain what's going on and lay the issue to rest. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

McMaster-Carr
I'm not in a debate about this with anyone, but I want to know if http://www.mcmaster.com is a reliable source, because it does have a lot of useful information on it that might be useful in various metalworking articles. I use it almost everyday at my job (as an engineer), but I don't know if it would pass here on wikipedia. Thanks! --Wizard191 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it probably falls under the category of a primary or tertiary source. For those who haven't seen it, it's a very large catalog for mechanical engineers.  It contains a lot of specifications on, say, standard dimensions of nuts and bolts, and it may have some suggestions on choosing the right materials for a given project.  I could see treating it as a specialized almanac. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that it works well for dimensions and what-not. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about references to material properties? See this link: http://www.mcmaster.com/#catalog/114/3550. --Wizard191 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably ok, but ASME probably has more authoritative references on that. This book works well, too. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why there's any question. Go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Thanks guys! P.S. Protonk...I do have plenty of books that are applicable, but sometimes it's just easier to reference McMaster. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

unpublished Master's thesis
Is an unpublished Master's thesis that is approved by an expert committee and filed in the university library considered a reliable source? --Cfthorman (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually not. The approval from the committee is really following the defense of the thesis.  They aren't necessarily vetting it for complete accuracy and they aren't undertaking any sort of reputational risk in filing it (a common practice).  If it is something novel and reliable, it will usually be edited and accepted for publication somewhere.  What is the thesis and where were you planning to cite it? Protonk (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PhD thesis could be discussed but not a Master's thesis.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stanton Peele on Alcoholics Anonymous
What do people think about using information from the following website

http://www.peele.net/

in the AA article? Peele is a noted critic of AA as well as an award winning and widely published expert on addiction treatment. People on the AA page are stating that Peele does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. I don't think this is correct. Can I get an independant opinion or 2? Many thanks. Step13thirteen (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a reliable source about Stanton's opinions. Not much else. His views on addiction run contrary to mainstream views, but they can be mentioned in regard to opposition to 12-step groups, so long as they are not presented as being factual or having equivalent weight to mainstream views. Kww (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd broadly agree with that. Won't get into the debate about whether there is concensus on addiction or not for Peele to contradict, but certainly I would be unlikely to use him in the AA article for anything other than criticism.

I would say that his views are only controversial if we take a US-centric look at addiction. In the UK, Canada and many other countries, his views on treatment (if not on AA) would be considered pretty close to the mainstream.

Anyone else? Many thanks, again.Step13thirteen (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree broadly with Kww. Peele's views specifically are not mainstream but the direction from which they criticize AA is becoming more mainstream.  I don't personally agree with him that addiction is a non-medical phenomenon, but I agree that addiction occurs along a broad and fuzzy spectrum of personal pathology and that single method solutions help a narrow subset of that continuum.  That feeling can be found in some mainstream medical research (it certainly can be found if you replace "addiction" with "depression").  There is also a larger set of critiques that aren't mainstream but mirror Peele regarding the sociomedical discourse of addiction.  Digging through that material is a heady experience and requires a good dose of suspension of disbelief.  See Davies, Reith, and Keane.  If that makes your head explode, you aren't alone.  Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Peele's views aren't necessarily mainstream, but they aren't fringe either. As long as material is cited as his position, he's OK as a source if the material is germane to the article.  (And, roughly speaking, if he's notable enough to have his own article, his  opinions are notable too.)  PhGustaf (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true that "contrary" is a bit strong. Still, this isn't an area where any one theory has convinced everyone, so it's a matter of careful weighting of views and writing about them. If anyone needs to use the information to evaluate my opinion, I've been sober for 24 years, with the first 12 of them spent regularly attending AA meetings, and the last 12 spent without support groups. Kww (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm completely confused as to why this tread was started. Currently Stanton Peele (and www.peele.net) is cited on the AA article in relation to the disease model of addiction - are you arguing that his inclusion is erroneous and should be removed? Mr Miles (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go and remove that citation right now, if you catch my meaning. :) I think the reason for the thread was made clear by the original poster.  Some questions have arisen about his reliability as a source of fact on the issue and we are trying to answer them. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz as reliable sources
I have had some problems with an SPA/sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/Proxy_User) over at Camp 1391 who insists on tagging the article as POV, but stubbornly refuses to say what may be POV about it. I think I have managed to figure out that the user don't like newspapers that don't present "The Truth" being used as a source. So now I bring this matter here to get a second opinion on the sources used in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand his concern is that the particular authors are so biased that their news articles are not reliable. Such accusations have been leveled before at Jonathan Cook and Chris McGreal, though in the latter case from the "other" side. In any case, it reflects a substantial misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Newsweek, Ha'aretz, the Guardian, and Le Monde Diplo are reliable sources. If there is concern that an article based on those sources is skewed, other sources discussing the issue can be discussed on the talkpage. If there are none, the article is not skewed in wiki-terms, however much it may be skewed in real life.
 * Please feel free to copy this to the article talkpage if you feel it may help clarify matters for the SPA. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest referring him to Reliable sources. An important point that people often miss is that where news reporting is concerned, we consider the reliability of the publication, not the individual reporter; the publications you cite are indisputably reliable sources by our criteria. I think you should point that out to Proxy User. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be careful about Le Monde Diplo, as it seems to engage in advocacy journalism (to put it mildly). When you add to that their reprinting articles from an even more partisan publication, I think it'd be best to err on the side of caution. IronDuke  18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Le Monde diplomatique is a French Newspaper. It is rather pro-palestinian and left-wing but it is perfectly reliable. It could be compared with Ha'aretz and per my understanding is less left-wing than The Guardian. Its right-wing pending is Le Figaro. But whatever, it is 100% reliable in the sense of WP:RS. It is not Le Canard enchaîné. Ceedjee (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee, any particular reason you're stalking me (after you promised you wouldn't? Just bored? IronDuke  19:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was the whole day on wikipedia. I must have made around 300 edits today on around 10 articles. And as you know, I am a French editor and my articles of interest deal with the I-P conflict. So, I think I can be of good advice concerning this issue. Please, read WP:AGF, stop deleting my comments because you don't like them and take a break. I assume and expect from you will stop here and right now. Ceedjee (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IronDuke, this is the second time in less than 24 hours that, in the course of a very light perusal of the top portion of my watchlist, I've ran across an angry response by you to Ceedjee accusing him of "stalking" you. I don't know what your issue is here but I suggest that this is not the way to get it resolved. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eleland, if you think you're being helpful, I can assure you you aren't. IronDuke  00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ceedjee - Le Diplo is a major and quite influential publication, and it clearly qualifies as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Link on the Kate Walsh page
I found this youtube link on the Kate Walsh biographical article; YouTube. Do this link constitute as a reliable source link or as a copyright violation? Talsurrak (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would look for another source that gives the same information, but if it can't be found then keep it. Leonard(Bloom) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos don't meet the threshold of verifiability. Good job on removing it and the content that was attributed to it. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the link, since I found the original (copyrighted) clip on a website belong to the General Motors Corporation, I linked the reference to that site instead. I also added in the text that Kate Walsh did a commercial interview, and on the link itself, I added a copyright notice. I hope that the way that I did it is right. Talsurrak (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cinemetrics?
Cinemetrics is being used at Long take as a source for data on the average shot lengths for different films. The data at the site is posted by the site's owner (or administrator), who is a film scholar, and also posted by visitors to the site who are not anybody in particular. The submissions are presumably filtered for nonsense, but don't seem to be verified in any substantial way. All of the data is in the films themselves, though, so they could conceivably be verified by anybody willing to put in the effort. Is this a reliable source?

I have a (friendly) disagreement with another editor about this-- I hope I'm accurately representing the situation. See a short exchange we had at Talk:Long_take. Staecker (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not. The figures are user generated (using a program that is essentially a stop watch with limited statistics). While the site is somewhat interesting and would like be a nice external link, it is almost certainly not a reliable source. Vassyana (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix TV
Accordin to it's article, Phoenix TV is a TV station operated in Hong Kong and owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. The dispute is at, where a couple of FLG editors insists on the removal of a Phoenix TV report critical of FLG's views, insisting that it's propaganda based on the simple fact that the TV station allowed to be boardcasted in mainland China, and according to them, ''The Chinese Communist Party controls all the media in China and they decide what is reported and what isn't. No media can report what it wants, it must report within the framework set by the Party. No media which broadcasts in China can report anything other than what the Party says on Falun Gong.'' So how does one decide what and what isn't propaganda?--PCPP (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The NPoV solution is to write : Phoenix TV reports that xxx.
 * If another media reports the contrary or doesn't share their analysis. It must be reported the same way : On the other side, TaiPei TV reports that yyy.
 * The reader can go in the article about this media and reads what concerns it, who controls it and if there are reports or claims or proven facts of propaganda concerning this.
 * If this media has an article on wikipedia, it can be considered that its message is relevant and therefore what it reports can be quoted.
 * Only an argumentation of wp:undue could prevent what it reports to be in an article.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The CIA taken as an Authority
Why exactly is CIA factbook taken so easily as a source in (English) Wikipedia? Nearly every article on a country uses it. This is an organization that has been Multiple Times exposed to be involved in corrupt operations of disinformation and para-military acts. Apotetios (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one of those accusations suggest that the CIA factbook is not a reliable source? This isn't the noticeboard to voice issues with the history of the CIA or their current activities. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The disinformation accusations are quite enough. Apotetios (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusations is the key word here. The CIA lies to congress and operates in foreign nations in secret, but we don't really have good information that the CIA factbook is innacurate or deliberately false. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about established cases of disinformation here, such as the well known fiasco of the Iraq war 'evidence', not just accusations from some "unamerican" sources according to certain wikipedians. Apotetios (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the jury is out on who really is at fault for the Iraq war evidence, and my money isn't on the CIA. That doesn't mean they produce consistent, accurate and unbiased intelligence reports to the community, but we aren't privy to those.  The kind of disinformation you are referring to is worlds apart from what is presented in the CIA factbook.  A case can be made that the CIA has produced faulty intelligence or analysis under pressure to produce said intelligence or analysis.  A case can be made that the CIA failed to predict the fall of the soviet union (again, likely under pressure from the whitehouse to present analysis that suggested the USSR was a long term military and economic foe).  But neither of these points to a reason to disregard what is ostensibly a factbook for government officials and libraries about countries around the world.  We use the CIA factbook for things like perimeter of a border or maps.  Is there a reason to disregard the CIA factbook as a reliable source in its purview? Protonk (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned of its use when it goes on describing countries. It's used a lot (in wikipedia) to justify how something is negative about a country. Well guess what, everything is negative to the CIA factbook, USA itself is portrayed as a hub of international drug trafficking. They write like old grumpy policemen in it. Apotetios (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's conveniently available to anyone with an Internet connection (unlike an offline resource or something requiring registration and payment), it presents a wide variety of basic facts on every country, and as far as I'm aware, no one has found any significant errors in it. What they may or may not do, or have done in the past, in other situations is pretty much irrelevant.
 * Is there some specific problem that you have? Can you suggest an equally accessible but potentially more neutral source?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried...I really, really did...honest...but I just couldn't resist suggesting that it might be worth posting this inquiry on the Convenient and accessible sources/Noticeboard. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's essential to separate the CIA Factbook from the organisation known as the CIA. The publication is not discredited merely because the CIA has engaged/not engaged in various forms of para-military acts, corruption, etc. If one is able to discredit the factbook resource itself, then one would be able to argue against its use as a reliable source. Many governmental organisations publish similar reference items. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite a double standard when I see sources being clearly snobbed because they come from some "unamerican country" according to certain wikipedians (yet when the CIA is exposed by the well known fiasco of the Iraq 'evidence' it's still 'legitimate'). Apotetios (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has resolved in favor of using the CIA World Factbook when appropriate. Editors are reminded that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not a political chat room.  We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to Right Great Wrongs or to determine the Ultimate Truth™ about a government agency.  Interested persons are invited to continue this discussion elsewhere, in e-mail or at some other website.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain how this got 'resolved', what's the process, I just see 2 people arguing. BTW something else being 'resolved' which is not a "political discussion" but very related to information being presented in wikipedia is that George Tenet is on record saying there's been misinformation through the CIA around the Iraq war. Apotetios (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is a subset of the basic intelligence compiled by the CIA to inform their analysis in support of intelligence requirement tasking. The information contained therein is an unclassified consolidation of information, all of which could be sourced elsewhere, however the world factbook is easily available. If there is an issue with material contained within it, and there are alternate sources which contradict it, then that contradiction can be drawn out in the text of the article. That said, the current guidance around reliability doesn't actually allow source assessment, which is a frustration for any professional.

Questions about the conduct of the CIA are largely irrelevant to the use of the factbook, as the intelligence contained is so basic there is little room for interpretation; borders, economy, demographics etc. It doesn't come to any conclusions, which is the key issue. The criticisms of the CIA in general tend to revolve around actions or interpretations which may use basic intelligence as a contributor. In assessing the use of the source it's worth making that distinction. The CIA world factbook is a source of information, not analysis.

ALR (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Using an unreliable source as an example of websites discussing a subject
Is this example acceptable? {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madoc&curid=796416&diff=232759600&oldid=232751911] It's a personal web page/forum, and we wouldn't allow it as an external link. I removed it on that basis but as you can see the editor has replaced it. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's using the source as a verification that the legend is "alive and well" as it where.  This goes beyond the scope of what we can use primary sources for, since the only thing documented is that at least one website caters to the legend.  As such the context makes this OR.  There is also the question of due weight, if the Madoc legend is still part of todays culture that is something that should be dokumented from reliable sources. Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist)
John Todd (occultist) seems to have massive WP:RS problems, and, given the provenance of some of the information in the article, quite possibly also WP:BLP problems as well (since we have no information from conventional sources that he is, in fact, dead). -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: see Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist). -- The Anome (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard doesn't so much deal with overall article issues as much as we deal in particular sources. What question do you have about the sourcing in the article? Protonk (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My issue is simply this: do any of the sources given to support the assertions in that article meet the WP:RS criteria? -- The Anome (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

blogcritics.org in Tucker Max
is http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php a reliable source? the blog has reposted an article from a college newspaper. assuming the school paper in question is a reliable source, would reposting a reliable source's article onto a blog make the blog a reliable source? the original source is unavailable, as there is no website for the school paper, so there is no way to verify that this is an accurate reposting of the original article. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in a WP:BLP, unfortunately. I'm also inclined to say that many school newspapers aren't reliable sources.  Most are so starved for writers that they will accept anything.  Even the Crimson is only so-so (although one could make an argument that it is RS). Protonk (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Luke Ski
At Featured article review/Spoo I have had a disareement with Phil Sandifer over the use of secondary sources such as Luke Ski to prove notability of Spoo. Sandifer claims that the fact that Ski recorded a song which contained a reference to a food from Babylon 5, Spoo. Trivial mentions aside, I haven't been able to find much to confirm Ski's notability or use as a reliable source (the latter half being more important.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "reliable source" is the phrase we should be considering here. Luke Ski is a performer of comedy/parody songs. I think the criterion by which Luke Ski's music should be judged as a reference is something other than "reliability". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Phil is basically making the assertion that Luke Ski's recording of a song featuring a reference to Spoo shows a significant cultural impact of Spoo (at least in fandom). My question is whether one artist making a song can be used as justification of that assertion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Are Reviews Considered Opinion Pieces?
Just a quick question here. I was reading through WP:RS and saw the phrase Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Does the term opinion piece refer to things like movie, concert, or play reviews? Or for that matter, music album reviews, such as the reviews at NME? (&gt;O_o)&gt;  Something  X  &lt;(^_^&lt;) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Short answer is no. Long answer is yes with a suggestion to do a case by case review.  Op/Ed's are mentioned specifically because newspapers specifically disclaim any corporate responsibility for content within them.  Further they are often published in pairs on issues that divide the public.  Reviews are considered less reliable that front page material not because the review is the opinion of the author but because they aren't really taken as seriously (in most papers).  Sometimes reviews are very serious and deal with important issues about the subject (see the reviews in the New York times review of books or the new yorker).  Sometimes reviews are throwaway bits about popular films and books (see most local/regional papers).  So their reliablity tends to stem more from the seriousness with which the parent publication treats the review section rather than the fact that most commentary is founded somewhat in opinion.  In some cases that opinion is important and reliable (see most reviews in academic publications or some good movie reviews).  The reviewer often is an expert in the subject and is offering an expert assessment.  that assessment may be opinionated, but it isn't accurate to call it merely opinion. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to give an example, tell me if you think this counts as a reliable source as per above. The Paramore article lists several genres, one of which being Emo. The reference given to support this genre is an opinion piece/review from NME (article). Therefore this reference could only be used as a statement of opinion of an author, but not as fact, correct? (&gt;O_o)&gt;  Something  X  &lt;(^_^&lt;) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the band and don't a dog in this race, and I'm assuming there's not a controversy here (like with some reviewers calling them emo, and others saying "no, they're definitely not emo.") I would say if reviewers often refer to them as emo then the article should list emo as a genre. If, however, the NME review is the only one out of many (like 10 or more--and if these guys have a platinum record than there must no shortage of reviews) then the article probably shouldn't say they're emo. To me, this seems like a WP:WEIGHT thing. Yilloslime (t) 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I could have answered your specific question first. :) I don't know NME's policies on reviews. Their policy is what matters. If they don't have one or we can't find it then we can use judgment on a case by case basis. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree... reviews are opinion pieces. The key here is the reputation of the reviewer.  While some reviewers can be considered noted experts in the field, and thus their opinions will contain a degree of reliability... other reviewers do not have this degree of recognition, and their opinons are not at all reliable.  So to know if NME is reliable for its categorization of bands, we have to ask... what is the reputation of NME and its reviewers? Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a larger question at the root of this (whether or not one can make a factual assertion about the quality of a piece of work), but it is unimportant. I stand by the point I made above--editorials are exlicitly mentioned in the guidelines because organizations which otherwise assert control over and accept responsibility for material do not do so for Op/Ed's.  That is the difference.  The content of the piece is judged on a case by case basis.  the washington post produces some front page materials that push an opinion so blatantly that I think they should be relegated to the back two pages but that doesn't make those works of opinion.  The news organization (usually) stands by reviews and stakes their reputation on them.  Look at restaruant reviews in major newspapers.  They make an attempt to hire good reviewers and to protect the impartiality of the review.  they fact that the review may say "restaurant X is not as good as restaurant Y" doesn't make them "opinion pieces" for the purpose of WP:RS. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Protonk, it's of no doubt that you've heard the phrase Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the review says "restaurant X is not as good as restaurant Y", you cannot put that phrase in the article because it's in violation of WP:NPOV. You can say "Reviewer Z states that restaurant X is not as good as restaurant Y", but not without stating that is a statement of an opinion, not fact. Theoretically, let's say I become a reviewer with a great reputation, and say "restaurant X is much better than restaurant Y" or "Restaurant Y is a bad place to eat", does that make what I say factual? Food for thought. (&gt;O_o)&gt;  Something  X  &lt;(^_^&lt;) 03:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Video game articles often use FAs as Reliable sources for sourcing gameplay, etc. sections, but that is different from citing the same review in reception, where the critic's like/dislike is used. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Something, I understand what you are saying but for our purposes (the reliable source noticeboard), reviews are largely reliable sources. We may say that everyone has different opinions (they do), but I'm trying to make a distinction between the claims made in reviews and reviews themselves for our purposes.  So if a reviewer says "Restaurant X has Chef Y on its staff" or "Band A has sold 100000 albums" then we don't need to wait for a different source to say it in order to treat it as fact.  We would have to if reviews were treated the same as Op/Ed's.  If the review makes a claim that is an opinion, then we can make a judgment call on that claim.  The piece itself remains a reliable source for the reporting of fact. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context." A source can be reliable for a fact, but if it also has opinions those can not be reported as fact based on that source. The opinions can perhaps be reported as opinions in that case. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it also depends on what information is being stated here. A band generally is not going to go out of the way to announce their genre - they tend to only mention it when they particularly disagree with what they've been labeled as - so if a well-known publication such as NME calls a band one (sub)genre or another, it may be usable. The problem is that genre labels for a given band (or album) can vary wildly in many cases, so just having one or two citations is not necessarily enough - the question is if the general critical consensus is that they are within a given genre. Unfortunately, that's not as easy to source.... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the band did say what genre they consider their music it would be first-party. The user above is removing the genre emo and asserting WP:RS saying that music reviews are in violation of wp rs. The reviews in question are from The Rolling Stone, NME, New York Times, etc. I'm not sure what you are supposed to use if you can't use a music review from a third-party, reliable, published source known for fact checking and accuracy. Look at his edit summary for example "(Again, the source listed in the article for the genre is in violation of WP:RS. Feel free to add one that isn't a review or opinion piece. But until then, the improperly sourced genre is removed.)" I guess he thinks a database, or some fan site would be better? He also left three other genres in place that were also cited with music reviews. He seems to have an agenda to remove emo from the infobox, a quick look at his contirbs definitely makes it appear that way. Landon1980 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, don't assume he has an agenda but take this discussion as some community consensus about reviews in otherwise reliable newspapers and revert the changes. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are a few examples of what makes me think that:  . He always targets emo and, actually said he was going to prove they were not emo. I'm a pretty new editor myself, but him providing sources that say they are 'pop punk' for example doesn't prove they are not emo does it? Before the genre would be disputed I would think another reliable source in the music industry would have to definitively say they are not emo, such as "Paramore definitely is not emo." As far as I know artists/bands fall into multiple genres all the time. Landon1980 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but it does no good to call it an agenda. All that does is piss him off and make it appear as though an adversarial relationship exists.  My advice is to assume good faith and work diligently to source statements made in the articles.  Where there are disputes over the statements, attempt to engage and compromise.  In this case, subjectivity plays a large part--NME may declare a band to be emo but the band may identify as pop-punk.  If he is inserting unsourced material to make this decision himself, then first try to see if you can find a source to support his side, then start to reassert the sourced claims.  But accusations don't do any good for anyone, even if they appear to be backed up by evidence.  I could easily say that those three diffs represent bands that were misclassified and he was correcting the error.  That may not be correct, but it is another interpretation that doesn't require malfeasance on his part. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why reviews are opinion pieces. What genre a band may be is a matter of opinion.  One reviewer may categorize a band in one genre, while another may categorize it in another. You can note the opinion if it adds something key to the article, just state it as an opinion... with something like: "According to NME, the band is emo" Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is definitely not how we do things. Genres are nearly always sourced with reviews, care to show me a couple info boxes that say 'according to blank the band blank is blank? You always just list the genre, that is we must make sure the review is by an expert in the field. Landon1980 (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add here, largely for anyone looking at the archives in the future, that this discussion has nothing to do with scientific reviews, systematic reviews, or law reviews. This discussion only applies to literary and entertainment-related reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding musical genres reviews from known experts in the field with a good reputation are the best thing we have. Wikipedia does not claim to base itself on fact, we rely on verifiability. The only things left are online stores, fan sites, blogs, databases, and the bands opinion themselves which is first-party and prohibited by WP:RS. My point is in the end everything regarding musical genres eventually boils down to someone's opinion. Landon1980 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclusion into genres of music, like art movements, is mostly a product of reviewers and critics. Of course if I had a band and a reviewer called it "emo" I'd throw a fit :).  For older genres we have historians, but contemporaneously you're not going to to better than reviewers from respected publications. PelleSmith (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Of course if I had a band and a reviewer called it "emo" I'd throw a fit" That's just because you're so emo. :) Protonk (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So can this be marked as resolved now? Landon1980 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For my money, yes, but there appears to be a fundamental disagreement between some users as to this resolution, so it may get reopened. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

citation in JD article
A question has been raised about whether this citation properly supports the content. The objection is that the NC Bar Association does not have authority to discuss academic issues. However, it is contended that the source is reliable, and authority is not a wiki requirement for a citation.

"On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context."

citation footnote: Use of the Title "Doctor" in Academia, North Carolina State Bar, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, April 20, 2007. Unable to directly link, but can be found through this site Use of the title in academic circles is rare, but does occur, as related in this forum.

Please see the [discussion page] for the debate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To broaden the discussion. There may be an ambiguity in WP policy with respect to this. WP policy, while calling for an authority to be reliable, says nothing about the authority being relevant. Wikiant (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the use of the North Carolina Bar ethics opinion as a source in general, but I don't think it can be used to support the statement On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context. The N.C. Bar was ruling on whether North Carolina lawyers should be allowed to use the title "Doctor" when teaching at a college; they didn't purport to describe whether and in what circumstances lawyers in the other 49 states do use the title "Doctor." The ethics opinion should only be used as a source to support what it actually says -- namely, that in at least one state, lawyers are only allowed to use the title "Doctor" while working in an academic institution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, thank you Metropolitan90. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Also, wrt relevance vs. reliability, WP:RS does, in fact, address the policy. The statement is: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Wikiant (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Terry Fugate-Wilcox article: accused of lacking "reliable sources"
Maybe I do not understand the term "reliable source". If the New York Times, New York Post, & for art, Art in America or Art News, as well as books written by Lucy Lippard, Public Art Fund, NYU Press or New York State Council on the Arts do not count as "reliable sources", then what do I have to do to satisfy that requirement? - unsigned comment by
 * The misunderstanding is of the tag, you should add inline citations for what pieces of information came from which (reliable) source. I've answered on the article's talk page. -PētersV (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all it is. Looking at the Terry Fugate-Wilcox article, the problem is the unstructed dump of sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Anglophilia
I'd appreciate some input on the "list of famous Anglophiles" at Anglophilia, I've given my own run-down on which are reliable here, but I'd like to get a second, third, or fourth opinion. Responses to the talk page if possible, if not here. - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am concerned, first of all, that whether someone is an Anglophile may essentially be trivia and so it may not be appropriate to maintain a list of them in this article, or at least the list should be quite selective. Secondly, it appears that Madonna was removed from the list of Anglophiles, even though she has an English husband, two homes in England, and an English accent which she acquired in the last few years. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler is currently listed as an Anglophile, even though, well, everything. (I realize that you did not personally list Hitler as an Anglophile.) The standards for what counts as Anglophilia are thus too vague to apply now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannia.com
Can this be considered a reliable source? It seems to be used quite a bit. Here is their list of authors. (I ran into this on the John Michell (writer) page where someone seems to think this is actually the online Britannica - ironically Michell's article on the Druids claims, incorrectly, that modern scholarship tends to think Stonehenge to be a Celtic (ie Druid) temple). Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

tvbythenumbers.com
As per this (part way down, the third bolded "comment" section), could someone tell me if this is a reliable source?

Please see: "The NY Times link demonstrates that a news source says that it is reliable. The site also has a history of publishing information that can also be found on other reliable websites. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the site listed on the NYT page under a section called "Blogroll"; I haven't located the text where they say that it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is listed in "The Sources" subsection, which implies that The NY Times uses it as a source, which means that they trust it (yeah, not the best link). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last month, The NY Times is quoting one of its editors, as are The NY Post, TV Week and the Fox Broadcasting Company, as well as the listed-in-Google News-websites Broadcasting Engineering, NewTeeVee and Contact Music. Sorry that I did not get those sooner. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)"

Could we determine if this is actually a reliable source or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How does one do that? This is used as a source for some American television ratings that cannot always be found on/get archived and deleted by other reliable websites.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  22:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is used to develop consensus on if the topic is notable or not. Its an easy way to double check on a source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable primary source or third party source needed?
At the V8 Supercars article a user revert an edit and challenging me. Since it's sourced from V8 Supercars I think it's a rather big claim to make (being the third biggest sport) since Australia has a number of large sports and I feel that a third part source is needed. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried phrasing the statement as a claim (as opposed to stating it as a fact)? Try something like: "According to the sport's offical webpage, it is the third biggest sport in Australia  ". Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2 line anonymous review from Bookwatch
The 'review' is the 2 line anonymous comment on John Michell (writer) at this link So far as I can tell from here it isn't much harder to submit a book review to Bookwatch then it is to Amazon (slightly, but not much). My opinion is that this isn't a RS (although some reviews might be ok if they were authored by people who might be considered RS?). Doug Weller (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrails
Much of the sourcing in this article is to primary-source self-published websites. Can someone go through and check which ones are reliable and which ones aren't? I'm sort of inclined to say none are reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the primary sources from this article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Daijiworld.Com (http://www.daijiworld.com/)
Is this site reliable? The reasons for its reliability are:


 * Daijiworld is an newspaper (e-paper). According to Wiki policies, they are reliable.
 * It has its own office in Mangalore and some other places. This means it is well established.
 * It's full name is Daijiworld Media Pvt Ltd Mangalore. That means it's a company.
 * It has also an internet TV – TVDAIJIWORLD (http://www.daijiworld.com/page.asp?pno=1)

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=48478&n_tit=Meet+Bollywood%92s+New+Bee+Genelia+D%92souza (a news article) is basically used to cite this statement: (Genelia D'Souza was born on August 5, 1987 in Mumbai..) Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The site is e-paper, it has an office address and has an editor-in-chief (Walter Nandalike). So the site can be used as RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much, Otolemur. Kensplanet (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

howardbloom.net
Is howardbloom.net RS? I found it in the article War against Islam.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

iTunes reliability
There is an on-going discussion about the reliablily of iTunes as a source, specifically the release of "iTunes only tracks", at Talk:All Hope Is Gone (album). If there is a previous discussion about iTunes please direct us to it and feel free to let your thoughts on the matter known. Thank you.  Black  ngold29   03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17 and a similar case: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8. My opinion is no, as they are a retailer.  The link could be used to describe something like song length or something if absolutely nothing else did and the subject was otherwise notable, but for 99% of the cases, no. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

www.stratfor.com
Is http://www.stratfor.com/ (stratfor) considered a reliable source? It seems to me that sources used in Wikipedia should be available to all users without requiring payment of a subscription fee with auto renewal by charging your credit card and further requires you to provide all your personal information in order to verify the source used. Wouldn't finding other more easily obtainable and verifiable sources more prudent? I refuse to pay a monthly, auto-renewal, subscription fee in order to verify a source. (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you --Jmedinacorona Struck my refuse to pay a subscription remark, oops. :) --Jmedinacorona (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not require that sources be available intantly, or for free. As long as someone could sign up for a pay to view or subscription site and verify the statement, it is considered verifiable.  Whether you choose to do so is up to you.  Having to pay to view a web based source is considered equivalent to having to purchase a book... or having to pay for a library card to obtain a hard copy source.
 * As for whether stratfor.com is reliable in other ways... I think so. It does not seem to have any political agenda or bias, and it certainly has a very good reputation in the corporate world.  However, I could see calling it a Self-Published Source, thus limiting its use to statements of opinion, rather than fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can use it as reference, but it should be used as opinion piece and you have to attribute the source each time you use it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only is Stratfor a reliable source, but it's a pretty excellent one. For those unfamiliar with the site, it reports on various geopolitical events and offers an analysis, for example what a diplomatic gesture might mean.  Most of it is subscription, but some of the podcasts and terrorism reports are free.  They definitely have an editorial staff, and this puts them in the category of secondary source, not self-published source.  Being a paid source does not exclude it from WP:V, otherwise we'd have to exclude most books, magazines and academic journals.
 * I would like to point out that for basic events happening in the news, one may wish to cite other sources that are more accessible. For the opinions and forecasts unique to Stratfor, you'd use something like "the private intelligence firm Stratfor felt that these events in Georgia foreshadowed..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the source (and haven't even bothered to click on the link), but I must say that in general, books, newspapers and academic journals are available at libraries, even if one cannot access them instantly online, or if they are offered for sale and/or subscription for a price. Is the specific material being cited available in libraries? I'm not sure what Wikipedia policies are in this reguard, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with any source that is really not available to editors who have access to a good library of the sort that exists at a typical state university, for example. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on Squidfryerchef reply above I went back to the page and indeed found that much of the content seemed to be accessible without membership. My original post was due to reference links provided on an article I was editing, that when clicked on, were not available unless I logged into the stratfor site.  I then went to the site and saw where it provided for a free trial but at the same time required all my personal information, including a credit card and number be entered for this trial.  I can walk to my local library, I can go to a bookstore to buy a book, I can buy a newspaper or magazine or surf the net, all without having to use a credit card, whereas to access this source required me to do so.  I guess I could somehow find stratfor's location and fly/drive or walk? to their office and buy a subscription in cash, but for those users of WP who do not have access to a credit card, it just seemed limited to credit cardholders to access for verification.  I do have credit cards, to my everlasting regret :), but NEVER use them over the internet.  And of course I buy newspapers, magazines, etc... so my having said I would never pay a monthly subscription was an exaggeration.  The credit card was the actual issue which caused me to question the source.  Thx. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about this site in particular, but for many pay sites, one can find libraries with subscriptions to the site, though usually these are usable only by library card holders and only on premises. One of those things where people on college campuses or in big cities generally have quite an advantage.


 * If something like this is used as a citation for something basically uncontroversial, I really don't see any problem. I've found that, in general, when I encounter something like this and have any doubts, I can usually get the original contributor who made the citation to send me the relevant passage. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education - Forum
A heated debated ensues about the use of posts in the Chronicle of Higher Education Forums in an article about Eastern Mediterranean University, first in mediation and then in the talk page for the article

The crux of the argument is that "Forums usually don't count, unless frequented by academics, and this is the case here." It is also suggested in the same post that it might be good to cite the source but explain the nature of the forum (so readers would be able to evaluate it's reliability.

Thanks.--2knowledgeable (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Sites usually absolve themselves of all responsibility for forum posts (and so no control over the content is exercised) and there is no way to judge who is on that forum.  Anyone can register and claim to be professor so-and-so.  As for the last sentence, we don't present unreliable sources knowingly and let the readers judge.  we try to (especially where the issue is contentious) present the best possible source on a subject. Protonk (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PAHighways.com
- Is this reliable? A lot of PA highway articles are using it and so was I. Deigo (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Snap judgment about these road guide websites tend to be wrong.  Most of them look like they were made by a 13 year old in 1997, but the proprietor tends to be an expert in the subject.  In this case I can't find much on the owner/operator, but that doesn't mean nothing exists. Protonk (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

International World History Project
http://history-world.org/: reliable source or not? See especially http://history-world.org/who.htm. I looked up our own (near-orphan, somewhat poorly cited) article on Robert Guisepi. I can't tell whether to presume this is a solid source; I detect a (slight) whiff of crackpottery in the article but can't tell whether that reflects the late Dr. Guisepi or our contributors. - Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Audrey Tautou
There has been some debate as to varying sources with differing birth years for the French actress Audrey Tautou. There has been some discussion at Talk:Audrey Tautou and WP:RFPP. I would appreciate having a few other experienced editors to take a look at the references linked in the article, the talk page and the RFPP discussion to see if there is a clear cut answer or if the current compromise of listing both years in the article is best. Cheers,  caknuck °  is not used to being the voice of reason  03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert in characther
Discussion has been moved to The Village Pump. Contents of the discussion are preserved there as an archive. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unattributed website article as RS
I swear I asked here about this exact source before but I can't find anything in the archives so here I am. Rosencomet has been using http://www.murugabooker.com/ace.html as a source for a number of articles. I had a long discussion with him about its WP:RS status on Talk:Merl Saunders back in Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 here. The source in question, titled EXPANDING THE FRONTIERS OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, has a number of problems as a reliable source. I think the shortcomings will be obvious to many WP editors.

Now I know this source isn't remotely a RS and I've explained as much to Rosencomet, including pointing him to both WP:V and WP:RS many times over many months in different situations, but he seems confused as to the distinctions between independent and reliable. Unfortunately, because of past conflicts between Rosencomet and myself, he tends to discount my editorial judgments when such opinions conflict with his. So I wanted to get a little feedback about the source, hoping that he might be convinced by other opinions. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The page cited above doesn't appear to be linked to from the home page of http://murugabooker.com, and is in plain text. Its lack of integration into the Muruga Booker site suggests that it hasn't been "published", but has been uploaded as a draft document or semi-private communication. As a document that is not publicly accessible from the Booker site it shouldn't acquire any status as an RS from any status that the Booker site has. Maybe the problem with the concepts of reliable source and independent source is that a source can be independent and not reliable, and vice versa. Ning ning (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ning ning. In my first draft of this post, I made some of the exact points you did. I removed them because I was pretty sure someone would point out the source's lack of integration with the main Muruga Booker website among other problems. I thought Rosencomet might give the critique more weight if it came from someone other than myself. I also note that the only link in the "source" is to the main ACE website and Rosencomet has been taken to task before for linkspamming on Wikipedia. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not consider it a reliable source either. The page is totally unattributed, and the website hosting it doesn't look too reliable either (i.e. whenever using it as a source, it'd be sure to say "According to the band's website....". Yilloslime (t) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. Can be used only within the limits of WP:SPS, which is to say, on articles about murugabooker.com.  My guess is that there aren't very many of those. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Yilloslime and Protonk. Since I notified Rosencomet of this discussion, I'm hoping he gain some clarity about sourcing. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

typophile.com
It's a wiki, but it is owned by a (presumably for-profit) company. They display advertisements from type foundries and the like on their site. Can this be considered a reliable source for typography related material? What about NPOV and COI? VasileGaburici (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter who owns it. It's constructed by user contributions with no apparent editorial oversight, so it's not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so my actions to move links to it from "references" to "external links" were appropriate :) VasileGaburici (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. There are suggestions about what goes in external links.  the guidance there suggests that we should be selective in choosing when to link to wikis.  I can't say yes or no, but it is something to think about. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to propose typophile.com for the interwiki feature; this would qualify it for exception 12 in that list. There are a number of well know typography experts that regularly post (under their real names) to the forums on that site, so it's reasonable to assume that there's expertise in the user base. The wiki entries get automatically liked in user posts based on keyword detection, so they not likely to be bunk.
 * Well, exception 12 seems to apply regardless of interwiki status. The trouble is that typophile.com uses some id number in URLs instead of names, so interwiki won't... VasileGaburici (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, planetmath.org has the same limitation, and it is in interwiki nonetheless. I'm going to propose typophile.com anyway. VasileGaburici (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Website as a Reliable Source?
I need some help. On the page for David Michael Jacobs a site was referenced that I am questioning as a reliable source. It's the personal website of one of his former clients. Could someone please take a look at this site: http://www.ufoalienabductee.com] and render an opinion on its reliability for a wiki page on a living person? Thank you very much. Fiona2211814 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The exact reference that I provided for the contribution at issue is an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs reading a section of a transcript of an instant messaging conversation that he believes that he had with an alien hybrid (which is an event in his life that is appropriate to include in his biography.) The audio clip itself, consisting of Dr. Jacobs reading this transcript, is the source that is referenced, not the entire website. For clarification, see the discussion about this at . Thank you. Angie186 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The audio clip is clearly heavily edited and therefore has no context to determine the validity of the information. It also is Dr. Jacobs in his own words, which one of the editors on the Biographies of Living Persons board said is not a valid source.  See user:Suntag on the page located here .  Also, if you look back in the history of changes in the page at, you can see other pages besides the audio clip that have been referenced in the past.  I'd like a complete look at the site to settle any future problems with references to this website.  Thank you.Fiona2211814 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, no. Interviews with the subject should be used rarely and judiciously.  Interviews (or readings) held on personal websites are almost always not considered appropriate for BLP's, especially when the personal website carrying the information is not the subject's.  as far as other sites quoting this page, they probably shouldn't.  No one is "an expert" on being abducted by aliens so the normal exception of accepted self-published sources doesn't apply.  The audio clip MIGHT be valid as a source if it were hosted on a site owned or operated by Jacobs or hosted by an otherwise reliable source, but in this case it isn't. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Protonk. As far as I'm concerned, this resolves the issue.  I will wait to hear Angie weigh in though. (talk)
 * Thanks Protonk. That is fine. I made the contribution to the article concerned in good faith believing that the source was reliable according to Wikipedia definitions. Your opinion that the audio clip might be valid as a source if it was hosted by a source considered reliable by Wikipedia's definition was interesting. * Fiona, I accept Protonks view at this stage. Should the audio clip, or other information about this event, become available on a different site, or in a different forum, that is considered reliable according to Wikipedia definitions, I will revisit the issue again. * I have not appreciated your offensive attitude in our exchanges about this issue. I suggest that you show more respect to your fellow editors in the future. Angie186 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the "audio clip might be accepted if it were hosted by an RS", imagine if National Public Radio, CNN or the New York times hosted that clip. It would be a lot harder to explicitly exclude it as a source in that case. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Audio interview hosted at BlogTalkRadio
There is a question about usage of the above audio interview source in the biographical article David Miscavige, because that audio interview is hosted on BlogTalkRadio. A Request for Comment has been opened to assess community viewpoints on this. Please weigh in at Talk:David Miscavige. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF
I was wondering whether this link is reliable for the article it is being used in (linked above). C YCLONIC W HIRLWIND talk 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rockdetector
Rockdetector: On its own page about Rockdetector it has positive responses from Digby Pearson- Managing Director of Earache Records; and Blabbermouth, a reliable source, which is hosted by Roadrunner Records (further feedback from Blabbermouth can be seen here and here). And such sources give Rockdetector positive feedback as well: here and the introduction of this. Is this proof enough of reliability of that source? Thanks for answer(s).--  LYKANTROP    ✉  16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone have a look on this, please?!--  LYKANTROP    ✉  08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't normally do music stuff, so I didn't answer earlier. My suggestion is to use your judgment.  WP:SPS creates an exception for self-published sources where the author is an expert in the subject and the material being sourced isn't for a BLP and isn't particularly controversial.  So if you have reason to believe that the editor of this site is an expert (I have no opinion on that) and you are using the site to source things like tour dates, album names, etc., that is fine.  Questions raised by other editors in the course of using this site about the reliablity of Garry Sharpe-Young should be taken seriously.  I see he's written a few books on the subject, so he's not some kid in his mom's basement.  So.  follow WP:SPS and have at it. Protonk (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing unreliable sources
I've pulled some links to a few unreliable sources like stormfront.org, rense.com, and some others - thought I'd mention it here for feedback, and in case others would like to pitch in, or add to my list. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've considered creating a list of frequently used but questionably reliable sources in science and medicine, along these lines. There's a preliminary effort at User:Yilloslime/Questionable Sources. If you don't mind, maybe I'll add a few to your userspace page. MastCell Talk 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. If anyone know how to limit the displayed external links to just those in article space, that would be helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make it clear in your edit summary why you're removing them. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure and do that in the future. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison Talk 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do this, please keep in mind that Wikipedians are not babies, and sites like rense.com or prisonplanet.com may be good references for conspiracy topics. Also don't forget to tag or remove the fact being cited if you remove the source.  P.S. I looked through some of those edits and noticed there's a syntax problem with List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography of Roald Dahl
Is Jeremy Treglown's Roald Dahl: A Biography a reliable source? marbeh raglaim (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks okay to me. Treglown is a professor of English; he's edited and introduced a collection of Dahl's "mordant short stories for adults;" his biography of Dahl has been reviewed, and is recommended in Roald Dahl's bio at Guardian.co.uk. Does he say something controversial, or something at odds with other biographers? Tom Harrison Talk 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-published blog as source
At Talk:Wikipedia Review we have a discussion about the use of a self-published blog that struck me as being entirely unsatisfactory under WP:SELFPUB. See this edit and related talk page discussion. It strikes me as not being allowed by policy, and that if one allows opinions of bloggers on their favorite or unfavorite websites we will be overwhelmed with such stuff. However, there is disagreement from that perspective.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the relevant talk page the issue is not one of reliability. The blog is being used only to source the actions and opinions of the blogger.  We will not be overwhelmed because there are 100 other reasons not to use blogs in most instances--and in most instances they are indeed not reliable.  In fact, as I also stated, there may be reasons not to use the blog in question on the entry in question, but the issue simply is not one of reliability and certainly not as governed by self-pub.PelleSmith (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's an issue of reliability, and of self-publication. WP:Vdoes not allow blogs except as sources about their authors, and does not allow claims about third parties, in this case her opinions about Wikipedia Review. Positive or negative, they would need to be published in a third party source, as I read this policy. This point was made on the discussion page of WP:V, but I had understood that this page is the more central discussion focus for this kind of issue.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are confusing someone's personal opinion about something with "a claim" about that thing. The statement only reports her personal feelings and makes no substantive claim about the entity in question (WP review).  As I explained on the talk page, the only "claims" being made are about the self-publisher herself.  Again, there may be ample reason not to include her opinion, but please don't confuse this with a reliability issue.  What the self-pub guideline tries to prevent is the verification of a claim made by us to a self-published source. If we were to write, "Wikipedia review is fascinating reading" and source it to her blog you would indeed be correct.  But no one wrote that.PelleSmith (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means get consensus to remove it because its fluff, but just don't confuse the issue. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted here to obtain third opinions from uninvolved editors, not to continue the talk page discussion here. So far, here from Dicklyon and from Jossi on the WP:V discussion page, the third opinions have been that this material is contrary to policy.. Talk page consensus cannot disregard policy. But I'll wait to see if there are more opinions before reverting.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself but my interest in the entire matter comes from my off again and on again interests here. I do not edit the entry in question, nor do I have any feelings or opinions regarding its subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's being used for the author's opinion "fascinating reading" and such. Not a reliablility issue if it was in an article about the author and her opinions, but it really serves no useful purpose to add a random individual's opinions about a topic to an article on that topic, which is why we have guidelines against self-published items as sources.  If her opinion carries some weight, find someone who has commented on it and cite that instead; otherwise, leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed with Dicklyon. It seems fairly sophistical to argue that it's OK as it applies to Cramer's "personal feelings": even if "fascinating reading" is hardly a deep critique, it's a comment on a subject external to herself, so WP:V applies. Besides, it's not her specialism nor is she particularly famous, so why should her views on Wikipedia Review be of any interest or relevance? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The major thrust of both your arguments have nothing to do with reliability, but with relevance. She is not making "a claim" about a third party.  The idea that she finds it fascinating is purely a statement regarding her state of mind.  No policy thus far alluded to applies here in the least.  When we start confusing real claims about third parties made BY US, which is what the self-pub guideline in WP:V regards with fluffy attributed statements regarding someone's feelings about X, Y or Z we've gone off the deep end.  The whole point is not to use self published sources to verify factual claims.  You have to understand that the only verification question regarding an opinion is whether or not the individual actually holds the opinion ... not whether or not the opinion itself is garbage.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem skates across several issues. Personally, I don't find any clear distinction between the expression of an idea as an opinion or a fact: it's still commentary on a third party. There's no doubt that she holds that opinion, certainly. But I'm not aware that this analysis is bound to stick only to WP:RS angles. For me, the key point is in WP:V (i.e. WP:SELFPUB) - whether "the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed". If Jimbo Wales said he found Wikipedia Review fascinating reading, it'd be notable enough to include. If the Dalai Lama said it, likewise. If someone neither closely involved with the topic nor seriously famous does, it's hardly notable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary distinction involves who is making the claim. If a claim is attributed to a source, e.g. it is their opinion, then the only thing that needs to be verified is that this person has made such a claim--this is the very measure of reliability in the first place.  Is the source reliable to verify the claim that we are making in the entry?   If we make a claim similar to the attributed claim, without any attribution as a fact, then we need sourcing for that fact that is reliable for fact checking and accuracy.  Opinions clearly attributed in the text only need verification of being made, and self-published sources are 100% OK to verify the opinions of their authors.  Regarding your other point, notability is not reliability.  There is no reliability issue.  This board is not for the discussion of notability.PelleSmith (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is relevant as it relates to whether Kathryn Cramer is a reliable source for a website that she happens to like. She is not indeed Jimbo Wales or Mrs. Thatcher.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that in these cases there possibly several other concerns to address: notability, UNDUE, BLP, etc. I'm simply saying that reliability is not one of these issues.  Therefore I suggest going back to the talk page and getting consensus on removing the text on grounds that are applicable.PelleSmith (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are indeed, and I have reverted on that basis. It is as clear a violation of WP:LEAD as one can find. Notwithstanding that, as a plurality of editors who have independently commented on this have agreed, there is really little question that SELFPUB applies. It is hard to fathom why you would have SELFPUB if it did not apply to this situation. If it did not, it would open the floodgates to self-published 'opinions' could be placed in articles having only the vaguest relationship to the matter at hand. --Janeyryan (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unindent -- Only two editors have agreed that self-pub is relevant here. Using self-pub in this manner in fact undermines the very policy. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability for further information and further disagreement. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems plain that this blog material does not belong in the article, yet it seems that it skirts past one policy after another. What I was hoping to engender was interest in outside people familair with policies and procedures to increase the pool of editors at this article. I still hope that might be possible.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasmin St. Claire
Are the following two sources reliable for the information they provide on Jasmin St. Claire?:
 * http://www.lost.art.br/yasmint_e.htm
 * http://www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/stars/female/jasmin_stclaire.html Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Luke Ford is a self-published questionable source. He is a porn gossipist and does not exactly have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And lost art? Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exploring the lostart link also clearly indicates that it's a gossip blog that does not meet WP:RS. Xihr  09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about whether lostart is reliable as a source itself. However the article features snippets from the interview and I'm uncomfortable on having to rely on random quotes without context to verify a biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

David Cymet, Piłsudski and anti-semitism
A recent discussion and an edit war on a Featured article Józef Piłsudski concerns the reliability and due weight of the following source: David Cymet. "Polish State Anti-Semitism as a Major Factor Leading to the Holocaust." Journal of Genocide Research. (June 1999), Volume 1 Issue 2. This source is used to support the following statement: "Cymet cites the interview as evidence that "Pilsudski not only fully shared at this early date the eliminationist goal of Dmovski but that he was doing his best to achieve that goal." In other words, it is a veiled way of saying that Piłsudski is an anti-semite, a rather exceptional claim (for starters, a claim not present before in this Featured article, and contradicted by sources present in it that describe Piłsudski's opposition to anti-semitism). There is a plethora of reliable, academic sources that claim exactly the opposite: Here is an academic book that states simply: "Piłsudski was not an anti-semite". Here is another work stating exactly the same: "Pilsudski was no antisemite". Here is another one, stating that the "Purpose of Piłsudski... was to weaken the antisemitic endecja camp". Here: "When Pilsudski assumed power, anti-semitic violence ended". Here: "Under Pilsudski, the party opposed anti-semitism".

Journal of Genocide Research is a reliable publication, but per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Now, I cannot find any indication that David Cymet published any other academic work but this single piece. I cannot find indication that his work is cited. I cannot find any information on David Cymet, an academic (or even as a widely known amateur historian). In other words, it appears that this controversial claim is supported by a work of dubious reliability (I have read his article, it contains few citations, some errors and a lot of emotional, biased language, for example from the very first para: "Poland... holds the loot plundered from millions of murdered and executed Jews"; later in the article Cymet writes about Piłsudski: "His sinister words and the bloody actions of the army under his command..." - and so on).

In conclusion, I find this source rather unreliable, and certainly not an exceptional source needed to support an exceptional claim that Piłsudski - an important figure in interwar politics - was an anti-semite.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Took a quick look at the page and after a short search, it seems that you have the better of the argument here. This NYT article says "The consensus of historians is that Marshal Pilsudski resisted the rising tide of Polish anti- Semitism in the early years of the Depression, and envisaged a Poland in which Jews and members of other minorities would live side by side with their fellow Poles." and it is easy to find many other sources supporting this consensus.  Cymet, apparently an expert on Mexico,  seems to be pretty lonely in his position.John Z (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Now, what's your advice if the two users who disagree with me refuse to accept my arguments on talk, and are out-reverting me in mainspace? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate. There is no doubt whatsoever that Piłsudski believed in a multi-ethnic state and it was only in the post-Piłsudski period that sanacja moved rightward, becoming what JP had fought against. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the talkpage, however, shows that the OP has mis-stated the crux somewhat. The question is not what Piłsudski believed for the state, or what his policies were, but what his personal opinions were about the Jewish citizens of Poland. I personally believe that that, unless discussed extensively enough to be relevant, is not useful as a part of the article - besides being too bloody speculative for my taste. Nevertheless, the point being made by the article in JGR might be reasonably considered to be orthogonal to the rebuttals provided. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with John Z and Piotrus, given the evidence, there is no good reason why Pilsudski should be labeled as antisemite on WP. The use of given source clearly constitutes a violation of WP:UNDUE.--Termer (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I was saying the same thing, or thereabouts, but you're not agreeing with me? I'm heartbroken but unsurprised. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I missed your post Relata refero, how can I make it up to you? Should we close this discussion as resolved?--Termer (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be stable. I am not certain if the sixth para in J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski has best weight, but unless you've other suggestions, I think it's a reasonable compromise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive my late entry here as Piotrus neglected to inform me that he had taken this issue to the board regarding a source I had introduced. Let me try to unravel some of the spin Piotrus has put on this dispute, which misrepresnts the actual dispute. As Relata refero points out, Piotrus is misstating the situation, despite my having taken the time to make plain on the talk page the distinction between Pilsudski's policies and his beliefs. The beliefs are well sourced to a number of sources besides Cymet (who actually took the Pilsudski quote from Ronald Sanders. Shores Of Refuge: A Hundred Years Of Jewish Emigration. New York: Henry Holt, 1988. Piotrus isn't opposing Cymet, if you look at the article history, he is rejecting the introduction of the quote from Sanders, which was sourced to yet a third ref:"In an interview following a 1918 anti-Jewish pogrom, Pilsudki remarked 'I must say that the Poles are not philo-Semites. That must be admitted. The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of.' Sourced to Beryl Wein. Triumph of Survival: The Story of the Jews in the Modern Era 1650-1990. Mesorah Publications, 1990."


 * Piotrus has vociferously fought the inclusion of this quote, no matter who it is sourced to, not based on WP:RS, but on his rather spurious claim that there is a past "Consensus" about not having quotes (and note that this quote was included in the footnotes, not in the main text.] So the issue isn't Cymet, but the quote itself, a quote that Cymet himself sourced to the Sanders book--another perfectly reliable aource. So this is not about painting Pilsudski as an active anti-semite (nowhere was such a claim introduced) and therefore contradicting his documented attempts to block Polish fascists, but an attempt to block well sourced evidence of Pilsudski's views on Jews.


 * Piotrus' attempt is akin to claiming that Richard Nixon could not have had anti-Jewish views because the record shows that he supported Israel and never hurt the Jewish community. I think we understand that history and individuals are more nuanced than that. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Offline publications
I am using a US Dept. of Justice Publication that is not available online as a source for an article on the Crips. I used the same format for documenting it as an offline book was used in another article. Another editor is removing it solely because he can't find it online. I have been told by admins before that offline sources are reliable, so I am taking them at their word. Could someone please look at the article and see if the format is correct and, if not, tell me how to correctly document it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that offline sources are acceptable, and a U.S. government publication would normally be considered a reliable source. However, the source you have cited (U.S. Department of Justice (2002), Crips) is difficult to locate. I can find no evidence on the Department of Justice's web site of a publication by this name, and I looked on two university libraries' web sites and found no evidence that they had such a government publication in their collections. If you can produce evidence that this publication exists, that would help a lot. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is difficult to locate. No, it is not available online. If I scanned the publication and emailed it to you (about 8 pages), would that satisfy you that it exists and that it is being presented completely accurately? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely, if something is to be verifiable, the source has to be available in some way for people to verify it? Peter jackson (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked the same thing of an admin when an article contained in a database that everyone doesn't have access to was used and he told me being online or accessible to everyone isn't the criteria. That's why I'm asking here.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't the publication even mentioned online somewhere? It's not listed in the Library of Congress catalog, nor in OCLC's catalog. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a book, it is a publication. It totals 8 pages and published by the Dept. of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center under the Drugs and Crime Gang Profile series. The product number is 2002-Mo465-001, published November, 2002. Again, I am willing to scan and email it to you for impartial verification. I am making an effort to improve the quantity and quality of the information in the article. I have the material in my hands. It was compiled by the US govt. The fact that you can't find it or don't have access to the one database I know it is contained on shouldn't preclude it's use. I am offering to provide you a hard copy of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's a Work of the United States Government, it probably isn't copyrighted. That means you could scan it and upload it to Wikipedia as a file so everyone could see it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a link on your talk page where you can go to obtain your own copy since you apparently have some issue with having one emailed to you. You can feel free to get one straight from the source and find that everything I have said was 100% accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we get too upset about this discussion, please understand that WP:BURDEN requires that the editor inserting the material show (in the citation or on the talk page) where a reader would find the material before inserting it. I'm not saying that it is ok to jump to conclusions about "fabrication" (it isn't), but there is standing policy that tells us how to deal with offline sources.  This is a fairly recent change to WP:V so not everyone may be used to it.  It is the current community expectation for sourcing, though.  I don't see a problem with using this material so long as we provide sufficient detail to the reader.  I suggest posting the product number in the cite (try Citation) and providing some instructions on the talk page (or a wikiproject talk page) for further instructions.  I apologize if this seems extreme, but most people are used to working with material that can be found from a large university library and when we get outside that rather large net, we get suspicious. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with adding the product number or instructions. I do have a problem with certain editors implying that the publication doesn't exist just because they don't have access to the DOJ database. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has to be published somewhere; that's what WP:V is about. If it's something you obtained through FOIA or whatever, it isn't enough to show it to a couple other editors for verification.  The idea is that we want a good cite so ten years from now, some grad student can look it up to write his thesis.  You could try checking certain university libraries that are designated as repositories for government documents.  If the library puts an OCLC on the doc, put that in the cite cause people will be able to look it up on WorldCat.  Another option is to find a respected web site that publishes goverment docs online and cite the doc there.  If those dont work out, you could maybe (this is pushing the limits of WP:V) cite it as a book with the publisher being the DOJ and the ID being the product number you gave us and the URL a link to the order form. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is published somewhere. The problem is that the DOJ database isn't publicly accessible. I already said I would be happy to add the product number and the URL that I provided Metropolitan. Oddly, nothing I am putting in is outrageous or stretches the imagination. It is a single editor that is disputing the fairly pedestrian material. I may just publish it on wikipedia, then every editor who felt the need to add "if it exists" to their response can see it in full and realize that they weren't assuming good faith when they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Product number and link to where you can request a copy has been added. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Secret printed documents which "are not available to everybody" (to paraphrase what was written by Nightshift36) should not be cited in encyclopedic works. Period.  RFerreira (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is policy nor do I think that it is an accurate characterization of the source. If we were citing "super Secret Squirrel document #437 which can never be revealed", then sure, it fails WP:V.  But if this is a public domain document (it probably is) web available on request it is probably fine, so long as the means to find the source are clearly laid out. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody called them secret Ferrira, except you. Not being available to everyone doesn't make them secret. I have provided a link to where you can request your own copy, as well as the exact product number you can request. Short of dialing the phone number for you, I'm not sure what you want. Have you even attempted to get your own copy? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a partially disputed Vanity Fair article as a source?
I'm working on the Lindsay Lohan article and I'm looking for some input regarding the Vanity Fair article from 2006. It contained claims regarding drug use and/or bulimia that were disputed by Lohan, but Vanity Fair stood by the article and there was never a lawsuit. The conflict is outlined at Vanity Fair (magazine). Obviously if the specific disputed contents were included in the wikipedia article it'd need to be mentioned that Lohan disputed it, but can the rest of the VF article be used as a reliable source without special considerations? Siawase (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that Vanity Fair can be considered a basically reliable source for the popular culture topics that it normally deals with. It is a widely distributed monthly magazine, owned by a major magazine publisher. Presumably they have access to lawyers to vet any article which might place them at risk of a libel lawsuit. If a particular statement in Vanity Fair has been disputed (even if the person in question has not actually sued over it), that should be mentioned. But if the rest of the article has not been disputed, it should be fine to use as a source. That said, we still need to make sure we are not placing undue importance on gossip about living people even if it is mentioned in a source such as Vanity Fair. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, that is pretty much what I'm leaning towards myself. And indeed, I am looking to use the Vanity Fair article specifically because it contains so much material of substance. Most likely I'll exclude the disputed material completely. The bulimia comment looks like a simple misunderstanding, and her drug use is already substantiated in the wikipedia article with undisputed sourcing (police reports via news media). Siawase (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CNSnews.com aka cybercast
I removed a section from the John Lott article saying that the source wasn't reliable - and that the references weren't available, ie they don't work. Now I know Cybercast News Service is a conservative news agency and I'm not sure it's a RS for the claims in the deleted section. And in any case, the references are no longer available and this is not a paper newspaper. (I've looked for another RS and failed). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The links are broken, but you can find the correct urls are here: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/searchresults.aspx?Keyword=%22JOhn%20Lott%22. I'll pass on the question of whether cnsnews.com is itself an RS--at first glance it appears to be, but I've only just glanced. If the story is truly notable, then surely you can dig up coverage in other sources, and sidestep the whole csn/RS issue. Yilloslime (t) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether CNS is reliable. It's not a conventional news organization, but rather a group founded by conservative media activists to serve as a counter-balance to perceived liberal bias in the real news. It could be a good source for the opinions of American conservatives, but I doubt it would be suitable for general purposes. (And certainly not for negative contentious information in a biography of a living person.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. CNS is a reliable source, but should be used more for opionion on all subjects than fact. CENSEI (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article on American Chronicle
The article Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of the Same is being cited by Feminists for Life. I believe this is an unreliable source, for the following reasons: Since the relevant section of the article is about Sarah Palin, WP:BLP applies, raising the bar even higher. Tualha (Talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is frightfully badly written, suggesting little if any editorial review.
 * This disclaimer appears at the bottom of the page: "The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content."
 * The publication's Author Account Information page says "All articles are subject to editorial review (mostly for grammar and formatting) before they are published." (Emphasis added.) To me, this suggests the factual claims were not subjected to review.


 * I agree. It looks pretty unreliable to me, and the "reporter's" credentials listed on the right are somewhat kooky ("Psychic Intuitive Science Consultant"?) The American Chronicle seems to be a compendium of syndicated reports from other sources such as AP, Reuters, daily newspapers etc, plus original writing from freelancers. They even have a "Submit Work" page inviting submissions from readers and contributors. It looks like it's effectively run as a sort of cross between a newswire and a closed-source Wikinews; definitely not a reliable source in my judgment. You should also bear in mind the four criteria set out in WP:V: a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say it decisively fails the fourth criterion, and may well fail some of the others too. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at what links here: -- a bit worrying as it looks as though it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a cool tool, I didn't know about that. It is indeed worrying. Tualha (Talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but what exactly is being linked? - original reports such as the one you cited, or newswire articles? The latter are reliable, the former certainly aren't. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She looks kooky to me too (she's published articles on UFOlogy) but that's ad hominem, so I didn't depend on it... Tualha (Talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I took a look at the article linked to the Hmong people and the sidebar shows the author to be very reputable (and I checked also), so it may be one of those issues where you have to look at the source? This one was probably a syndicated report. Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess they should all be checked. How tedious. I guess we should focus on the Palin article here, and perhaps open another item dealing with The AC in general? Tualha (Talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The format suggests that it was a submitted report - the syndicated ones don't seem to have an author sidebar (unless I missed something). Strictly speaking, though, when it comes to reliable sources we're supposed to consider only the publication, not the author. There have been plenty of instances where authors have published reputable, mainstream things in mainstream sources, and kooky stuff in fringe publications where editorial standards are lower or non-existent. Tualha, I don't think there's any point in opening a second section - let's deal with the AC here in this section. Don't forget that many of the returns from the linksearch tool are on talk or project pages; we only need to concern ourselves with the links from articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I may summarize so far (and reset the indentation): Tualha (Talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tualha thinks the Palin article is probably unreviewed and therefore unreliable, and is concerned about original articles on The American Chronicle (hereinafter TAC) in general.
 * ChrisO seems to think that newswire articles on TAC should be treated as reliable, original articles as unreliable, and the Palin article falls into the latter category. Correct?
 * Doug Weller seems to think TAC is unreliable in general, but we should consider the author. Correct?
 * ChrisO disagrees re considering the author.
 * We haven't heard from BenjiBoi yet, the editor who cited it in the first place.


 * The original content on the site does not look reliable. As others have pointed out, the site certainly fails the "with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" part of WP:RS. Also, their writers are unpaid, and, at least for the few I checked at random, none of the writers have the usual journalism credentials one would expect for a real news source. The disclaimer at the bottom of every article is a bad sign, too, as is the fact that nowhere on the website (at least that can find) are the names of the publishers or editors given. These are all hallmarks of non-reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Newswire articles on TAC shouldn't be cited to TAC but, rather, to their original publications. Hence for instance this article lifted from USA Today should be cited (and linked) to its original publication, not to TAC's copy. Apart from any other considerations, we don't know whether TAC is republishing such articles unaltered. As for the point about considering publications rather than sources, this is pretty much what WP:RS requires: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process". Note that the emphasis is not on who writes the piece, but how the piece is published. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a quick google search turns up plenty of hits, many of them reliable, confirming that Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Yilloslime (t) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's the point that needs to be made in the article, it would be much better made through citation of a more reliable source than TAC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, that's kinda what I was trying to say. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, there's no doubt she's a member of FFL. Originally I was questioning whether she was pro-contraception; the Anchorage Daily News cite supports that now. I'm not sure if there's any claim left in the article that's supported solely by the Morris article. I just want it out because it's a sucky source.
 * We seem to have a fairly solid consensus that this article is unreliable, though I would still like to hear from Benjiboi, now that I've stated my case better than I did in Talk:Feminists for Life. Tualha (Talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it out, I don't think you need Benjiboi's permission for that. If he gives you problems just refer him back to this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see from hir contribution list that ze was on for several hours after your comment and has had plenty of opportunity to respond. Fair enough. Tualha (Talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{unindent} For the record, I don't consider the TAC a reliable source, anything that looks reliable almost certainly is from elsewhere and should be sourced from there. I think we need to do something about its use elsewhere in WP. Doug Weller (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, assuming the original source is still available. If it's not, well, I doubt the TAC copy would have been deliberately altered. It would be good to reduce the number of references to TAC as much as possible, since checking them isn't a one-time-and-done task. Tualha (Talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I didn't feel I needed to comment here as those more experienced as sussing out RS issues were on the case. The fact tag was put in to cite that Palin was "pro-contraceptive", I felt this source was reliable enough for that concern but also found another source that supported the same information. If the TAC source has to go so be it - we have another source in place. No biggie. I will also point out that this article has been mostly dormant until Palin became the Republican VP candidate and her connection to this group made more prominent. I was doing my part to ensure this article remained accurate. The content itself is fine so if a source must be removed then go for it.  Banj e  b oi   22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Watchtower Society/ Jehovah's Witnesses
There's a debate over the extent to which Watchtower Society publications can be used as source material for the pages about Jehovah's Witnesses. The debate also extends to the reliability of books published by former Jehovah's Witnesses.

Up til now, I have been guided by the wording of this template, where it mentions "sources affiliated with the subject of the article": "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

However, all I can find on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page are references to "self-published sources," rather than "sources affiliated with the subject of the article."

For example, "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

I'm not too sure whether the Watchtower Society's publications would be considered "self-published." Of course, they write and publish their own material. The Watchtower Society is a legal entity used by the religion, as far as I'm aware. Only baptised Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to work at the publishing presses of the Watchtower Society. Wikipedia lists self-published sources: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources." Watchtower Society publications aren't really like newsletters, personal websites etc. though, because it's a fairly large concern.

I believe that Watchtower Society publications have been referenced by third-party publications, but not as "work in the relevant field."

Another quote from Wikipedia: "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." I confess I have been mis-reading this. I thought it said that "sources about themselves" may only be used if the article is not based primarily on such sources. It actually says that self-published sources may only be used as sources about themselves. That's the same thing, isn't it? Don't mind me.

On other hand, I'm currently checking out the reliability of a book by M.J. Penton. He was formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses and so his work has been challenged by an editor on the basis that "only academic and journalistic monographs, essays or articles by people who had never been JWs could be really considered as third party sources." (underline his)

In regards to the definition of a third party source, the link from "third party" where I clicked it goes straight to the bullet list of what constitutes a primary, secondary and tertiary source. Therefore, I'm not too sure how you would define "third party."

Wikipedia says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."

M.J. Penton's 1985 book, Apocalypse Delayed, was published by University of Toronto Press.

I found 14 citations in journal articles or books on Google Scholar including: -Dawson in Nova Religio (University of California Press)(1999) -Hitchcock - The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples." Published by Princeton University Press (2004) -Walls - The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Published by Oxford University Press US (2007) -Wilson - The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. Published by Oxford University Press (1992)

Does former affiliation with the subject of the article override the definition of reliability given above? Is there anything else I should be thinking of?

Mandmelon (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Does former affiliation with the subject of the article override the definition of reliability given above?" I would say no, the author's former or current affiliation does not disqualify the source. "Is there anything else I should be thinking of?" Exactly how the source is used. In general there are very few things that can never be cited for any purpose at all, and no source that is universally appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable website as a reference?
There is a website that is being used as a reference for various UK sitcom article pages. The site is http://www.phill.co.uk and the site owner calls it a "British TV Comedy" site, but upon closer inspection, the site seems to be little more than the personal website of a fan who likes UK comedy (the address of the site suggests this further). Details about some shows have very little relevant detail, and it appears what information is there was possibly just copied from IMDB or TV.com. There is also a commercial element to it as the site seems to be little more than a way for the site owner to make commission off Amazon sales (via various Amazon DVD links for the various shows it lists). Of course, this by itself is not necessarily a problem, but considering that the site (and its anonymous owner) are not a recognised authority on the subject, should this site be permitted as a valid reference source?79.66.22.104 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say definitely not. I agree that it looks like a personal website, I don't see why clearly reliable sources couldn't be found, and I certainly wouldn't rely on its accuracy. Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, Doug. In the abscence of an official site from a production company, would a site like TV.com be more preferable for quoting things like airdates and episode titles, etc? Or do airdates and episode titles even need to be sourced/referenced at all if it did not contain any material that was controversial or likely to be challenged?79.66.55.39 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame
In Aspartame and Aspartame controversy, are http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html and http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif reliable sources? Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good gravy no. CENSEI (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Bork (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Yilloslime (t) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Bork (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Noterino. diddly Protonk (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was that yes or no?
 * In case you did not bother to read the page, the report was based on documents submitted by Searle Laboratories to FDA (Freedom of Information Act request), and Jerome Bressler was the FDA team leader. So basically, you are saying FDA is not a reliable source. Bork (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bork, What is the source for what you say? Tom Harrison Talk 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bressler's opinion was the minority at the FDA. CENSEI (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the source for that statement is...? Tom Harrison Talk 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is not that it's a study submitted to the FDA by Searle, or how representative of the FDA Bressler's opinion may have been. The point is that the website is self-published, and there's absolutely no way to know whether the information on it is a true replications of an legitimate FDA record obtained by a FOIA, or if the webpage is just a hoax. Even if it the document could be authenticated, it would be a primary source, and thus it would have to be used very carefully if at all in the aspartame article. Yilloslime (t) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Tom Harrison Talk 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very funny, but Hawaii Senate does not think the report is a "hoax". And why did you get the idea it might be a hoax? It is just your personal opinion that it might be a hoax. Bork (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, even if this is absolutely dinkum, which it may well be, it's just a report of how many people reported to the FDA that they had symptoms of various kinds which they themselves attributed to aspartame. In other words, J. Random Consumer drinks a Culaid Soda Lite straight from the fridge and gets an icecream headache. He's just read in a magazine that aspartame is deadly poison, so he phones the FDA and says he got a headache from drinking a soda that contains aspartame. They log it. What does this really prove? the source is really not a secondary source at all, as it is just a list of numbers, and definitely not interpreted by the FDA as implying that Aspartame is dangerous. --Slashme (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion, but none of the Editors of the pages involved was informed about the discussion. Nor were they given time for input, so there has been no chance for Wiki Editors involved in the issue to weigh in. In any case, I started a discussion on the appropriate Talk page as suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus to clarify issues when some Editor's concerns with the government reference format and hopefully find ways to list government references on both sides of the issue. If Editors disagree, I believe it is best to hold a public discussion on the Talk page and not a secret (to long-time page Editors), albeit productive discussion on this page.


 * The image is the full government document provided by the FDA upon request (and available to the public when similar requests are made). But rather than discussing it here, I think it can be cleared up quickly and easily and would avoid removal of all government references in the article with some discussion and clarification on the appropriate Talk page. That's my suggestion. Twoggle (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know the web page is what you say? I think there is no "Bressler Report," as a document published by the FDA. The only thing there is, is the self-published material at presidiotex.com, dorway.com, and (surprise) rense.com. At best it's usable only as a primary source. Tom Harrison Talk 12:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because as a long-time Editor of that page, I made the effort to get original copies. So did many other people. In addition, the Bressler Report is mentioned in numerous government documents. While discussions of reliable sources belong here, discussions that effect the edits of the aspartame pages belong on those Talk pages so that Editors can participate on that subject matter. I have repeatedly made attempts to have a cordial discussion on that page in order to understand each and every concern as it relates to Editing the aspartame pages. Please refer to what you quoted on my own talk page: 1) "I won't do anything until you've had a chance to give your thoughts there." ; 2) "...use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Twoggle (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [This is a cross post from Talk:Aspartame controversy. It's unclear where this discussion is living.] Toggle, the FDA is a reliable source, no doubt, but riddle me this: how do you know that the "Bressler Report" over at http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html is authentic? Who even maintains that website, and how do you know that they've faithfully transcribed the report from the actual FDA document obtained by FOIA (if it really exists) to the html shown on the website? And how do you know the website's interpretations of the FDA findings are valid? Whose interpretations are they (i.e. "The Bressler report is one of the most damning documents about aspartame in existence. .."--according to whom)? Presidiotex.com is self-published source and certainly has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy and thus is not a reliable source. If you can find the Bressler report or even some official mention of it on the FDA website (fda.gov), in the public docket (www.regulations.gov), in the federal register (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/), or in the archives of a newspaper, then maybe that could be used as a source. But what we've got right now is some anonymous, self-published website claiming that there's such a document as "the Bressler report" and offering not actual scans of the document (except for a lone, disembodied table of dubious provenance and relevance), but an unverified transcription of it as well as some interpretation by an unknown individual with unknown credentials. WP has higher standards than this. Yilloslime (t) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion related to editing the aspartame and aspartame controversy page is living on the Talk page where it is supposed to be living. If discussions of editing every page were conducted here, Wikipedia would be chaos. I do like this page for Reliable source discussions, but now that we are actually trying to come up with a consensus on editing the aspartame page, I think the discussion belongs there. Twoggle (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is here though, and I agree with Yilloslime. You need a much better source for the 'Bressler Report' than a self-published website. I don't think a group of editors on an article's talk page can change WP policy. Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is *a* discussion here. Great place to discuss WP policy related to Reliable Sources. But an inappropriate place to discuss disagreements with Edits to specific pages without involving Editors of those pages. There was a dispute about content on those pages. "This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content." I think this is a fantastic page for discussing sources especially if Editors who add references are not kept in the dark that their added references are being discussed/debated, but once a dispute about content of an article comes up, the Talk page is the appropriate page in my opinion. Twoggle (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Published articles that mention it include Sweet Talking from The Ecologist. Not a great source, but I feel it could be included. Also, looking through Google Books I found a Senate Committee record which discusses it. Clearly it existed. II | (t - c) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)