Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41

Howard Bloom and Global Entertainment and Media Summit
Is this source a reliable source for the BLP on Howard Bloom? The page indicates that it's a social network. Does that mean Bloom himself wrote it? Nightscream (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The overall site is a social network, but the page looks like it's advertising a conference. In situations like this the person in question or his publicist either wrote the blurb or approved it. It'd therefore be a primary source and need to follow those standards for inclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Momlogic
With regards to this edit specifically, I'd like a second opinion on whether Momlogic.com and The Consumerist would be considered reliable sources. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are quite extraordinary claims backed up only by semi-reliable sources. If it was for info on what kind of video games they have at Chuck E Cheese it would be fine.  But neither is an RS for those claims. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it because they're both blogs? I wanted to make the point that blogs aren't what they used to be. These sites that label themselves as blogs, like the two mentioned above, are more like news magazines. Yet when we see "blog" we automatically think "unreliable". -- &oelig; &trade; 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They're not personal blogs in the sense that "blogs" is used in policy here. I would consider them "weak" secondary sources.  A variety of citizen-journalism type sites count as "published", but the editorial process is often not rigorous enough for exceptional claims.  RS-ness is a continuum. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On top of reliability concerns, we also have to consider other standards here, and that one seems like it would fail WP:UNDUEWEIGHT criteria. In all of the history of Chuck E. Cheese some online blog(or online-only news magazine to give them the benefit o the doubt) says something and somebody wants to devote paragraphs of space to it? If that were at all notable there'd be sources that were indisputably reliable all over it. Adding that text would violate WP:NPOV rules on fair handling of the topic because it's advancing claims made against the company by some nobodies. Even minor lawsuits, if it ever got that far, typically aren't mentioned unless it got some major news coverage. We are an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group or tabloid paper. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for some statements, not for others
This reads far more like an op/ed piece rather than reporting, and as we know, "[n]ews reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact"; "[s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." WP:RS. In what ways can we use that source in the context of WP:BLP, where we are concerned about "[c]ontentious material ... [that is] poorly sourced" and directed to write "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"? Can we use it as a source that supports purported statements of fact about Palin, or only as a source for statements about the source's opinion of Palin?

I'll give some specifics. Fmr. Gov. Sarah Palin made some remarks critical of Obamacare; the source says that Palin is "wrong," and that "[n]othing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision." Is that a reliable source for a fact claim in Palin's article that she is "wrong"? Or is it a reliable source only for a statement in the form of "the AP"--or Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, the nominal author of the source--"argues that Palin is wrong"? And either way, is it acceptable to substitute the loaded word "false" for the word "wrong" and citing the AP story? (Crossposted to BLPN). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So the question for the noticeboard is: ''Is the Associated Press a reliable source for fact checking the statements of American politicians?""
 * No, that isn't the question for the noticeboard. The questions for the noticeboard are, in the heightened scrutiny of a BLP, (1) should a statement in what appears to be an op/ed piece a reliable source for a statement of fact, or only for statements of opinion? (2) how much license do editors have to paraphrase, substituting loaded words like "false" for the word "wrong" used in the article? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mischaracterizing. Palin was wrong, that is not an opinion, it is a fact. And the AP is without any doubt a reliable source for referencing this fact. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You believe I'm mischaracterizing a question that I asked? Interesting. I've never been accused of Dissociative identity disorder before. ;) At any rate, you doubtless see the circularity of arguing that this is a statement of fact that can be included because it's a statement of fact rather than opinion. If that game has become acceptable, I think Baccyak4H's comment at the crosspost has the better of it: "The piece's statement is as much a statement of the opinion of the writer as to future possibilities as is Palin's herself. Stating an opinion as fact is a rhetorical shortcut widespread among unscrupulous/lazy journalists (and politicians, for that matter). But without question they are both opinions, and should be  presented as such."  - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are mischaracterizing your own question. You are characterizing it as an honest, good-faith question. It's not. It's disruptive forum shopping. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Asking a question about the application of the BLP and RS policies at the BLP and RS noticeboards is forum shopping? Really? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the answer is unquestionably yes. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's similar to if the AP were to report that the president of the Flat Earth Society is wrong about the shape of the Earth. We are not required to say that "the AP argues that the president of the Flat Earth Society is wrong". Dlabtot (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the claim that this is even "contentious." Palin's statement was obvious nonsense; it's been refuted by every reliable source that's actually examined the text of the proposed legislation, including a Republican US Senator from Palin's home state. It wouldn't be encyclopedic to call Palin a "liar," but when she quite publicly and prominently says things that aren't true, and that generate substantial media coverage, it's neither "responsible" nor "conservative" to pretend otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It approaches the definition of contentious to contend that someone is wrong. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only is the answer yes, but Dodd has been warned about his contentiousness in asserting that the AP is not an RS for Sarah Palin. He has (since the warning) argued tendentiously on the talk page, where consensus is strongly against him, and now has brought the issue here as well as the BLP noticeboard. This is a good bit of kerfluffle, and I'm not particularly impressed with Mr. Dodd's activities. Given his general bent on editing the Palin article, it is difficult to AGF on this. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on KillerChihuahua's point bout consensus: if there is a range of views, or two sides of a debate, there *isn't* a consensus, and any single editor is entitled to their view.Martinlc (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, however we all know that WP "consensus" is virtually never "unanimous agreement" and consensus on an article on probation, such as SP, is even more spotty. My point was that Dodd is being tendentious, per my role as admin who generally enforces probation on that article. That is all. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I did not say that "the AP is not an RS for Sarah Palin." I said that "[t]he AP is (after a fashion) a reliable source for *reporting* but not for independent analysis of this kind." Albeit in the more abbreviated style required in an edit summary, I was raising the same issue raised in this posting, and it is an entirely valid question given the policies cited above and WP:BURDEN. You evidently go the other way on the point, and that's fine, but one can go the other way in good faith. It's a little silly to claim that what I've said at Talk:Sarah_Palin is tendentious - and somewhat ironic to cite that policy, which is concerned in part with editing that "does not conform to the neutral point of view," when my stated rationale has been to preserve NPOV. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliablility of sources at Amir Kror Suri
A wikipedian claims that the sources which I have provided for Amir Kror Suri are not reliable. There are 6 references and 2 external readings which I have not used as references but they do provide information on Amir Kror Suri. Out of these 6 sources, 3 of them are foreign sources while the other 3 are Afghan sources.

We have to remember that we cannot find a lot of english material on every topic related to Afghanistan. Most of the materials are in Pashto and Dari languages. You can find few general books related to Afghanistan in foreign langauges but they don't go into the details and they don't cover everything.

A third person's opinion is requested. (Ketabtoon (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC))


 * The "Wikipedian" who believes that the article should be tagged is me. The character Amir Kror Suri is legendary. There is not a single historical document proving his existence - I had to neutralize the article in which claimed that this character was in fact a living person. So far, he has totally failed to provide scientific and scholarly sources for his claims. His argument is mostly based on a controversial book known as Pata Khazana - and this book has been proven to be a forgery for decades (see Abdul Hai Habibi for more details)! Except for 3 easy links to Google Books which he (admittedly) does not know and which are not visible anyway, he has nothing to offer. He fails to cite the two standard reference works of oriental studies, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, in this regard. Therefore, I still maintain that the article should be tagged and checked for neutrality. Tajik (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't know what the deleted sources are. One way or other it might be nice to wikify the links with some text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blog to verify 4chan meme
Hi. A question has been raised over at Talk:4chan as to whether the following source: can be used to verify the existence of "pedobear" as a 4chan meme to be mentioned in the article. The editor providing the source notes that the blog in question "is an employer with a professional staff", which may set it apart from your random blog out there. Opinions are sought from the sourcing experts on this fine noticeboard. I get the impression that there are editors entrenched in "pedobear must stay out" and "pedobear must go in" positions, so I would invite and encourage any creative solution that breaks that particular dyad into a million pieces. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another important point. My source, the Geek Pad Show (run through comedy.com), has an editor and its panel of columnists includes professional journalists, thus quite explicitly fulfilling the reliability requirements for a blog (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F). For example, one of the columnists, Amanda Meadows, is a writer for "Seventeen" and Dave Eggers' prestigious "McSweeney's" publishing house.74.233.42.34 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the user that this source would suffice on most any other article, but when it is referring to a random and anonymous message baord that has no permanence, this kind of citation (with the reasoning that they are "professional journalists") does not mean that what they blog/write about is solid truth, verifiable, or reliable. Gpia7r (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that a source you would consider reliable on "most any other" topic suddenly becomes unreliable when the content they discuss is ephemeral and hard to pin down. Aren't many topics difficult to verify first-hand, and isn't that why we develop trust in certain secondary sources? What am I missing? Who would be a reliable source for information on 4chan threads? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, I don't think there would be a reliable source for such a subject. In this case, a number of journalists or college students can make claims, but who can verify them? What's to say they aren't just following the crowd with the claims that are made? It's a very gray area, and although parts of it we can verify due to the existence (pedobear being an internet meme), it's just impossible to attribute it's creation to 4chan, 2chan, Ebaums, or any other website. Gpia7r (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who can verify most claims made by journalists? Other people who were there, right? Most events in the world aren't archived, except in the reports of people who were there. If you trust a journalist not to "follow the crowd" in meatspace, then why not in cyberspace as well? I fail to see why they suddenly become suspected rumor-mongers on the Internet, when the content is no less verifiable than most events in the world. We can report that "so-and-so source says that Pedobear is a meme that is prominently featured in threads at 4chan." What's problematic about that? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it enters the realm of notability. If we don't know where it was created, why post it on 4chan rather than 2chan? The other "memes" posted on the 4chan article have their own pages (rickroll, chocolate rain, etc), and I think Pedobear may belong there rather than a line in the 4chan article tying it to Child Pornography. Regarding Journalists: Most of their comments are biased, so it's hard to believe they've done their research or fact-checking on such a sensitive topic. Gpia7r (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does any source call it a "2chan meme"? Does calling something a "4chan meme" mean that it originated on 4chan? Not in the English I speak, it doesn't. Pedobear should have its own article, and it seems entirely appropriate to mention in the 4chan article - not in the lead - that Pedobear is one on a list of memes popularized there. Does that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this is not a more "sensitive topic" than.... hundreds and thousands of other real-world topics, on which we happily rely on the credibility of journalists, at the BBC, at the NYT, on Reuters, etc., etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as 2chan goes, we only know 2chan came before 4chan, and that "Kuma" existed there (the Pedobear origination). The inclusion, how it was originally worded, seemed to be for the purpose of calling attention to an unverifiable claim, one that shouldn't be exclusive to 4chan. I think it's perfectly reasonable for it to have it's own page if there's enough substance for it, and the fact that it's an internet meme on 4chan should be enough to briefly mention/link to it from the 4chan article.
 * "Sensitive topic" referring to the link to Child Porn, which I'm sure anyone can form a pretty quick opinion of and assume anything "linked" to it is horrible and terrible. Gpia7r (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my own counsel on whether a symbol used to satirize pedophilia is "horrible and terrible"; that's certainly outside our purview as a 'pedia. I agree that a minor mention in the 4chan article seems quite reasonable. If someone wants to claim that Pedobear specifically "originated" on 4chan... I have yet to see a source that backs that up. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, a Google books search indicates Personalising: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Icon Group International, Inc. cites Wikipedia as a source about Pedobear. Google scholar turns up an M.S. Masters thesis mentioning Pedobear, for what it's worth:  Шизомби (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, when they start writing the histories of the Interwebs, these things will be discussed, and it's already starting to happen. The trick on Wikipedia to dealing with these topics is to be patient enough that you can come in with higher than expected standards, and then no one can tell you no. Otherwise, you hit no end of static. I've seen it happen over and over... -GTBacchus(talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Icon Group International" is a horrible semi-automated publisher. --NE2 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dowling college as RS?
So I picked this article up from new page patrol, stripped it of promotional/peacock words, and now I'm feeling that the citations aren't RS. The citation (http://www.dowling.edu/news/news.php?eventid=414) seems to have a dual role of promoting the school (which I have never heard of) and really seems like an advert to me so it might not be "reliable". A google news search on the person (Joseph M. Balcuk,) brings up nothing from established sources, and a search on Merbs brings up unrelated topics. I also know nothing about children sites, such as so I don't know if the awards aren't just self-aggrandizing, non-consequential "awards". I'm really skeptical on notability at the moment/reliability of the sources, so can anyone more knowledgeable comment on this? &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just a press release, with all the self-aggrandizing puffery and unsupported claims you can normally expect in those. WP:PRIMARY applies here. Can't be used to establish notability or controversial information. I'll look at the article too to see what else is going on. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Video as RS for BLP
Holy Cow Swami, a documentary movie by Jacob Young (WVEBA, 1996) is used for BLP as a reliable source. Please revert with policy on use for BLP. Wikid as&#169; 08:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What article is it being used in? Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * in Kirtanananda Swami article.
 * I take it that it can not be used as a RS for BLP. Wikid as&#169;

notability in citations?
Is it true that "Notability does not apply to citations" Talk:Illuminati? In this case, the claim in the article is that there are multiple modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati or some variation thereon. The webpages for the "groups" held to satisfy the sourcing requirement for that claim seem to be just that, webpages. Unless there's some evidence that there are real groups behind those webpages and that they are notable in some way, they wouldn't seem to warrant mention. I don't have a problem with the editor who said this; there's no heated argument, but I am interested to know what really is the case regarding notability in citations, for this article and for future editing. The issue is somewhat intertwined with reliability (does a webpage actually substantiate that a group exists), and perhaps WP:EL. On other pages, I've seen NN groups removed as linkspam or the like. Possibly WP:OR as well, in that the question "are there modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati?" has been answered by a web search resulting in webpages, rather than by finding a reference that states that there are modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati and substantiates it, like the Encyclopedia of Associations perhaps. But that may be an overly aggressive application of OR. Шизомби (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations must be to reliable sources. If you would post the actual citations here, rather than simply describing them, we can discuss whether they meet the guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Illuminati Order"  Official website of The Illuminati Order Orden Illuminati Consejo Central México The claim as I understand it is that these links/groups need be neither notable or reliable; that their mere existence substantiates the claim.  I pause at that. Шизомби (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all self-published sources; if Wikipedia had an article about "The Illuminati Order", for example that link could be used in limited circumstances in that article. Otherwise, no. Dlabtot (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Google cache
Where do we stand on the use of google cache for website which have now gone offline? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do provide some details. Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'm thinking of this this to clear up if a certain statement was made by the scientific jury who examined a free energy machine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of the google cache is irrelevant in this case. http://stjury.ning.com/ is not by any interpretation of the guideline, a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it reliable for claims made about itself if they are not self-serving? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It's just a blog.  Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If what is being cached was/is a reliable source, then I'm ok with using caching services to avoid dead links. I would prefer we use the internet archive, because I think google's cache generates dynamic links that rot over time.  but I agree w/ Dlabtot above, the ur-source (as it were) isn't reliable. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

History wars
Please see Talk:History wars. There is a long running dispute over the content of an article (Hence the protection). Currently the debate revolves around a dispute on these two points of view:

PBS: 'We have two sources that state what is the position of most Australian experts/historian: John Connor "Windschuttle's argument that genocide was not committed in Van Diemen's land should be directed towards popular historians and journalists who hold this idea rather than those in academia who generally do not." and Levene (which is used as a source in the article) "The debate about whether the term genocides is applicable to the broad Australian context... However it is notable that while comparative genocide scholars assume the specifically Tasmanian case to be on of unmitigated genocide, the majority of Australian experts are considerably more circumspect." both are already cited on this talk page, so I will not repeat the citations. The sentence [in the article that starts "After the introduction..."] states exactly what the two sources say and quotes a third source Anne Curthoys, who holds a similar opinion is also quoted later in the paragraph. ...'

Likebox: 'What bothers me is that you/PBS are trying to use criteria of VERIFIABILITY to try to settle claims of UNDUE WEIGHT. Verifiability issues are settled by finding specific sources for specific claims. Undue Weight issues are NOT settled by looking for sources that say "This is what most people believe". Undue Weight issues are settled by actually googling and looking at what most people believe.'

I have just posted to the page 'Likebox you are completely wrong about how one establishes and represents a position in an Wikipedia articles please read WP:WEASEL and then read WP:SYN in light of WEASEL. But do not take my word for it ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard'

And I am posting this here so that an editor who is not involved in the dispute can explain to us whether Likebox is correct that "Undue Weight issues are settled by actually googling and looking at what most people believe." or if as I have suggested one needs sources to verify statements like "most scholars ..." rather than using google or other similar techniques to establish the position of an academic dicipline --PBS (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the question is: Are google search results considered a reliable source? the answer is no. Dlabtot (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, this is not at all the question. The question is how do you establish WP:Undue_Weight? If somebody brings your attention to a fringe theory, for example, the theory that the photon has a small positive mass, instead of zero mass, you will not find specific sources that refute this statement. Instead, you will find a whole host of sources that say "Light is massless" without qualification. That in itself qualifies as evidence that the statement "light is massive" is held only by a minority. This is exactly what the policy ofWP:Undue_Weight is designed to address: fringe theories should always be qualified as fringe, but since there are always too few sources specifically devoted to refuting the fringe theories, you need to establish the preponderance of belief by looking around at what people believe.


 * In this case, PBS throws smoke in the air by taking comments which assert that most experts don't like to throw the word "genocide" around lightly, which is true, and confusing that with the statement that most experts agree that Windschuttle's account of the events on Tasmania is accurate, which is not true.


 * That most experts disagree with Windschuttle is easily established by reading their own words. Only Windschuttle and a few people at his right wing publication "Quadrant" subscribe to the history he is promoting.


 * This fact is so well known, that I am boggled by the degree to which PBS denies it. It seems he has never read anything within Genocide scholars, nor the reliable articles that dismiss Windschuttle's story as a fabrication.


 * There are not many sources specifically about Windschuttle's theories, just as there are few sources that say the Earth is not flat. People just write assuming the Earth is round, and this is evidence enough for undue weight that the Earth is round is the majority opinion.Likebox (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is how do you establish WP:Undue_Weight? OK. That question is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable.  We don't get into questions of undue weight or other NPOV concerns. The correct venue is Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, it is only Likebox claiming that the specific issue that Philip has referred here is Undue Weight, please refer to PBS's comments above. Webley442 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already responded to the question of google searches as RS. It a question that has come up frequently. They are not. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can Wikipedia present the fringe nonsense of Keith Windschuttle without commenting about the well accepted majority position that he is minimizing massacres?Likebox (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Likebox, this has nothing directly to do with Windschuttle or his theories. The cited Connor sources is very specific on that particular issue "Windschuttle's argument that genocide was not committed in Van Diemen's land should be directed towards popular historians and journalists who hold this idea rather than those in academia who generally do not." --PBS (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have struck out the   because this has nothing to do with WP:NPOVN, and everything to do with WP:WEASEL and WP:SYN. Dlabtot has made his position clear. Likebox do you now understand that you can not expect to include statements into an article that state most/some/all unless you can provide citations which support such statements? Which means that when you make statements like this"All these wackos are spouting fringe nonsense. There are hundreds if not thousands of scholars, like Madley, who did primary research on Tasmania and who wholeheartedly agree that it was a genocide. These people are in the majority even among only those scholars that have done significant primary research."

on the talk page, they are not within the scope of comments which aid the development of an article unless you can provide a source which backs up the statement that "These people are in the majority even among only those scholars that have done significant primary research." And therefor see Talk page guidelines "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. ... Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, ..." --PBS (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is opinion piece in Rolling Stone a reliable source on Goldman Sachs?
An opinion columnist at the Rolling Stone apparently doesn't like Goldman Sachs. He says they are "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." Is an opinion piece like this a reliable source on anything about GS? Maybe if a reliable source like the Wall Street Journal said this with some facts to back it up (possibly), but just a scandal monger without any facts to back it up? Note, if there were facts quoted, I'd guess there might be a better source, but just a quote about a squid that seems just to mean "I don't like them?" Why include this at all? 24.127.162.147 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone might exist for the purpose of lightweight amusement, but they've also a long established reputation if not for taking serious things seriously, at least for writing about them in a professional manner. Is there any particular comment in this piece that you can find fault with? Would you raise the same complaint if it were in the New Yorker? Or is it just convenient to take the line "Any criticism that appears in a paper that once employed Hunter S. Thompson can be removed without discussion"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes (and I note that you've already removed this referenced piece three times today).
 * Well, hold on. Opinion and commentary pieces usually aren't used as sources.  What's the matter at dispute?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference is:
 * This was used to back up the claim that:
 * In July 2009, Rolling Stone contributor Matt Taibbi published an article on Goldman Sachs titled, 'The Great American Bubble Machine', where he condemns the company as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money," and going on to assert that Goldman Sachs and similar companies have engineered and then profited off of every economic recession and bubble since The Great Depression. The piece generated much media attention and controversy, evoking a response by a Goldman Sachs spokesman describing it as "an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories". He added, "we reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance in being a force for good." Taibbi rebutted, "Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it."
 * The source is a perfectly adequate as a primary source as to the existence and contents of the article, which is all it's being invoked to support (though there is no sourcing for the back-and-forth reactions to it). However (not that this noticeboard is the place to opine on this), the episode seems insufficiently notable / related to the activities of the article's subject to be included. Bongo  matic  17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is a perfectly adequate as a primary source as to the existence and contents of the article, which is all it's being invoked to support (though there is no sourcing for the back-and-forth reactions to it). However (not that this noticeboard is the place to opine on this), the episode seems insufficiently notable / related to the activities of the article's subject to be included. Bongo  matic  17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if it is just used to locate where the quote comes from, I don't see the problem. There may be other reasons for not having that quote, but reliable source isn't such a reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a reliable source, when properly cited, for example, in the extract above it cites the author, the publication, and a conclusion that he drew, and that was attributed to him. Whether or not it should be in the article is an editorial judgement. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't whether Taibbi's a reliable source. He's an award-winning journalist, Rolling Stone remains a significant publication on political issues. The problem with the Taibbi discussion in the article was that it didn't provide any appropriate sourcing for its claim that the article had real-world impact. I've added one such source; a simple Google News search provides quite a few more, if other editors want to expand the discussion (which might be quite appropriate). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An unsolicited note here: Taibbi's article was praised by the Columbia Journalism Review recently, so that should pretty much complete the case for its appropriateness for us to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The issue isn't whether Taibbi's a reliable source" Maybe not, but that's how the anon IP prefers to present their removal of this disparaging comment on Goldman Sachs. It's always easier to win a content argument (as this so obviously really is) if you can dress it up as being policy-based instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that the primary source gave this opinion and therefore it's properly sourced, the opinion piece sources itself. But is it a reliable source to say anything about Goldman Sachs? User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz brings up the question of whether anybody else thinks this has any relevance to Goldman Sachs and cites a short Article from the Business Insider. Let me tell you what they really think - just see their story Matt Taibbi's Goldman Sachs Story Is A Joke. Short quote " the story is really not meant for an audience interested in a discussion of financial markets, as evidenced by his rhetorical style (almost everyone is simply an "asshole"), and his ridiculous leaps in logic (e.g. Goldman lowering its IPO underwriting standards created the .com bubble... and that explains how Nortel had a peak valuation of over $300 billion, how?)."

This is one of the nicer things people are writing about the story. See Matt Taibbi Gets His Sarah Palin On A short quote won't do it: "(Taibbi) grabs whoever's nearest to hand and builds them up into a gigantic straw villian, which he proceeds to bash with a handful of recently acquired technical terms that he clearly doesn't quite understand. It's not that everything he says is wrong, but the bits that are true aren't interesting, and the bits that are interesting aren't true.  The whole thing dissolves into the kind of conspiracy theory ...  It's just incoherent."

So my question is not whether this stuff can go into the article on Matt Taibbi, but is it a reliable source on Goldman Sachs? 24.127.162.147 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it belongs there. The Taibbi article has set off a s---storm. We won't say in the lead that Goldman is a "giant squid" etc., but his contentions belong in an appropriate place in the article. There is a lengthy section on criticism of the bank, and the Taibbi piece belongs there, in my opinion as a subsection of its own. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs there. Note the Columbia Journalism Review's defense of the piece here and Ezra Klein's followup here. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:RS issue. Suggest this be rasied there. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a big fan of polemic-type articles, and while Rolling Stone is a useful source, it does not carry the same weight as Barrons on the topic. There's really only two ways you could use a source like that without straying far into undue weight. One way is a statement in a praise/criticism section of the form "Goldman Sachs has been described as everything from A to B to C to D", with maybe C being the Rolling Stone opinion. ( A similar principle applies to the inflammatory The Nation blog entry about "birthers" discussed a few posts ago. ) Another way is as an adjunct to a more important article. For instance, the Guardian last month did a pretty good article on Goldman Sachs, from the present situation to recruitment to prominence of its "alumni" in politics and in private equity. The article was entitled Roasted vampire squid turns out to be dish of the day on Wall Street, and if you cite it, you can argue that a footnote is in order for the "vampire squid" reference. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is only reliable as a notable opinion on Goldman Sachs. Given that this source's goal is trying to rip a new one for Goldman Sachs, academically it is not a reliable sources for hard facts unless a neutral thrid party can verify its factual accuracy.
 * I would advise against using a source that has a stake/goal in the topic. Jim101 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not all rush to praise the business press, which has hardly been a paragon of journalistic virtue. Sure, the raucous  Taibbi piece may seem skeevey compared to a stuffed shirt like Barrons, but is that really a valid reason to disregard a perfectly good source?  The Columbia Journalism Review sides with Taibbi against the business press - do we have a good reason to disagree? Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's being used it appears to be as a reliable source for a particular journalists opinion, and as such it is a reliable source. Blueboar had it correct when he stated this is likely an issue of WP:NPOV rather than RS. This also again raises the issue of WP:BLP applying to active companies. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. BLP does not apply to companies, companies are not persons on Wikipedia, we are not bound by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Dlabtot (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Right balance of sources?
A few of us at WP:BIGBRO are attempting to get Big Brother 2009 (UK) to GA level once the series ends in September. One of the major concerns in previous articles has been sourcing - it has always been infamously bad; last year's article relied to heavily on primary (Channel 4) sources. We've taken a much different approach this year though. However, due to the lack of press coverage of the programme (which is documented in the article), reliable and secondary sources of the day-to-day goings on in the house have been hard to come by. Therefore, we have been continually relying on Digital Spy to supply us with this infomation. 32.3% of this article's sources are from that site - have we got the right balance? I've included a graph and run-down. DJ 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



167 sources:

Digital Spy- 54

Daily Mail- 25

Guardian- 20

Channel 4- 15

BBC- 9

Heat- 8

STV- 4

MSN- 3

Evening Herald- 3

Telegraph- 3

Independant- 2

Times- 2

Welwyn & Hatfield Times- 2

Misc. singular sources- 17


 * That's not really the type of question we address here. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a little skewed but it doesn't necessarily contradict RS. You may want to check out the Eurovision debates in our recent archives, where there was a debate over using a couple of fan-oriented sources to fill in uncontroversial information about the contest, in articles which were GA candidates.  No consensus was reached on RSN, though some good arguments were made.  I believe Wikiproject Eurovision then did an RFC where the sources were deemed semi-reliable, and considered OK for non-contentious information, but it was agreed some sources were overused and editors began replacing them with others. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Digital Spy isn't a fan-oriented site at all. I'm just wondering if you feel this is the right balence of sources; are we too reliant on one? DJ 10:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is one owners manual sufficient to generalize about "many" cars?
In the article Jump start (vehicle), the sentence "Many vehicles made since 1990 switch off the cigarette lighter outlet when the engine is stopped" is cited with  .

Is a reference to one 2004 Toyota owner's manual sufficient to support the assertion that "many" vehicles were changed after the date 1990? Or should the reference be deleted and a tag be placed back on the sentence? --Dbratland (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Owners manuals are not published independently of the subject and therefore I wouldn't generally consider them RS. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I would very much trust owners manuals to be excellent RS on the technical details and operation of a given model of car. But this is a question not about the quality of the source, but about generalizing from it. This is really an example of WP:OR, and not appropriate - especially not from a single example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the official owners manual for car X be deemed an acceptable source for information about car X itself, pursuant to WP:SELFPUB? However, with respect to the original question, I agree it's a leap from a source about one 2004 car to a generalization about "many vehicles" manufactured over the last 20 years. I'd call this a case of WP:SYNTH except that synthesis generally presumes multiple sources, so let's call it WP:OR instead.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The owner's manual is a primary RS. However, the extrapolation of that one data point to "many vehicles since 1990" is original research because it creates a fact that's not present in the source.  With careful wording, the source could be used without creating any new facts.  For example, However, not all vehicles leave the cigarette lighter connected when the ignition is off still provides useful information to the reader, but requires only one data point to satisfy truth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The owner's manual is a fine source for technical info on that make/model of car. It's not a good source for a broad claim like the one above.  There are general maintenance manuals and teardown manuals that will probably have information like that. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire business of distinguishing primary/secondar/tertiary sources tends to confuse more than it solves. Questions that it should resolve, but doesn't, are: Does this source establish notability or at least noteworthiness? Can we assume that what it says is true? Is an inappropriate level of interpretation needed to understand the source and put it into its proper context? In this specific case the answers are No, Yes, No. Hans Adler 14:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
Regarding recent changes to Many-worlds interpretation and Afshar experiment I would like to pose 2 questions.

1. Are editors entitled to remove any material for science article that is not backed by a peer-reviewed publications, whatever other notabile and verifiable sources it may have?

2. Are editors entitled to do so selectively, or would that constitute WP:POV ?

1Z (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. Scientific material not in a peer-reviewed or otherwise reliable source is not valid for inclusion.
 * No, it does not, it complies with WP:FRINGE. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not customary for RSN participants to make broad rulings about interpretations of the guideline. The noticeboard can only deal in specific sourcing questions, and is also not a forum for the discussion of WP:NPOV issues. As is stated at the top of this page: Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs.  Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, there is a difference between "notable and verifiable" sources and "reliable" sources (not every "notable and verifiable" source is reliable). I would say that if something is backed by reliable sources (which include, but are not limited to Peer-reviewed journals), it should not be removed without discussion.
 * That said, Dlabtot is correct... this is not the place for broad sweeping statements. To properly discuss the recent changes to the two articles in question, we would need to know a) the statements from the article that are at issue, and b) the exact sources that are being used to support those statements. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Big-Boards.com
Is http://www.big-boards.com/ a reliable source for notability of a web site? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck no. It doesn't look like a good source or link for any purpose here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Null vis a vis AIDS denialism
Is this article by Gary Null a reliable source for AIDS denialism? Would Null be considered noteworthy in the world of AIDS denialism? Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a WP:SPS I believe. He has an article (Gary Null) so his views may be notable.  But, AIDS denialism is a very controversial subject, so highest quality sources should probably be used instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact or opinion this is the question
Here is the quote and a link:

"Ahead of the withdrawal from Gaza, both Landau and his colleague from Israel's Channel 2 Amnon Abromovich said openly that in order to ensure that the withdrawal from Gaza went through, the media needed to protect then prime minister Ariel Sharon from all criticism. Landau openly admitted that he ordered his reporters not to report on allegations of criminal misdeeds by Sharon and to underplay the significance of the ongoing police investigations against Sharon, his sons and his close associates. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1200308085522

The article is Haaretz newspaper

Here is the link for discussion page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haaretz#Discussion_with_Malik_August_14.2C_2009_Caroline_Glick

I am looking for an experience Wikipedian for help --Rm125 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument is simple. My opponent claims it is an opinion not a fact. This is nonsense. First of all Caroline Glick is highly reputable writer. Second. If a highly reputablr Jerusalem Post reporter accuses Haaretz aditor-in chief David Landou of another highly reputable newspaper in Israel falsly is a big deal. In such you would expect a HUGE scandal. Well nobody said anything and Haaretz didn't deny it. Third.Opinion is when somebody says " I think this hapenned" on the other hand a fact is when you say " This what happened" This is clearly the case of fact not opinion. Just because this article in in the opinion section doesn't mean the quote constitutes an opinion --Rm125 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the argument is simple. Glick writes an opinion column, clearly labeled as such at the top of the page. Whether she describes something as a fact is irrelevant. Her column isn't a WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - This is the diff in question. Please note that it involves allegations concerning living people. — Malik Shabazz 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know the ins and outs, but this looks to me like a statement of fact (a claim) rather than an opinion. As long as there is an attribution to the person making the claim, then that should be okay, in my view. It would not be okay, however, to present the claim without the attribution. BUT there is an additional issue as to whether the statement in question is notable enough in context. The Jerusalem Post is probably more likely to be notable than not, but I don't know enough to make a definitive judgement.


 * I'm not very convinced by the BLP claim. If there is a (very public) source that the Haaretz editor said something and no evidence that he or anyone else has denied that he said it, then how does BLP arise? I'm assuming that we are not dealing with gossip here, but with a source that is quoting someone as saying something--FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about WP:RS? "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact".
 * Also, "no evidence that he has denied that he said it"? What about WP:PROVEIT? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
 * As far as BLP, accusing a newspaper editor of ordering his reporters not to report the news is a serious allegation. — Malik Shabazz 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Think we're almost agreeing regarding WP:RS, Malik. The journalist who makes the claim should be attributed, otherwise the material should not be included. As long as Rm125 is agreeable to including the attribution, then I see no problem.
 * The issue around WP:PROVEIT goes as follows, IMO: if it is quoted in an RS, then it is includable, unless there exists strong contradicting evidence. If Landou was quoted in the Jerusalem Post and never claimed to have been mis-quoted, then what he said must be includable on Wikipedia. There is no prima facie BLP issue in quoting what someone has verifiably said. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is an opinion piece, so any claims made have to be attributed to the author rather than cited as fact. Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely an opinion piece. Attribute. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Republication of unreliably sourced material
Let's call this a hypothetical question, although I have seen the situation twice in the past month. A blog which is not considered a reliable source states something about a well-known person (eg unreliableblog.com says that Famous Actor told them s/he had an affair with Famous Singer). Mainstream media sources, which are generally considered reliable sources, republish the information, crediting it to the unreliable blog (eg "According to unreliableblog.com, Famous Actor and Famous Singer ..."). It seems obvious to me that the information is made no more reliable simply by having been reposted by reliable sources. Am I wrong?

Feel free to point me at previous discussions, as I'm sure this comes up from time to time. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please point us to the two times you've seen it in the past month? We can't really answer hypothetical questions. Dlabtot (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. What references in the mainstream media do is make the fact that the claim is made reliable, but they do not make the underlying claim itself reliable.
 * Where I think this might have impact is in BLPs... prior to the story being picked up by the media, we would not include the claim in Wikipedia (under the "no SPS claims in BLPs" rule). But once the media has reported on what the blog says, then I think the situation changes... we can mention that the claim has been made (stated as an opinion, with proper attribution to the blog, and citing the news story).  Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't mean we should. Generally, gossip and rumors aren't encyclopedic, no matter how widely they're reported.  "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. . . . If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are our filter. If they use unnamed sources (like in politics), named sources (like a cop), a blog, or don't mention their sources, it's still an RS.  If they feel the need to credit the assertion, then we probably should too.  If it's about an actress sleeping with a singer, then it's an editorial decision whether or not to include it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reliable source is doing nothing more than saying "that blog says...". This is a different situation than saying "our reporters have learned...". Having a trusted friend tell me that she overheard someone in a bar saying something doesn't make the person in the bar any more (or any less) reliable... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A good illustration of why it is so pointless to attempt hypothetical discussions here. ''If it were like this, then... but if it were like this, then... but it it were like this, then, but, but, but....'' And inevitably, hypothetical answers end up being applied where they just aren't appropriate (actually, this is usually the reason the question is posed as a hypothetical in the first place.)Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this isn't the first time the question has been raised, so if you know of any past discussions, please point me to them. I understand and share your frustration with hypotheticals, but both examples are likely to provoke more heat than light. I'm looking for a general confirmation of the idea that having reliable sources repost information -- attributing it to an unreliable source -- does not make the information any more reliable. How we deal with that instance appears to be another question, but I'm interested in opinions on the first one, first. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you unwilling to point us to the two times you've seen it in the past month? Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is the case in this instance, but often when editors are reluctant to post diffs of the actual edits in question, the accuracy of their characterizations turns out to leave much to be desired. Dlabtot (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for that show of good faith. I've already stated my reason for not wanting to name the actual articles in which I have observed this situation, but it's a moot point since my question is general rather than about those specific articles. I'm not sure how I could mis-characterize the general case which is above, in bold type. If you're not interested in offering an opinion on a hypothetical question, then don't, but please don't badger me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this about the Economist editorial on paul krugman? Protonk (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. Is this the portion of the show where editors make guesses instead of offering opinions? ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know why this question has gone back and forth so much. It is clear what the answer is. We would NEVER EVER EVER allow a "reliable" source that said x fact and that reliable source used Wikipedia as ITS source. We already have policy in place about that. A newspaper using a blog and clearly stating its source is a blog is no different. The fact that the newspaper is coming out and stating that it is according to a blog is the newspaper's way of saying "dont blame us if its false". As I've repeatedly stated over and over, and which some people dont seem to get, just because a source is generally "reliable" does not mean it is reliable for every single piece of information in it, you must use the context, there are many instances in which a reliable source is not reliable for a particular piece of information included in it. This is one of those cases that it doesnt matter how reliable a source is normally, the fact that it is sourcing the information to a third-party blog that would not pass muster with our RS policies on its own makes the information unacceptable. Except to the extent that one could put "according to x blog, which states y information" and then you would source it to the reliable source and not to the blog itself.Camelbinky (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's the part where we offer general advice about hypotheticals only to have the real situation be soo idiosyncratic that the general suggestion actually comes back and bites us in the rear. I just figured I liked your part of the show better so I skipped ahead. ;) Protonk (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'm adverse to sticking my oar in when not directly involved...I have to say that, in regard to BLP articles, it is not sufficient to use a typically accepted news outlet (e.g. New York Times, BBC etc.) as a reliable source for contentious issues if they only quote an unreliable blog or gossip site as the source of the information. It would seem to me that if the information was verifiable by their own journalists and vast network of researchers, the 'reliable source' would certainly confirm the information. If they're hedging their bets by adding the caveat "'x' blog reports", then we certainly shouldn't be adding it to any of the BLP articles. ponyo (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for regurgitating what I just said. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take care to look at the times your edit and their edit hit the page. You both were probably composing your statements at about the same time.  I'm not sure that "regurgitate" is the appropriate verb. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did hit an edit conflict when I posted, and reposted without reading Camelbinky's comment. I would think that this apparent "meeting of the minds" would be seen as a positive event? Regardless, no 'regurgitation' was intended; I assure you I was able to come to a similar conclusion all on my own. Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Amazon.com a reliable source for this sentence?
Is Amazon.com considered a reliable source for the following sentence in the Cape Feare article: "The episode was selected for release in a 1997 video collection of selected episodes titled: The Simpsons: Springfield Murder Mysteries."? (comments can be left here or at Featured article review/Cape Feare/archive1) Thanks,  The left orium  20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is an unpublished letter in an article on the site of a colleague an RS?
From experience I know that the editor in question and I(and others) have a basic difference of opinion on what is a reliable source. This edit at Great Sphinx of Giza cites an article by Robert Bauval on his colleague Graham Hancock's website, as the source for an unpublished letter to Bauval and a quote from a book (along with the word 'demonstrated' which I'd object to if the paragraph stayed in. The article is here. The issue about the letter doesn't, I think, need enlarging on. The book, The Birth of Christ: Exploding the Myth, Virgin Books, 1998 by Colin Wilson and Percy Seymour, is described here  = Seymour writes about scientific astrology, the paranormal, and geomagnetism. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say private correspondence on a self-published website (reproduced for self-serving reasons) is not a RS. Personally, I think the whole section on the Orion Correlation Theory is WP:UNDUE weight on a WP:Fringe theory.  JN 466  22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a problem with making stuff up and attributing it to authors who never wrote what was said or taking out of context ideas that support a particular POV though the author was talking about something else entirely. What always fascinates me, however, is that this gaggle of debunkers place the most exacting standards on any source that differs from their POV, yet for something that supports it, it is never checked. Time and again I have found outright falsehoods or gross misinterpretations placed by these very same editors, yet for some reason this is ok. Regardless, the letter is an "open letter" meant to be published in which this same letter is also reproduced verbatim on Ed Krupp's website:http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_refutes_Bauval_and_Roy.html. Krupp has no reservations whatsoever that it is a genuine letter and devotes several paragraphs in response to Roy's comments. Ed Krupp's website is apparently acceptable reference, so therefore the reproduction of the letter and Krupp's verification in his own words would make it acceptable.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a narrow point. I queried a couple of weeks ago whether letters in a publicly-available archives (of a late Congressman) were RS, the response was that they could be used within the limits of WP:PRIMARY.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the original edit including new and direct sources. Seymour, among other things, has been principal lecturer in astronomy at the University of Plymouth and senior planetarium lecturer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich which makes him more than qualified to speak of Krupp's findings. Yes, he has written books about "astrology", but has done so from the scientific method as it relates to the possibility that magnetic fields may have an effect on human brain development which is a reasonable hypothesis. If anything, at least from my understanding, is what Seymour has attempted to do is take the "fringe" out of astrology and reduce it to it's relationship to astronomy and general physics. I have not read his books, but I am also not finding anything anywhere that would dismiss his competence or credentials to speak about Krupp's findings if only the opposite. Personally I think astrology in the true sense of the word in that the stars can be used to predict the future or whatnot is obviously total bunk, but as the alignment of planetary bodies as it relates to magnetic fields, mainly the sun/moon and its phases, are likely to have a biological impact on life on earth, I think is quite reasonable. Thanos5150 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that Krupp has been found I'm happy with the letter. But looking at the article as a whole, what is really a very minor fringe theory about the Sphinx should probably be reduced to a paragraph if it is to be there at all, the amount devoted to it makes it look much more significant than it actually is. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is naive, if not dishonest, to suggest that the Orion Correlation Theory is such an insignificant viewpoint as to warrant little or no mention at all, but given the fact Krupp has been successfully rebutted within the rules of Wiki it does not surprise me you would now take this turn. Really what you are saying is that if the idea cannot be thoroughly discredited with no opposing view, as there is now, then you don't want it in there at all. You were more than happy to have it before-so what changed? That's the thing-you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. I promise you the world will not end if people think differently than you do. None of this changes the fact however the significant impact the Orion Correlation Theory has made on the subjectThanos5150 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I am sorry, but the impact the Orion Correlation Theory has made is pretty much evident from this: . While this is really a matter for the WP:NPOV noticeboard, I'll say here that I believe it is WP:UNDUE to even mention it in our article.  JN 466  14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The personal attack is no surprise. We are talking about the Sphinx, not the Giza pyramids, and I still say the Orion theory has made very little impact on discussion of the Sphinx, much less than it has on discussion of the Giza pyramids.
 * It is not a "personal attack" to address the double standards imposed by some editors here. This is a legitimate ongoing concern. If you take this personaly then you should look inward for the answer as to why you feel this way. And who would this "our" be?
 * Regardless, the Sphinx is one of the key points of the Orion Theory which has received worldwide recognition and garnered lengthy and ongoing debates with the foremost Egyptologists of the day, mainly Lehner and Hawass, not to mention the likes of Krupp. I am curious-if this idea were so "insignificant" then why would they even bother to respond let alone have devoted so much of their time to it by appearing on countless TV programs, forums, and print defending against it? Here is another Google search for you:Thanos5150 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong search -- add 'Sphinx' and you lose the vast majority, and the ones you have left may not link Sphinx to the OCT, they may be talking about Schoch or whatever. 'Dishonest' sounds like a personal attack. You may think the Sphinx is a key point, but it doesn't attract much attention. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see just as many, but you are using U.K. Google so we are not seeing things exactly the same. Regardless, if you are saying the OCT itself is insignificant-then this is definitely a point of contention. But, technically you are correct if what you are saying is that the "Orion Mystery" has little concern for the Sphinx which is when the OCT was first introduced, so if this is your point I would agree, however, the theory was significantly expanded upon with the release of the "Message of the Sphinx" in which the Sphinx is obviously an integral part which has received a significant amount of attention and ultimately what the edit is referring to in relation to the Sphinx, so maybe this is where the confusion lies. I suppose it could be clarified, but I did not include the OCT. edit in this page though it has been there for years,and until this latest edit I have added nothing and only did so because I found a little time to finally balance it out. It's funny to me to see the edit by "Wdford" who restored Doug's edit saying "to mention the theory without mentioning the debunking is hardly neutral" but then proceeds to hack up the supporting view to barely an enigmatic sentence and reducing the two scientists to "authors". As if that were fair?? Come on fellas....Thanos5150 (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound on Sound
Hi, I am planning to work on the article "The Reflex" and I was wondering if the information from this website is considered reliable so it can be used for the "Writing and recording" section of the article. Thanks in advance. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - this is a long-established professional magazine.--Michig (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the quick reply. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

BVE Trainsim
The article BVE Trainsim is abut a niche computer program for which there seems to be no reliable sources available. As such, the editors of the article draw from self-published sources, e.g. personal websites, open wikis and public forums, thus pushing personal opinions instead of facts, and think that the quantity of sources outweighs the quality. There is some dispute over which sources are acceptable, and thus which content is allowed. I have studied all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and am quite convinced that the following sources are unreliable, self-published sources - thus unacceptable for backing any information. The editors of the article are unfortunately unresponsive on the article's talk page, thus I want to have a second and independent opinion on the reliability of the following sources before I take any further action.


 * Tonekham, Simon,
 * TrainSimmer.com,
 * Feigenbaum, Peter,
 * Barten, Alfred,
 * Danstater, David,
 * BVE Routes Wiki,
 * Black, Vince,
 * RailUKforums,


 * Is there a notability guideline for stuff like this? If there are no reliable secondary sources, perhaps it is too "niche" for mention in Wikipedia (not saying yeah or nay... just raising the possibility). Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As with many articles on free software, reliable sources in Wikipedia terms are extremely hard to come by, as the commercial games magazines don't review such software, even though there are often large communities on users who use the software. This also applies to non-games software. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:SPS should apply nonetheless. The reason couldn't be more obvious: If I created a webpage, writing anything I like about the software there, and then use my webpage as a source, I would be indirectly adding my own opinions to the Wikipedia article. Whether it's my personal webpage or that of someone else doesn't matter. It's even more problematic as you can be 100% sure that if a personal website is talking about the software, it's writing about the good aspects and displays the software in its best light - hardly leading to a neutral article, but - if anything - to promotion (advertisement). 87.123.121.202 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that most appear to lack reliability. However, Alfred Barten seems to be the exception as he seems to be known and to have been published elsewhere. The Wiki site would be RS only for noting that it contains a listing of "routes." Unless there is other RS material out there, most of the article could reasonably rely on the software itself and its documentation for description of its features (those obtainable from looking at the software). Software programs are themselves published works, and this seems to be the same situation as we encounter for the bulk of articles dealing with films, novels and other published works (whether it is the title page/credits, plot summary, etc.). The article cannot, however, become a "review" offering the opinions of editors. &bull; Astynax talk 17:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was in a bit of a dire state, agreed—I did an initial drive-by clean about 72 hours ago (my first edits to the article), but it needs further work. The cleanup resulted in an (unsigned) request on my User_talk: page to which I was able to respond to five hours later and later still, to replace all of the / entires in the WP:LEAD (my primary concern within the time available)—it is reassuring to see such fast turn arounds within Wikipedia and refreshing!  Of course, I would encourage other—perhaps long-standing(?)—editors to actively seek reasonable references, and preferably cull what appear to be the previous blog and and wiki sites.
 * In the interests of full disclosure, my experience with OpenBVE has been via the Debian packaging for inclusion into Ubuntu—there is documentation (changelogs, introductions, manpages) available as a result of this, but it would be improper to add those as source material myself! —Sladen (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of sources, with a request for comments on reliability was added to the article's talk page in May by the same editor, and I responded to each one. One of those, BVE Routes Wiki, is on the above list. Since the article simply notes that the Wiki exists and lists a certain number of routes, which can be easily verified, I think this is a reliable source for this purpose. I note that material from uktrainsim.com is used twice as a reference in the Rail Simulator Wikipedia article and no-one has queried its use there, although it seems that all the other Train Simulation articles in Wikipedia are more detailed and do not seem to have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as BVE Trainsim .Chris1515 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mashable.com as a reference for Facebook
I added this: Users can create groups according to their interests or areas of expertise. It will appear in the search results of Facebook if the group is on public.

This is the source: Would this be considered a reliable source? The author is Howard Greenstein. Eivmeidwl (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this previous discussion which concludes that Mashable is not a reliable source has already been pointed out to you. I agree, simply based on the large number of errors and misinterpretations I have seen in it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would argue that for the basics of a service's functionality, there is no issue with using manual pages from the provider of the service itself. A primary source would be entirely appropriate if no further analysis is being done. Obviously, however, if no such page exists, this is a problem. LinaMishima (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that archive from long ago there was no consensus about Mashable being an RS or not. Even if it's borderline, those are hardly extraordinary claims we're citing it for.  But you should be able to find that information in other sources, in fact, the mainstream media never seems to stop yammering about Facebook.  I agree with Lina that a primary source from Facebook itself should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. I will add primary sources from Facebook.  Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Departure from scholarly standards?
A question about reliability for source 6 at Asian fetish:

I think that an undergraduate's paper for some sort of research forum is not a reliable source. Even professors only count as reliable when they publish appropriately (academic press or peer-reviewed journal as opposed to blogs). I understand that universities should provide experience-building opportunities for undergraduates but this does not make them authorities on a subject. We do not have a Kripke here.

I'm not sure why there is a problem with removing the Maggie Chang source and corresponding claims. 76.226.139.221 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the forum page does not discuss the point, I assume there was some faculty review of the project proposals and final report. However it is not clear what standards they were judged at and as far as I can tell the student report has not been cited by any other book/article. So IMO this is a non-ideal source for wikipedia, but it can still provide a good entry point for literature search by wikipedia editors. Instead of citing the report directly, see if you can verify the cited claims using the bibliography in the paper; that is a better option than deleting the claims outright. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be okay as an external link, but not as a source. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Student research papers/essays fail both WP:RS and WP:EL quite dramatically and should not be linked to. As Abecedare says, if it cites sources perhaps those sources could be used, but a student's work is never acceptable in itself for any link or cite. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Otakon
Can a report by Otakon 2009 saying that the voice actor Johnny Young Bosch that he will be voice acting a role in Dissidia be used as a RS? Otakon is an anime convention, however it is the largest of its kind in the US. 陣 内 Jinnai 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please give the details of the reference? LinaMishima (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Straight from Dissidia's talk page "Johnny Young Bosch and Stephanie Sheh were at Otakuthon 2009 back in Montreal. During the conference, somebody asked Stephanie if she was voicing Terra in Dissidia due to rumors. Stephanie, however, denied this rumor BUT Johnny confirmed his role as Firion for the game. I was there when this question was answered, I swear it, no jokes. The thing is, does having hearing a confirmation but not having any material is valable to update this page? (WebJiCi (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC))" Fractyl (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Random reports of what somebody claims they heard at a conference are in no way reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference then, if it was heard firsthand and we can attribute it to a specific panel or event, and thus an exact place and time can be referenced, would it be appropriate? 陣 内 Jinnai 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn
I am considering nominationg Parc Cwm long cairn for WP:FAC, but first, I wanted to check some of the references used to confirm that they would be considered reliable. They are:
 * 1) megalithics.com defining the characteristics and location of the Severn-Cotswold group of cromlechs;
 * 2) Neotomb for the orientations of Neolithic chambered tombs in Glamorgan and Gwent;
 * 3) parc-le-breos.co.uk for details of the nearby river's effect on the cromlech and for excavation details;
 * 4) stone-circles.org for details of a nearby stream and general information about the cromlech;
 * 5) explore-gower.co.uk for details about Tooth Cave and Cat Hole Cave.

Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't get in to the first one due to browsing restrictions on the computer I'm using at the moment (probably not a good sign so far as reliability goes)
 * Number 2 seems to be self-published, so unless you can find evidence that the author should be regarded as an expert, this one's out.
 * The website of a local hotel doesn't seem to be the best thing to use for this sort of thing to me
 * Self-published again
 * Self-published


 * I suspect an FA reviewer would also have concerns about http://www.ukcaves.co.uk/onecave-tooth, this again seems to be self-published, though at least in this case there is a references page, which moves the site up a notch in credibility, though one of the references is to another site by the same author. http://www.encyclopædia.org/wiki/Cotswold-Severn also doesn't seem the best source, as another encyclopaedia it's a tertiary source, we prefer secondaries, and worse still, it's a wiki itself, anyone could edit the info.  David Underdown (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. Oh well, back to the drawing board (or rather, the Google Book search). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is a one time comment by a UN ambassador a reliable source for defining the governing status of a territory?
... Or is it only enough to say that "Ambassador xxx in year xxx said that (...)"

Currently, the Gibraltar article has the following first sentence: "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory"

The citation refers to the following source: [http://books.google.com/books?id=b6SgDQvP3zMC&pg=PA259&dq=Ambassador+Donigi+gibraltar+referendum+october+2001&ei=n4eBSpGFEIHENei93eoK#v=onepage&q=Ambassador%20Donigi%20gibraltar%20referendum%20october%202001&f=false Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. p. 259].

The text says: “(…) in October 2001 (…)” “(…) on his annual address to the UN Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization) Committee (…)” “Caruana revealed that he had an ally in this regard within the UN itself. He referred to a paper written by the Chairman, Ambassador Donigi, in which he had proposed that a referendum should be held in Gibraltar on the question: “Should Gibraltar remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom?”. If Gibraltarians voted so to remain, Donigi argued that Gibraltar should no longer remain on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.”

(please notice that the UN as an organisation -not an individual UN official- regards the status of Gibraltar as "non self-governing" pg.3)

I am not sure this third-hand transcription of a UN officer’s proposal for the text of a referendum is enough reference (although I will admit that it does indirectly refer to the current status of Gibraltar as a self-governing territory).

Maybe the article should only say that "Ambassador Donigi mentioned the current status of Gibraltar as self-governing in the proposed text for a referendum in 2001"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the citation with one from the Encyclopædia Britannica. I'd also like to point out that it is misleading to represent the Special Committee on Decolonization's list as the official position of the UN, it is not. The only reason Gibraltar was ever included, was because it was listed by the UK. In any case, the UN has no power on the matter. RedCoat10  •  talk  10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If a source says that "Something is X except...", is it correct to silence in the article the "except..." part?
The Gibraltar article (see above) says that "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory".

The current citation from the Encyclopedia Brittannica says that "Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters but defense."

Other alternative sources are:
 * The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
 * The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service”.
 * The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." (page 4).
 * The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”

Is it all right to not say "except..." in the text of the article when the source of the citation does?

Which source would be best to explain the nature of Gibraltar's government? (I think that the most accurate would be the country profiles from the UK FCO or the Report by the UK FCA, but I'm not sure).

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Trouble is you are moving this discussion all over wikipedia in the hope of finding support for your POV. Where to next ?? --Gibnews (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All self governing territories do not have complete control over external affairs, that is why they are self governing territories and not sovereign states. Further explanation on the division of powers can be found later on in the article, there is nothing wrong with saying it is a self governing British overseas territory in the introduction, its perfectly clear and an explanation on powers can be found by reading the British overseas territories article. This debate is pointless, everyone on the talk page of the article has rejected your view its not self governing so you bring it to other places instead. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer (which I know from the previous discussion). I will very much appreciate to hear some external opinions. Also, to be accurate, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has accepted my view and Narson is neutral. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you name any self governing territory that has complete control of its own affairs such as defence / foreign relations? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have already discussed about this, and there is no agreement. There is a wide variety of degrees of self-government (look at the FAC report that I link above, for example). I would like to have some external opinion, please, and see if we can find an idea for solving the current dispute. Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true that there are a wide range of levels of self government, but no self governing territory has total control over its own affairs, otherwise it would be a sovereign state. I there for dont see the need to say "except... .. .. " in the first sentence. Its a self governing British overseas territory, thats all the info they need there. They can read further down the article about powers or on the British overseas territories article.. I dont see why there is a need for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for change and we are not silencing the 'except' part: it appears in the 'Politics' section, which is reserved for a more comprehensive analysis of the nature of self-governance in Gibraltar. You have already had the external opinion of users over at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, all of whom did not agree with your proposed edits. You are also misusing this noticeboard - there is no doubt that the Encyclopædia Britannica is a reliable source. If you dispute the content it cites, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, namely Talk:Gibraltar. RedCoat10  •  talk  13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, I know there is no consensus (BTW you don't need to insert the link to that word!), that's exactly why I posted these questions! (as part of the dispute resolution process). I also know your position about this and that -so far- nobody in the NPOV noticeboard has expressed an opinion openly for or against either position. I only want to know 1) if other people think it's OK to silence the "except..." part in a citation in the same place where that citation has been inserted (the lead of the article, not 160 lines below!) and 2) which source do they think would be best for describing the nature of Gibraltar's Government. You don't want to know what other people think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * RSN is not a part of the dispute resolution process. All we do here is discuss the reliability of sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an RS issue, but a Style dispute over the best way to word the first sentence of the lede. I would actually remove the citation from the first sentence (thus removing the question of whether the sentence accurately reflects what the source says).
 * WP:Lead_section notes is that lede paragraps do not need to include any citations ... the idea being that the lede is simply a summary of the rest of the article. Any information contained in the lede should be discussed in more detail elsewhere in the article, and it is the details that should be properly sourced and cited. With this in mind... as long as the Gibraltar article discusses the nature of Gibraltar's self-governance (ie mentions that defence is an exception) somewhere in the article, it does not need to do so in the lede, and especially does not need to do so in the first sentence. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I see that WP:Lead Section has changed a bit since I last looked at it. It used to clearly say that citations were not required in the lede.  It now leaves it up to consensus.  In any case, my point stands.
 * Pehaps a solution is to save the self-governing discussion for later in the lede... I don't actually see a need to mention the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing in the opening sentence. Styalisticly, the opening sentence should briefly and simply identify the topic of the article. You are answering the question: "What is Gibraltar?"  And the answer to that is geographical: "Gibraltar is a peninsula at the mouth of the Mediterranian Sea."  Once you have established that, you can mention its political status: "It is self-governing territory in all matters except defense (which is controled by the United Kingdom)." as a second sentence.  Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you that 1) this is not a RS issue 2) citations are not generally needed for the lede section 3) it would be inappropriate to expiate on the nature of Gibraltar's self-governance in the lede. However, I would be reluctant to omit mentioning Gibraltar's political status in the lede, not least because it would be unnecessary and less useful for the reader (I think most countries/nations begin with a political description). It would furthermore give the impression that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is somehow disputed which, unlike the Falkland Islands or Kosovo, it isn't. I also don't see why we ought to pander to the objections of one particular user (viz. User:Imalbornoz) who seeks to deliberately misrepresent the actual status of Gibraltar to push his own POV. RedCoat10  •  talk  17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Blueboar has the right idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gibraltar is self-governing since the 2006 constitution but its something which upsets Spanish sensibilities as it invalidates the claim of it being 'a UK colony', and that is at the heart of this prolonged meandering debate. --Gibnews (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Blueboar has the right idea too. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Stereo Society
I am currently creating the article "Voices Carry (song)" in my sandbox. I found this website that have the history behind the recording of 'Til Tuesday's first album,, and I am wondering if this could be consider a reliable source. Apparently "The Stero Society" is the indie label of Mike Thorne, the producer of the Voices Carry album released in 1985, he apparently wrote the article along with several others for his previous work, for example, Sex Pistols, Siouxsie and the Banshees and Soft Cell. And yes the website isn't very slick, but I think they made it this way because is economical and quicker to download than Rolling Stone, Billboard or another magazine. Thanks in advance. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's written by the producer, then it's a WP:SPS that meets our requirements for RS, and it's OK to use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, I have another question, what about this website: The Tripwire, originally I was planning to use it only to reference the cover by Carrie Underwood, but I wonder if this could be used in the "Reception" section. Thanks. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

questions about webpages cited in the Little Richard article
1] is www.segerfile.com a reliable-enough source? it's being used in the "Influence" section. and is it accurate to use it to support the assertion that Little Richard was Seger's "first major rock & roll influence"? would it be more accurate/appropriate to report that as "one of Seger's first major r & r influences"?

2] similarly: is this tripod.com page a reliable source, and does it support the assertion (in that same section) that Little Richard was Angus Young's "first major rock & roll influence"?

3] is this nutsie.com page a reliable source? it's being used for two assertions in that same section - see Reference 53 (sorry, but that seems like the most efficient way to show what it's being used to support)

update: the bits i've crossed out have been removed from the article (at least for now), so instead i'll ask about this:

2] is it acceptable to use this "blog archive" as a source for the statement "Wilson Pickett said, 'Little Richard is the architect of Rock 'n' Roll'" (in that same section)?

thanks for any insights on any of the above Sssoul (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope... blogs are Self-Published sources (See WP:SPS) and as such should only be used for statements as to the opinion of the blogger. And even then, their use is extremely limited. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you kindly Blueboar - that's what i thought.
 * now that just leaves www.segerfile.com - does that site look reliable enough to support the assertion here that Little Richard was "one of Seger's first major r & r influences"? Sssoul (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope... again, its an SPS (in this case a personal website).
 * Caveat - if either of the authors of these SPSs are published experts, then the websites definitely can be considered reliable for an attributed statement as to the opinion of the author. IE the article can say "According to Expert X "Little Richard was a huge influence on Music Star Y  ". I don't know enough about the topic to know if either of these authors can be considered an expert. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thank you again - the www.segerfile.com page at least cites sources for (most of) the quotes from Seeger, so i reckon those sources are what we need to track down. thank you. Sssoul (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

songfacts
There seem to be a couple of users eg adding lots of stuff referenced to http://www.songfacts.com. I'm rather skeptical about the content of that site, it seems quite gossip-y. Thoughts? Pseudomonas(talk) 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the site suggests that it is at all reliable to be a source for an encyclopedia. Looks like a spammer. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers
The article on David Ogden Stiers contains the following passage: "In May 2009, it was reported by mainstream news sources that Stiers came out as gay, based on an interview published by the LGBT blog Gossip Boy" in the section "Personal life". Stiers has also been added to Category: Gay actors and Category:LGBT people from the United States on the same basis. There is a fair amount of talk page discussion about this (see here) but it seems to have devolved into actually contacting Stiers' publicist instead of examining the sourcing. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that www.gossipboy.com is a reliable source, the question is whether or not the republication in mainstream sources (attributed to the Gossip Boy blog) makes it acceptable for inclusion in a BLP. I believe it does not, but I don't intend to get involved in this since there's some blatant POV-pushing going on. Enjoy!

I am only posting this here since it was requested in the above section "Republication of unreliably sourced material", although it wasn't my intention to bring it here (and it probably belongs at the BLP noticeboard if anywhere). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the source is really Stiers himself. Since Gossip Boy isn't reliable, we might wonder if they made the interview up, or adjusted his words in some way that was not accurate.  The ABC and MSNBC articles show us how far to trust the interview, which is far enough for the sentence in Personal life, even though it is a BLP, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peregrine Fisher here. If it's reliable enough that ABC and MSNBC are going to relay it, it's probably reliable in general. We should be cautious with BLP, but we shouldn't be overcautious. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can include a comment to the effect that a rumor was repeated by the mainstream media (ie we can report that the rumor exists) ... but for categorization we need to defer to Self-identification by the subject. Unless Stiers has definitively stated that he is Gay, we should not categorize him as such. And we definitely should not do so on the word of a gossip site. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We judge sources by their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One of the main ways to determine this reputation is to see if they are cited by other, established, mainstream reliable sources, such as ABC or MSNBC. It almost seems like the real problem here is the word 'gossip' in the url of the source.  I don't see how the name of a source is in any way relevant to this guideline.
 * "Unless Stiers has definitively stated that he is Gay, we should not categorize him as such." -  "GB: You are gay. Right, David? DOS: Yes, I am. Very proud to be so." sounds pretty definitive to me. Calling this a 'rumor' does not seem consistent with the facts. Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the word "gossip" in the blog's name certainly doesn't help to lend an air of credibility, but I don't think that's the issue. The blog does not appear to be high-profile, high-traffic, or widely referenced. It has an Alexa rank of 16,777,215. A Google news search turns up a grand total of 7 (seven) hits. Based on that, I can't see how this could possibly be considered a reliable source. Given that Stiers has never publicly said before or afterward that he was gay, why would anyone take an interview published in an unknown blog at face value? I think this situation is clearly, obviously, and unambiguously one where a single unreliable source has been given given undeserved credibility. Simply having been referenced (attributed) by mainstream news over this one interview does not magically lend it credibility. Without intending to be insulting to anyone here, I am appalled that there is even the suggestion that this is acceptable sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * High-profile, and high-traffic, Alexa rankings, and other irrelevancies are not part of our reliable source guideline.  A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is.  And citations to the site by MSNBC and ABC certainly do speak to that reputation. Further, despite some earlier characterizations, this is not a case of a reliable source repeating a rumor spread by a blog.  It is an interview conducted by a website that was subsequently reported by sources that no one disputes are reliable.  ABC and MSNBC both have an established editorial process, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and they put that reputation on the line when they reported this story. Dlabtot (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, since no one is really gonna dispute that ABC and MSNBC are reliable sources, especially for uncontroversial statements like "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ", perhaps WP:BLPN would be more appropriate for this query. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The blog in question has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has a very small number of citations, and they seem to be related to this one interview. ABC and MSNBC have not claimed to have fact-checked or confirmed the information in the interview, they are merely repeating what was said and quite deliberately labeling the blog, not themselves, as the source. I agree that citations by reliable sources build the credibility of other sources, but this is a small low-traffic gossip and rumor blog, not the Southern Poverty Law Center. Here's a sample (from http://gossip-boy.com/More_Gossip_Boy.html):
 * {| class="navbox collapsible " style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #CFC;" | WORDS OF THE DAY: LONNIE, LU, SYPHILITIC
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |

(July 18, 2009) We're not going to tell you what Southeastern Oklahoma's dumbest dung pile did, we're just going to do our best to convey what degree of respect she holds in our minds.

Ask Lonnie Lu Anderson if her racist redneck ass has seen any part of the world beyond sixth grade or Hazzard...er Pittsburgh County! Ask her if her family realizes it’s not the 1890’s and the savages don’t need beaten to death until they learn English and and fall to their knees to praise Jesus! And if you just want to travel to the Arson Capitol of the World and kick her teeth (both of them!!) down her throat, well that’s on you, but you’ll be eligible for our monthly Attaboy Award. Just be sure to tell her that next time they have a Fourth of July hot dog eating contest that her vajajay and brothers don’t qualify.

LONNIE LU ANDERSON (918) 470-7895

(Well that’s what we’re thinking she looks like!)

Lonnie Lu: the only whore in McAlester that the Death Roll boys said "Get that smelly fleabag bitch out of here! We ain't paying a Little Debbie Oatmeal Pie for that nasty cottage cheese dripping shit!!'".

Stupid Lonnie Lu is in a county where the median income for a woman is $19,886, which is about three grand less than what an Oklahoma City 7/11 clerk makes, and she's worried about being overtaxed - those dern revenoo agents. God, do they go to the bowling allies and round the slop hoes up or something? All that money the state spent trying to educate Lonnie Lu those 5 1/2 years she spent in school could've been saved had they just tossed a stained mattress in the back of her brother's truck and let her get on with what life had in store for her. And let's not forget any time a country gal has two names that means her mother didn't know which of her own brothers the baby daddy was, so named future hare lip corrective surgery candidate after both.

The next news item we pray comes out of McAlester is someone's 1970 Dodge Charger rear ended a short bus and introduced Lonnie Lu to the Krispy Kritters for Khrist revival.

Finally, maybe Lonnie Lu wouldn't be so jealous of a truckload of Mexican workers were her own husband out on a job instead of at the trailer asking their 6-yr-old daughter for a lap dance. Dumb tax protesting bitch doesn't get that the city she lives in, McAlester, has two industries: corrections and military ammunitions. So just about everyone in town is sucking on the taxpayer teat at some level.

When your mothers warn you about syphilitic whores who have lost their minds, you'll know who they're talking about from this point on.
 * }
 * To quote from BLP: "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". This is a single, unreliable source - mere reposting by reliable sources does not mean that there are multiple sources and it does not make the source any more reliable based on this single instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the bulk your comment is really on-topic. Let's get to brass tacks: Are you claiming that ABC News is not a reliable source in this instance? Are you claiming that their statement: "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ",  is not correct?  Do you have some reason to believe that this story was not subject to ABC News' standard fact-checking and editorial process? Are you claiming that David Ogden Stiers did not give this interview, or that his words were fabricated or something?  I'm having trouble understanding just what the objection is here. Dlabtot (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Brass tacks or red herrings? ABC News is did not interview Stiers. MSNBC did not interview Stiers. An unreliable blog did. Since it is an unreliable source, I have my doubts about the interview (see the collapsed section above for a sample of the blog's content and make your own judgement). ABC News does not claim to have fact-checked the story and did not need to, since it merely republished it with attribution. On the ABC News site right now, they quote someone as saying "I remember one time being on a spaceship and standing there on the spaceship and the floor and the walls disappeared. And I was staring at the Earth". I don't think ABC News will stand by that as fact-checked, merely as a quotation, much the passage you posted above. Have you given up your claim that Gossip Boy is a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, since you failed to answer any of my questions, I'll assume it was because I asked too many at a time. Let me just ask one, and see if you are willing to give a straight answer.
 * Do you think that this statement by ABC News "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ", is not correct? Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ABC News is quoting the interview with attribution. I am sure that Gossip Boy published that because I have seen it, but since it is not a reliable source and since Stiers has not publicly stated before or since that he was gay, there is reason to be wary of the actual content. In fact, asked if he were gay in relation to a gay-themed play that he was directing, Stiers stated that he wasn't. (I have no interest in whether or not Stiers is gay, I only mention it as a reason to doubt the veracity of the interview.) Is it correct? In some sense, yes, it is a correct reposting of what an unreliable source says, and attributed to them. Is it any more correct than the quote by the alien abductee I posted above? No. Does it make ABC News a source? No. Feel free to move on to your next question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ABC News did not say that gossipboy published it; ABC News said that DOS told it to gossipboy. So your statement that: I am sure that Gossip Boy published that is not actually an answer to the question:
 * Do you think that this statement by ABC News "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ", is not correct?
 * I find such difficulties with simple discourse to be rather tedious. Could you please explain what the essence of the problem is here? ABC News and MSNBC clearly believe that David Ogden Stiers gave this interview. Do you disagree?  Why? Do you or do you not believe that gossipboy fabricated this interview? Dlabtot (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to argue about why ABC News phrased it in the way that they did, since they are not the source. I believe we agree that the source -- the one and only source -- of this information is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter if I think the interview is genuine or fabricated - it is an unreliable source and therefore unsuitable for inclusion as a reference. Again, to restate the issue one more time - Does a reliable source reposting with attribution validate what an unreliable source has said? To me, the answer is clearly no. The reliable source is not taking responsibility for it. To you, the answer appears to be yes. Is that a fair assessment? This is the same issue I raised earlier as a hypothetical (exactly because I didn't want to get bogged down in arguments about David Ogden Stiers or reliability of a given source or specific wording in an article). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are simply unwilling to answer the question? I don't think we are having a constructive dialogue here. It may be difficult for you to accept, but it looks like the consensus is not the answer you were looking for. Dlabtot (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you given up your claim that Gossip Boy is a reliable source? This blatant and rather clumsy mischaracterization of my comment rather dims my hopes for a constructive dialogue here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was a mischaracterization, but if you say it is now, then I guess I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I take it that we are agreed then that Gossip Boy is not a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have our rules for a reason: so that we don't make the decisions, and reliable sources do. Someone could say that Gossip Boy is reliable because they've followed them from their beginning, and they've never made a mistake.  That wouldn't cut it, obviously.  On the other hand, no one should be saying that Gossip Boy is obviously unreliable, and they fabricate their interviews, without RS backup.  Both positions require an actual reliable source.  We happen to have two.  I do think that since it is a BLP, and it involves someone coming out, which is controversial, maybe we should double attribute.  How about 'According to ABC News, in a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so."'?  Mabye even 'According to ABC News and MSNBC..., if we want to be extra careful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed your comment while writing mine, somehow. Also, someone above thought that my initial comment meant that gossip boy is a RS.  It is not an RS, or if it is, that's a whole other discussion.  This info is hinging on ABC and MSNBC, and their use of gossip boy, not gossip boy itself.  Do not, I repeat, do not just cite gossip boy for the info.  Go with the two RSs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the initial post here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: It has been >3 months since MSNBC, ABC and The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on David Ogden Stiers' interview in which he is reported to have said that he is proud to be gay. Since then has Stiers disputed the claim, or have any of these sources published a correction? If yes, we should not include the claim per BLP. If there has been no retraction or dispute, what are we debating here ? Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we should be requiring denials before we evaluate the credibility of the sources. I'm actually more interested in the general case of unreliable information being republished (and attributed) by reliable sources, but I was asked to post a specific example and the earlier thread about the general case was somewhat petulantly closed because it dealt with hypotheticals. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DC, I'm genuinely confused: you are saying that we should arbitrarily dismiss the reporting of MSNBC, ABC, Philadelphia Inquirer (as well as these news websites, ) even though there is no dispute regarding the information ?!  Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is more or less what I'm suggesting, but it's not arbitrary. Since the original source is unreliable and there are no other sources, it fails to meet the sourcing standards outlined in BLP. There is a case to be made that the reporting about the interview in other sources is notable enough for inclusion, but no amount of attributed reposting (not reporting) in reliable sources makes the original source any more credible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can report the information, because it has gone through an editorial process wherein editors at MSNBC, ABC et al have determined the source to be trustworthy enough (at least in this instance) to republish its reporting. Anonymous wikipedia editors are not competent to make this judgment by themselves, but editors at these news organizations are!
 * This is really a very common occurrence, where information is regarded as reliable after it has undergone editorial review by competent authorities. For example, a report posted by a university student on his webpage will (in general) not meet the WP:RS standard. However after it has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal it is considered reliable,even though it is the exact same report attributed to the same student. I am sure you can construct other similar examples. Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, anonymous editors at WP (like you and I) routinely decide what is or isn't a reliable source, as I'm sure you must know. The "reputable journal" from your facile example suggests peer review or at least editorial oversight. This is neither a scientific essay nor hard news. It is essentially a fluff item, republished in the entertainment or gossip sections of newspaper and blog sites. Do you really think their editorial policies and practices are equivalent? Do you think that the editorial policies for those sections of the news are as stringent as, say, their political section? Do you think that their editorial policy on reposting something with attribution (and therefore lessened liability) is the same as it is for their own research? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think at this point, we can say that editors in the know and who are uninvolved have deemed the sources reliable for the statements per our rules. That's pretty much the end of it as far as this noticeboard goes.  Further discussion can take place on the article's talk page, or go to dispute resolution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have ever edited that article and I can't say I have ever had any involvement with the subject. I don't care if he's gay or if he's not. In what way am I involved? I tried to ask a hypothetical question to avoid getting entrapped by the details of any specific case, but I was rebuffed. I have yet to see a convincing argument about the transference of reliability to unreliable sources, but I seem to be encountering a number of roadblocks and red herrings in attempting to discuss it. Please bear with me, I am not intractable, but I do require some reasonable arguments to be convinced that I am wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple question: Is Gossip Boy a reliable source?
I really do apologise for dragging this out and I'm sure some editors will find it tedious, but I am astounded by the last two replies above ( & ) which seem to suggesting that the Gossip Boy blog is a reliable source. Just to be sure I'm not missing something, let me put it as simply as possible - is Gossip Boy considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't generally make blanket pronouncements like that. Rather, we look at specific citations, specific claims and try to come to a consensus as to whether a source is reliable for supporting that specific citation.  However, when time after time, a source is shown to be reliable, it becomes natural to consider it 'generally reliable', although this does not override the necessity to judge each citation individually. I will say that since the only think I know about gossip-boy.com is that they were considered reliable enough in this instance to be cited by MSNBC and ABC, that does speak to their reliability.  It certainly does help their reputation.  However, even in the absence of conflicting evidence, this one bit of data would not be enough for me to consider them as 'generally reliable'.  I would need more evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for that. Dlabtot (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that in a noticeboard full of discussions about whether or not individual sources are "reliable", you're suggesting that we don't do make such pronouncements. In any case, this has become pointless and it's unlikely that there will be any further useful discussion, so feel free to close this topic. Thanks to all who offered opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DC, If you look at the discussions on this noticeboard, you will notice a consistant refrain of comments saying "what is the context?" and "To answer your question we need to know the exact statement you want to use the source for?" etc. We can easily tell you if an individual source is reliable for a specific statement, but we are very reluctant to say that a particular source is always reliable or always unreliable.  As for Gossip Boy... I would definitely say that most editors here would be reluctant to call any site with the word "gossip" in its title a reliable source... but, it really does depend on the specifics of how it is used in the article.  It might be unreliable in one article, but perfectly reliable in another. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While some may still be idealistic about Wikipedia, the reality is that the editing environment is pretty contentious. Any broad statement we might make about sources would inevitably be misconstrued, misapplied, and mischaracterized. So it behooves us to make the narrowest judgments possible. Dlabtot (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear earlier. Gossip-Boy.com is not reliable.  They have one reliable interview, as far as I know, and it's this DOS one, as shown reliable by MSNBC and whatnot.  Do not confuse the reliability of the original GB interview with later reporting of it.  Obama could give them an interview, and I wouldn't believe a word until other sources confirmed it.  Then I would believe it.  Just because I was skeptical about it at first, does not mean that I cannot be convinced by further evidence. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And, as I think about your question more, it may be a misunderstanding about sources that are "not reliable". "Not reliable" doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie.  It just means we don't know if we can trust them, so we don't pass on the info.  In this case, other sources have shown us that we can pass on this particular bit of info.  If you're curious, citing some other page from GB and putting it in some biography will get a big no from this board (barring MSNBC or whoever reporting on it). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear earlier. Gossip-Boy.com is not reliable.  I understand that is your position, my question is, Why?  Why do you believe they are not reliable? Based on what evidence? We see that ABC and MSNBC considered them reliable enough to cite them.  That is evidence of their reliability.  What is the contrary evidence? Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say they're not a RS. We need more than a couple of sources believing an interview, which is different from an article.  If more sources are found, they may be a RS in general, but it hasn't been shown yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

single mention in a foreign language tech blog to show notability: reliable?
is http://www.genbeta.com/web/files-forever-nuevo-servicio-de-dreamhost enough to show notability for the "files forever" feature from the webhost Dreamhost? this is the only blog/source that mentions this one feature, and now Dreamhost has a whole section on the feature, based on this source. is this good enough?


 * I don't think a single mention in a tech blog (of whatever language) is enough to establish notability. WP:NOTE requires substantive discussion by reliable third party sources that are independant of the topic.  Blog postings are not usually considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Genbeta is considered notable enough to list on Google News, and they have an Alexa rank of 15K and change. There are a plenitude of other blogs out there I could have added, but this seemed to me to be roughly equivalent to linking to TechCrunch. Also, if a web host's new feature is interesting enough to cover in other languages, that seems to me to hint even more at notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * last I knew, listing a blog in google news doesn't make it reliable, techcrunch is irrelevant, OTHERBLOGSEXIST is invalid, and it's irrelevant what language it's published in as far as notabllity is concerned. Your reponse is puzzling. Perhaps you should step back from the article and gather your thoughts (posted by User:166.192.216.235)


 * This is actually a systematic problem in Tech related articles... the Tech world tends to announce and discuss new software (and even new hardware) in the bogsphere long before it gets mentioned by non-blog industry media sources... This lag time often makes it difficult to substantiate whether the new tech is notable or not. Since we don't consider most blogs to be reliable sources, we have to wait until the tech gets noticed and discussed by non-blog industry media. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem, that's a good thing. We are not a rumor blog. We are not for breaking news. We are for verifiable facts that can stand the test of time. What you see as a "systematic problem" is the entire POINT of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTE simply doesn't apply in this case, because that refers to whether or not a subject is notable enough for a separate article, not individual items of content within an article. The issue is whether or not this tech blog is a reliable enough source to verify a brief description of a service offered by this notable company. The content is completely non-contentious with no extraordinary claims being made, so a cast-iron "BLP quality" source is completely unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments: 1. don't conflate notability with reliability. 2. While we prefer English sources, foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) The source doesn't even come close to being reliable for establishing notability, and I can't see how anyone with a grasp of the concept that there is such a thing as a threshhold for notability could miss it. If this proves notability, then any old anything on the Internet would, and then there would be no notability policy in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * so what is the consensus here? other than scjessey and sarekandvulcan, who have been edit warring to include the blog and section it advertises -- their stances are known. is this a reliable source in the way it's used? more input is requested for clarification. please view Dreamhost and say whether you think this is acceptable usage. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is not the appropriate venue to be making false claims of edit warring against good faith editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we are not using the source to establish notability. It is only being used to verify the existence of the service. Notability has absolutely nothing to do with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment. As a preliminary, the language of a reference is irrelevant. For content in an article, the judgment of what is a Reliable source depends on the  the  type of article, and the type of material. Uncontroversial factual content about a product can certainly be taken from a reliable blog, the company's web site, or even  an advertisement. If it is challenged that the material is not accurate, other sources must be presented. For many topics, even controversial judgments of opinion can be taken from reliable blogs--their authority is that of the blogger, who is frequently a well known commentator or industry expert.  A blog is merely a form of publication, and blogs have variable standards of reliability--as do newspapers, magazines, and everything else; in some cases, something called a "blog" is in all other respects a formal publication- Furthermore, even with respect to notability, there have been topics at which coverage by well known bloggers considered authoritative has been accepted at AfD as showing notability--this is fairly common with respect to science fiction critics, and also in some fields of computer technology. Reliable|not reliable is a continuum, not a black|white distinction. (I am not familiar with this particular subject,so I am talking in general; but Google News is only a rough standard, especially for purposes of notability, as they include a good deal of straight public relations.)    DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability vs. interesting enough to mention in article about notable company
I'm breaking this out to make sure it's clear. It's not a question of whether "Files Forever" is notable enough to have its own article, which it clearly isn't. The argument is being made that this feature isn't notable enough to even mention in the article. However, the Notability guideline clearly states "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Therefore, arguing that this section should be deleted because the source doesn't show notability is incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this feature was described on Icelands 38th most read tech BLOG!!!!!! and yes that little bit of text written there on that blog what 200 words surely establishes notability and such and "Interesting enough to mention in the article" well Now there is a way to decide if material is of sufficient encyclopedic value.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarek is spot on in drawing attention to the difference between WP:Notability and "interesting enough to mention in an article about a notable company". Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't (that is determined by whether it is discussed by an RS, whether discussing it would give the feature Undue weight in the article, and by consensus of editors).  But let's try to avoid using the word notablility in this context.  Perhaps "noteworthiness"? Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Those arguing that "interesting enough to mention in an article" is somehow different from notability are just plain wrong. There's a difference between notability enough to mention and notability enough to have its own article, yes, but without reliable sources something is just plain not notable enough for mention. Period. Any other interpretation throws the entire concept of an encyclopedia on its ear and will get this site mired in nonnotable trivia just because someone without any perspective wants to include something that otherwise does not fit. That's just wikilawyering to try to get what your want despite having nothing to support your side. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is our page about "interesting enough for its own article". WP:DUE is our page on "interesting enough to mention". WP:UCS is our page on how to process these guidelines -- it's all covered. --dab (𒁳) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is for the article as a whole, so let's use the wording "important enough to include in the article" for facts. With that out of the way, I'm not too familiar with the source in question, but like a lot of similar sites that look bloggy but are published by an organization, I'd consider it a "weak secondary" source. Not strong enough to argue notability for an article or to base an entire section on, but OK to source a single sentence. Just cut it down to a single sentence, should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are all saying the same thing in different words. This confusion is why I like to use "Notable" for "important enough to have an article" and "Noteworthy" for "important enough to mention in an article". I also draw a subtle distinction between notability and notoriety (which is a useful distinction when discussing NOTNEWS issues). Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for info on gangs
An IP editor is trying to add large amounts of information to articles using sources I can't see passing WP:RS, however, I'll ask for some other opinions. The sources in question are: Folk Nation.com. Chicagogangs.org. This is primarily happening in the article Maniac Latin Disciples. Is there anyone who actually sees these as reliable sources, besides the IP editor? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of indications that these are reliable sources, I would have to say that while interesting they do not qualify as reliable sources. Being listed as a cool or useful website in a regional magazine is not at all sufficient to establish reliability. They could be considered reliable if they were cited in academic works as sources, explicitly stated to be reputable sources in other high quality venues, or so on. Similarly, if they were clearly and explicitly written or edited by an established expert, they would qualify for limited use under WP:SPS. I do not see them as fulfilling either of these requirements, or any other comparable measures of reliability. --Vassyana (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I understand and share the editors frustration. There is a lot of info on topics like this one, but most of it isn't on sites that will pass RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are quite a few sources that examine gangs. There are even quite a number of scholarly sources, especially in the fields of sociology and criminology. A number of periodicals, especially newspapers, also provide a fair amount of coverage for the topic area. They may not be easily researched or found online, but by no means is there a shortage of sources. This is a topic area of extreme interest to a wide variety of professionals and there is a huge amount amount of published material to satisfy this interest. --Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of source material that would pass RS, but I have had the fight before about it being off-line and some didn't like it. Newspapers tend to focus on the present activities in their own communities, not so much from a historical perspective. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand about sometimes having to struggle over offline sources. A few editors will complain on the grounds that it is not easily accessible, etc. Unless the work is from a vanity publisher or other source of questionable reliability, the community (whether by noticeboard or RfC) will certainly support the use of offline sources (if it is necessary to demonstrate general/outside opinions about the matter). I have found that it is often helpful to point out that the vast majority of the best reliable sources (as defined at Reliable sources) are not available online and that a large portion of those available are not fully viewable and/or require a subscription or per work payment. When raising the point, it should also be noted that there are a number of tools to acquire access to off-line sources, such as interlibrary loans, WikiProject Resource Exchange, and topical WikiProjects. I hope this is helpful. If I can be of assistance at all, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the offer and may take you up on it. One "battle" I fought was over a US DOJ publication that was not avialable online. I provided the product number and how to obtain the copy for free in the reference if anyone cared to obtain a copy to verify it themselves. I also volunteered to email a copy to an uninvolved admin to verify it if they wanted. A similar dispute is going on now for the article on the Eight Tray Gangster Crips where the author wants to use streetgangs.com as a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the summary of a Reality TV programme count as a work of fiction...
...and therefore not need to be sourced per WP:MOSTV? We're currently debating whether the "Summary" and "Nominations table" sections of Big Brother 2009 (UK) need sourcing per the aforementioned policy. Please join in with the discussion here. Thanks, DJ 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Gee... I thought Big Brother was fiction... no? OK, seriously...
 * Essentially, yes... you are using a primary source (the TV show) to support a discriptive comment about itself. That is an appropriate use of the primary source (this is discussed at WP:NOR) and the show itself is a reliable source for what occured on the show.  Please note, however, that the plot summary must be purely descriptive.  Any analysis or conclusionary statements made about the show will need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot sections do need reliable sources. Anyone arguing otherwise is not following policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything needs a reliable source. Primary sources are acceptable for plot summaries, and summaries of reality shows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. They are only acceptable for the most basic facts. Summaries include interpretations, and it's always an editor here using original research -- which is forbidden, in case you forgot -- making those interpretations unless there is another reliable source being cited for those. We need real sources, not just what some nobody off the street thinks they saw, because otherwise what we get is confusion, speculation and nonsense. And, again, anyone arguing otherwise is not following policy... the fact that a nice mob of people who know nothing about how encyclopedias work are routinely violating policy does not mean that what they are doing is suddenly acceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see why there would be an issue with the nominations table, as it is just a simple presentation of facts. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Teabaggers and Astroturfing
Can't more than 42,000 Google hits be used to prove common usage or perception? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teabagger&oldid=309117752 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astroturfing&action=history You might also want to read "Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate" http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html?iref=mpstoryview -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google hits are not a good way to go. Use reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable review source for TV show
There seems to be a dispute going on over at the Torchwood: Children Of Earth article page regarding what is an acceptable source for critical reviews. The reviews in the "Reception" section are mostly from professional television critics who work for established publications or websites. However, somebody has included a review from a writer called Lawrence Miles, who is not a professional critic. He is basically a Dr Who fan, albeit a notable one who has written some spin-off novels and unathorised episode guides (but nothing for television) and is known in fan circles. He posted his review on his personal blog. This has led to a debate about whether or not he and his review meet the criteria for WP:MOSTV and WP:RS, and also WP:SOURCES (which one editor has stated is policy and not just merely a guideline that can be seen as flexible). There is also an issue about whether his review (which I admit does come across as gushing fancruft) actually warrants inclusion in the first place as it doesn't particularly offer an opinion that isn't already covered in other reviews in the section. Perhaps someone can have an unbiased look? GoldCoaster (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source cited is Blogspot. Whether it was Hitler, Einsten or Churchill writing, it should be removed unless a WP:RS-passing source can be found. And even if there was, that man has not written anything for Torchwood, just Doctor Who, making his opinion rather irrelevant. Would the opinion of a bus driver be worthy in an article on a nationwide train strike? No. Out of interest, hat is the ratio of users wanting to keep the comments and those wanting them removed? DJ 01:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is generally meant to apply to factual material. A reviewer's opinion is not factual material, and WP:RS should not apply to it. (Of course, if WP:RS were to be applied, every blog would probably pass the test, since the blog is the source for a statement of its author's opinion -- and this should demonstrate why WP:RS is not the appropriate test to apply here.) I would think that the appropriate test(s) would include the general reputation of the reviewer and the extent to which the review reflects a nonfringe opinion.  The pertinent tests involve not Wikipedia policy but editorial judgment, and should be determined by consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't go down that road. There isn't some exemption for 'reviews' because you think they are just opinions.  Our guideline for reliable sources and our policy on verifiability apply to reviews as well as they do factual claims. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I think reviews are "just opinions." Reviews are "just opinions." Because they are "just opinions," they're self-authenticating. And reviews can't possibly be subject to WP:V in the same way that factual claims are; otherwise they'd all fail WP:V and be off limits for use in Wikipedia articles, because de gustibus non est disputandum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you declare what you think to be a fact doesn't make it so. A review is on the spectrum of 'author interpretation/creation' along with most works of non-fiction and journalism.  If we adopt some sort of arbitrary distinction and say things like "the foundation is concrete" is a fact and "Michael Bay's movies are soulless" is an opinion, then there is not only a lot of room in between but the borders of our definitions are porous.  Works of non-fiction present narratives, or at least dominant perspectives without (sometimes with) comment or explanation.  Selection of sources, parsing of events and depiction of outcomes are all the product of the author.  'Factual' reports on the stock market crash of 1987 proceeded from the assumption/opinion that portfolio insurance exacerbated the crisis when evidence today suggests that it was not.  Are the statements from sources (both named and unnamed) in those articles and reports opinions?  Because they clearly aren't 'facts' in the sense that we would like.  And their presentation is prejudicial toward a set of perspectives which are hidden to the reader.  On the flip side, is Roger Ebert's review of a given film solely his opinion?  Surely some pertinent "facts" from the film must surface during the review?  The cast?  The crew?  Are those facts?  Do we trust Ebert to relay them accurately?  Are they elemental enough that trust is not required?  What about scenes?  Is the statement "the movie is too long by at least 20 minutes" just as much of an opinion as the statement "the lead actor and actress lacked chemistry together"?  What if Roger Ebert writes a column in a magazine about lenses?  Is that column a collection of his opinions about lenses?  Is it a fact because it doesn't come under the 'review' umbra?  Can it contain facts?  I'm not asking these questions to batter you about the head and shoulders.  I'm asking them to point out that we don't have a clear distinction between 'opinion' and fact'.  And if we did it certainly wouldn't be one that says "factual claims need to meet RS but claims in reviews don't have to come from RS's". Protonk (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a self published source, and reliable as to Lawrence Miles's opinion. Whether it should be used is based on whether he is a expert on the subject, and in the case of a review, I would say also whether his opinion is notable.  He sounds borderline as an expert, and judging by the current state of the article about him, borderline notable.  Two borderlines is not good, but WP:V does not automatically exclude the information, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

With respects to WP:RS, its not a matter about whether or not reviews are factual or just opinion. We already know that reviews from critics are just opinions. The issue is whether or not a review written on Blogspot is a reliable source, particularly by somebody who is not a professional TV critic. Although blogs are generally not appropriate as sources for Wiki articles, there are some exceptions such as when a journalist or field expert writes on their own company, newspaper or academic blogspace (any of which would help to establish their identity and credentials). However, this review was done on Blogspot, which is a free blogging site open to absolutely anyone. This would surely fail WP:RS. Another problem is that the source also just links to his blog, on which there is masses and masses of information and readers must sift through the whole thing just to find the quote that was cited (therefore creating a spam/promotion issue). As for the notability of the person in question, I feel its inappropriate to include his review because he's just some guy that only hardcore Dr Who fans are familiar with. Ray Bradbury said that Close Encounters Of The Third Kind was the best sci-fi film he had ever seen. Philip K. Dick famously referred to Disney's The Black Hole as crap. Arthur C. Clark listed Star Wars in his top ten sci-fi films of all time. All of these are relevant because they are all leading, renowned, well-respected science fiction authors who would widely be considered to be experts in the field. But who the hell is Lawrence Miles? He's nobody. He's a self-proclaimed fan of Dr Who who has written a few unauthorised episode guides and some spin-off novels. There is no editorial oversight involved in his review (as per WP:V), and he has (according to his own article page) publicly admited to writing unfair reviews whilst he has been drunk (if a professional critic did that, they'd be fired). In addition to all of these problems, his review does not seem to warrant being in the article and, looking through the article's edit history, it was obviously placed there by Torchwood fans as they try to turn the page into some kind of ridiculous fanpage rather than an encyclopedic article. Unfortunately, this kind of practice is quite common on sci-fi articles that tend to attract a fanboy element. Kookoo Star (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the person who initially posted the quotes from Miles' review, I should probably explain. The tag underneath the critical reception bit said "in need of expansion". I'd just read the Miles essay, and thought it noteworthy as he's been so thoroughly critical of Torchwood up until now (even his comment on Children of Earth being "against all expectations, a work of Proper Drama" can hardly be called fancruft - it's a backhanded compliment if anything!). So I added it. I also added the Daniel Martin guardian.co.uk quotes, and searched for some more negative stuff to provide balance, but couldn't find anything. For those who argue Miles is irrelevant because he's not a critic, fair enough, but I think I should point out there's been an entire section devoted to his negative response to the Doctor Who episode The Unquiet Dead - with absolutely no mention of other critical opinion - for ages now. I can't see why this has survived the chop for so long, while his response to Children of Earth has provoked this whole debate. Are we saying that when he gives a positive review it's the opinion of a drunken "nobody", but when he slags something off it's worthy of it's own exclusive section on the episode page? Sorry, for prolonguing this debate, I will understand if no-one can be bothered anymore. - 79.78.217.186 (User talk:79.78.217.186) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his review has survived so far on another article page isn't really relevant to be honest. It just means that nobody has gotten round to removing it yet (perhaps because that article page got less traffic than the TW:COE one and therefore hasn't been help up to the same level of scrutiny). Miles' opinions, positive or negative, are totally irrelevant because (and I don't want to sound rude but its true) he's nobody important. The reception sections in articles are for professional critics, though we can occassionally include critiques from other sources (see my previous message above). However, Miles does not fall into either category. If there is indeed a review from him on the other article page you mention, then it should be removed. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

De Hollandsche Molen and Molendatabase websites
Are the Dutch Molendatabase website and the De Hollandsche Molens website considered to be Reliable sources? These have been questioned at T:TDYK where I nominated the De Heidebloem, Erica article for DYK. I believe that both meet WP:RS. De Hollandsche Molens is one of the premier mill societies in the Netherlands. The Molendatabase aims to cover all windmills past and present in the Netherlands and Belgium. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While that's certainly an important question that needs to be answered, an important follow-up is "Can you base an article entirely upon these two tertiary sources?"  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  08:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's easy: sure you can. If they're deemed reliable, such an article can stand. BTW, I believe in the reliability of De Hollandsche Molen; I need to look more carefully at the other. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked at nl:Overleg_Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Molenproject about these websites. User:Akoopal replied:-


 * "Moeilijke vraag. Van de Hollandse Molen ben ik zeker geneigd ja te zeggen, daar zit een professionele organisatie achter. De molendatabase is vrijwillig, er is echter wel een redactie dus niet iedereen kan er zomaar wat opzetten, en ik neem aan dat Leo dingen wel controleert. Maar het blijft een enkele vrijwilliger. Ik ben zelf wel geneigd er op af te gaan."


 * A rough translation is - difficult question. De Hollandse Molen I'd say yes because it's a professional organisation. The Molendatabase is run by a volunteer, it is editable but not just anyone can put anything up. I expect that info supplied is checked.


 * Hopefully this will help to confirm that the sources are good. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't speak Dutch. So I can only rely on imperfect internet translators.  But, regarding Molendatabase, it does appear that you've failed to translate one important bit of  User:Akoopal's statement:  the clause beginning er is echter wel een redactie dus niet translates as "there is not, however, an editorial staff".  Doesn't that statement kinda rule that source out, per WP:SOURCES and indicate WP:SELFPUB?  Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a correct translation. That sentence says, "The molendatabase [that is, the other one, not the one run by De Hollandsche Molen--note the blue link!] is run by volunteers [or, information is added by volunteers], but there is an editorial staff so not everyone can just put anything on it, and I assume that Leo will check things." In English, you'd have a a comma after "redactie" (what you saw as a clause is a clause and a half), and "er is echter wel een redactie" means "there is, however, an editorial staff [or board]." Drmies (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, okay, that's helpful, then. So is that enough to satisfy you, or would you requrie more?  See, they have an English translation of their own which I read some time ago, and I wasn't sure how to take it:


 * "The Dutch Windmill and Watermill Database is the complete collection of working wind- and watermills in the Netherlands. The database is mainly based on contributions by professionals involved in the operation and maintenance of Dutch mills and thus a unique monument reflecting the current knowlegde in this field of expertise. A staff of professional-level editors maintains the database on a daily basis. The Dutch Windmill Database was the first complete inventarisation of Dutch mills on the internet and was started by Bert Bulder in Augustus 1999. Editors are Bert Bulder, Leo Middelkoop, Rob Pols and Tim Dreesen. "


 * On the surface that looks good, but they're asserting their own "professional"-ness. What do we have to confirm that they are professionals, especially in light of this user's statement that they're run by volunteers?  And what is a "professional mill spotter", anyway?  Wouldn't there have to be some kind of proof that they'd published on the subject of mills in other third-party publications?   And how do we know that "editor" doesn't mean there anymore than it does here at Wikipedia?


 * On the subject of my original question here, you said that it was "easy" to say an article could exist entirely on the basis of tertiary sources. Could you explain that a little more, please, especially in light of the policy: WP:PSTS?  Thanks for all your help :)   Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This source gives an overview of the Molendatabase website. Bert Bulder and Leo Middelkoop would appear to be involved in windmill preservation. This may be the Rob Pols in question. Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All that's nice, but it doesn't establish anything about them as "professionals" in the sense that we require. As I understand Wikipedia policy, "professional" means, essentially, "professionally published".  A guy running a nuclear power plant may indeed be an expert, but unless he's published in third party publications, his views couldn't be incorporated in the article, nuclear power plant.  He may be right in everything he says, but that's, perhaps counter-intuitively, irrelevant. It's right there in the first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".   Besides, there's a real question as to whether someone who's a professional windmill preserver is the same thing as a professional windmill historian.   Does a guy who knows precisely how to replace a 19th century stock really qualify as an expert on the fact that "the sails on the mill were rented from sailmaker Wouda of Meppel?"   Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Messrs Bulder and Middelkoop would appear to be professional millwrights, which would also mean that they are likely to be experts on mills. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CzechOut, sorry I couldn't respond earlier. I'll give you my verdict first. I have faith in De Hollandsche Molen and their database, and consider it a highly reliable source. I have enough faith, at this moment, in Molendatabase, considering that they have an editorial board which consists of people who are working in the profession and seem to be deemed knowledgeable--by Akoopal, for instance (a volunteer miller himself), and Leo Middelkoop, an editor on at least one publication on windmills. I don't think that comparing either of these databases to wikis is correct. The suggestion that they are 'self-proclaimed' experts, well, sure. I have enough faith in their professionality, which is confirmed, for me, by the scope and scale of their project and the looks and quality of the entries. I don't know where you got "professional mill spotter," but it seems to me that these guys (and since the last few decades girls also) are professionals in the mill business, inasmuch as one can be a professional in a field run by volunteers and charitable contributions. I mean, look at this. It took the guy thirty years to build this--he is not a professional in the sense that he gets paid for his work, he doesn't make the national papers with it, he might not even have a certification from Het Gilde van Vrijwillige molenaars. But I'll take his word over sails or stocks or whatever over some journalist's printed statement. The 'self-published' note you have brought up a few times, sure, both databases are self-published. How else could they have been published? But that's hardly like a publishing company describing a book they have published--De Hollandsche Molen doesn't "own" the mills they have listed (well, they own twelve--less than 1%), nor do they "sell" them, unless by "selling" you also mean educate and promote for a more general purpose. I must say, I have some problems with the implication that since these are self-published they either are promotional or lack editorial oversight. They clearly aren't promotional, and if a project of the sheer size of Molendatabase was of lower quality than, say, Dutch Wikipedia, they would have been run out of town a long time ago (plenty of Dutch still love their mills, take them seriously, and consider them important). Disclaimer: I once had a very romantic picnic on the Zaanse Schans, on a little boat in the shadow of The Huisman. Champagne and kisses were involved. Finally, can an article on WP be based on two tertiary sources? Yes, I said, and I stand by that--as long as those sources are good. I see nothing in WP:PSTS to prevent me from saying so. If a topic is treated in, say, the Lexikon des Mittelalters and the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, and a WP article cites only those two, I'd like to meet the editor who can claim the topic is not notable. But that point is moot: I maintain that since most Dutch windmills are Rijksmonumenten they are therefore notable. National Historic Landmarks are notable, as far as I have been able to tell in AfD discussions and other places, and that should apply to foreign equivalents also. There may not be any policy that says so, but one should expect WP policy to cover everything. But by now we/I keep three strands going here--notability of this one windmill, reliability of these two databases, and reliance on tertiary sources. I say yes on all of them. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll forgive me for remaining skeptical.  I suppose I wouldn't have spent so much time on this if I'd just given it a "good faith acceptance" of a non-English source.   But "good faith" can't honestly be given if the sources fail cursory examination of the various sources.  Given that the article currently cites Herb's Home Page in such a way that you would never know it was "Herb's Home Page", I think there's just cause to continue to proceed with caution and look for some other voices on this matter.


 * And indeed I hope you won't mind me waiting for others to comment before considering this closed. After all, Drmies, you are also a participant in the T:DYK nomination discussion, and there appears to be some amount of prior and prejudicial contact between you and User:Mjroots (see User talk:Drmies and  Template talk:Did you know).   I'm a little uncomfortable that you also created the De Hollandsche Molen article here on the same day that you pointed out, above, that it was blue-linked.  Seems hardly cricket to create an article about a contested site mid-discussion and then say, "See, we even have an article about them!"  (I'm not suggesting that the article is non-notable, of course, or even that it shouldn't exist.  Just that the timing's a bit suspect.)


 * More importantly, though, there's no point to bringing up this question on this talk page if it's merely become a second version of the same argument at T:DYK. A neutral party, who has never been involved any any sort of discussion about mills would be very helpful at this juncture.  While I certainly accept the validity of De Hollandsche Molen at this point, I still have concerns about the Mollendatabse.  So far, there's no independent verification of genuine editorial oversight, and not much more than you and Mjroots saying that of course it's okay.   In my view, the discussion on this page has less to do with approving a DYK nom and much more about establishing the validity of a source that might be used in many other articles.  About the only thing you said in your reply above that speaks concretely to counter WP:SELFPUB is that one of its editors, Leo Middlekoop, published a book.   But what is this book?  Well, I can't get my li'l translator to give me an exact translation of the title.  It's something like Mills of South Holland.  But the subtitle of the book is  224 Mills in Pictures.  And the text seems to have something to do with "anecdotes" about the various mills, easily accessible to the public.   In other words, it's not a scholarly work or a journal.  It's a tourist's memento.  So this Leo guy, not so much an historian according to this work.  Nothing I've seen so far establishes his database's authority to say anything on the historical past of this mill.   Again, the point is not whether the people running the site are millers.  It's rather whether they're professional historians about mills, and whether their statements can be verified.


 * Specifically, the central question for others to review now is whether this Mollendatabase is a legitimate source for their unsourced statement, "Between 1894 and 1911, the sails on the mill were rented from sailmaker Wouda of Meppel."   Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We are agreed that the De Hollandsche Molens website is a RS. We have a non-involved editor (Akoopal) saying that the Molendatabase website is probably reliable enough. It is not an open wiki like Wikipedia. There is a group of editors responsible for maintaining the database. If you check an individual mills entry on each website you will see that there aren't any major differences between them, which should also be evidence that the Molendatabase is a reliable source.


 * As I stated in my message to Drmies, I felt it was a courtesy to inform him of the objections raised at T:TDYK as I had mentioned him in my initial reply. Drmies approved the Jantina Hellingmolen article for DYK. This article used the same sources that Czechout deemed non-reliable. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Interview with "Expert"?
Is it ever possible to include information gained first hand by someone involved in a project and use them as a reference? For example, I know an individual who worked for the National Bureau of Standards and was involved in developing the Bat_(guided_bomb). I feel like there is a lot I could contribute to this article, but the individual has no published works or anything like that. Only a lot of amazing stories (not appropriate I know) and great information, like people that worked on it and such. Is there any way this stuff can be included? Wedgiey1 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. See WP:RS and WP:V. You've got to be able to reference the information to a published source.Fladrif (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What a bummer. Maybe I'll record all the stories he tells me down and publish them; this stuff is too good not to share some how.Wedgiey1 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That won't work either. See WP:SPS. Now if you write it and get somebody else to publish it - and I don't mean on somebody else's blog or website; I mean a real publication like a magazine or a newspaper with a real editor - that would be fine.Fladrif (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess local news papers are ok? Wedgiey1 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AbsolutelyFladrif (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, Fladrif.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Facebook reliability
With regards to these edits, while doubly complicated with no citation, is Facebook a reliable source used in this fashion? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 00:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go with practicality on this... go ahead and pull the informaton from facebook and leave it uncited. Birth dates are usually fairly non-controvercial and are unlikely to be challenged.  If the date is challenged, then I would cite to facebook as an appropriate use of a SPS primary source.  If the challenging editor comes back with a secondary source that has a different date, then use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In this instance, I'm the challenging editor. According to Facebook, there're three separate pages claiming to be Bo Burnham.  points to this claim by one of the Bo Burnhams that "just so everyone knows, my birthday is tomorrow".  Given the variables and uncertainty involved, can that reasonably be cited as a reliable source?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather we didn't source a claim like that. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it meets SPS in some fashion, but I really think that this list ought to be much much shorter. There is a difference between a blog and a quasi-status message which makes it hard to use facebook than blogspot for a source.  The content is instantly mutable without much warning (and is hard to archive), it is viewed differently by different sets of people (members, members in the same group, friends, etc.), content is fragmented between posts, updates, replies, messages, etc.  We should use information from Facebook only when absolutely necessary (or when it is prudent, like S. Palin's facebook comment about death panels).  Birth dates and stuff can be skipped, IMO.  It's not critical to the biography and if it is really important, people will mention it in a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given my reply above, do you have an opinion on this specific instance? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the facebook page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, given your new information about the multiple facebook pages, you do have a solid reason to challenge the use of facebook in this particular article... even using it as an SPS. It would be wrong of us to guess which Bo Burnham on facebook corresponds to the one who is the topic of an article on Wikipedia.  This might change if we can establish which is which. Blueboar (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did some research and poking around and here's what I came up with; mebbe you guys can help me figure out how to cite this. (a) Bo Burnham's official site (http://boburnham.com) links to his official Twitter account (http://www.twitter.com/boburnham).  (b) On his Twitter account, Burnham announced that he's regained control of [one of] his Facebook fan pages (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bo-Burnham/10947828617).  (c) On said Facebook fan page, he announced at approximately 1927 UTC (1227 his local time) that his birthday was tomorrow (the 21st).  (d) The article already his his cited birth year and month, and this gives us the date. While convoluted, I don't find it to fail a reliability check.  That being said, how the frak to cite it so that it can be found duly reliable to the end user?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not seeing why it is worth the bother. There is no real need to list his birthday on the wikipedia page, so I don't think we should have to go through the rigmarole of determining which facebook page is official just to mirror it here. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors are going to continue to add it regardless of citing it or not. Wouldn't it be better to cite it (despite it's convoluted pedigree), than to revert editors and anons telling them ... what?  That we could put it in, but we'd really rather they didn't?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 09:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so that leads us to the next question... Is there really a need to cite this information? Is there a dispute as to when he was born?  Why not simply leave it uncited?  Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Official website reporting on its own history
Would http://www.election.gov.np/EN/ec/historical.php be considered a reliable source in an article about the commission? The basic case is an official website of a government(ish) entity reporting on that entity's history. Thoughts?  Fl ee tf la me   02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's reliable, it's just not independent. So, it doesn't help with notability, and be careful of self promotion or leaving out unflattering info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, yes, I assumed all the rest of that. That helps, thanks!    Fl ee tf la me   03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Use with caution, may be reliable. Nepal is having some politcal struggles right now. I'm assuming that's a government website. I'm actually travelling over there in a month, and here's what the Canadian gov't is telling travellers right now: "Following an intense period of unrest and armed conflict, the political and security situation remains fragile and volatile...widespread disruptions in Kathmandu since the Prime Minister resigned on May 4, 2009. Due to political instability...Nepal’s political situation is extremely fragile and has undergone significant change in the last several years...Tensions between rival political groups remain high and travellers should be aware that violence has occurred in the past...OFFICIAL REGISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: We offer a registration service for all Canadians travelling..." (snipped for brevity) It isn't sounding quite like the government there is in the best, most reliable, frame of mind at the moment... Also, would count as self-published I'd think. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A quotation in Osho
Please ref: Article = Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), Talk page section = Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)...

I would like to ask if it would be appropriate to cite the following website, http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/rajneesh.html, which holds a quotation that is also in the Osho article in this section (if it hasn't been removed from the Wikipedia article). Can this website, "enlightened-spirituality.org", and its contributor, Timothy Conway, be considered a reliable source?

Also, please consider two more websites as possible reliable sources for the same quotation: http://www.sannyasnews.org/latest/archives/27 and http://www.rebelliousspirit.com/osho-webzine/1476/show/sharing

The quotation is as follows: "I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world."

- Anthony Thompson

I should also note that there has been a lively discussion on this page before I realized that it was the incorrect place to ask about sources. &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of these sources are reliable. The key here is where the quote originated  ... It is seems to be an email from Thompson to Conway that Conway put on his wepage.   I don't think we can call that a reliable source.Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the original first appearance on Thompsons blog, [] the sannyasnews have reposted it with his permission. So, I think that makes it a third party citation, Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can also see that it is a faithful representation of the original as we have the self published source. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible, Blueboar, that perhaps at least one of the proposed sources is at least "reliable enough" for this application? I suppose what I'm really asking is, "How is source reliability objectively determined and applied?"  There may come a day when I'm experienced enough to help out on these source pages, plus, if I can better distinguish how such a question is answered, I won't be clogging up this page in the future with similar requests.  According to the first paragraph on this page, source reliability is heavily determined by context.  Both I and at least one other editor have spent a good part of the day trying to locate reliable sources for this quotation.  I don't mind continuing to look, but I'd like to have a better idea, within the existing guidelines and policies, of what I'm looking for before I trouble you with another source or sources.  Thank for your help and your tolerance of my newness.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I stand corrected... the original was not an email... it was a blog posting on Mr. Thompson's blog. However, personal blogs are not considered reliable sources for information on Wikipedia (see WP:RS and WP:V)  The fact that this blog posting was subsequently quoted in other blogs, personal websites and eventually on organizational websites does change the fact that the original was unreliable to begin with.
 * It comes down to this, why should we trust or care what Mr. Thompson has to say about this Osho guy? ... does he have any expertize on the subject, has he ever published on the subject in an academic journal (or equivalent)? Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Blueboar for your continued tolerance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the importance of 3rd-party reliable sources in the case of quotations was to show that the words were actually spoken or written by the original person who is being quoted beyond little or no shadow of doubt.  It is verification that the words were not just posted and forgotten, or spoken first by someone else, but actually quoted by a 3rd party, and perhaps criticized or expounded upon, a 3rd party who must also be considered as trustworthy and reliable to some preferred degree.  Is this not at least partly correct?  Or am I way off the beam?
 * We should bring ourselves to trust anybody who is quoted, especially as it pertains to biographies. Since this is not a biography of a living person, the cruciality is not so enhanced, but a degree of care must still be taken.  I have personally come to trust that what Mr. Thompson has to say about Osho is an accurate description from his POV, and it deserves to be in the article and to improve the article to actually contribute to the NPOV of the article.  While Thompson did know Osho when he was alive, he apparently did not "fall under his charismatic spell" and was able to calmly and professionally answer some of Calder's criticism's of Osho.  The above quotation, having also been quoted in its entirety in the Conway piece, but with no other words from the rest of Thompson's essay around it, reaches me as important enough to include in and to improve the Osho article.  However, I do realize that, no matter how important and helpful I or anyone else might consider this quote to be, unless at least one reliable 3rd-party source is found for the quote, it cannot be used.  This is why I am continuing to search for a better source, and yet I also hope that my previous search was not in vain.  I hope that at least one of the three sources I provided above is at least reliable enough in this context to use with and to support the Thompson quote.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) PS. If I'm not mistaken, any and all "original" renditions of a quote are "unreliable" and unusable. However I do not understand how this has any bearing at all on the reliability of a 3rd-party quoting source.
 * (ec) PPS. To answer one more of your questions, I have not found any instance where Thompson has been published other than his original article and subsequent 3rd-party quotes of his article on the web. However and again, this goes to his notability, and until and unless a policy or guideline can be shown to require the notability of people who are quoted, then this issue can only be considered as minor, if considered at all.
 * The Sannyasnews site is reliable enough and responsible enough to be a reliable source for this uncontentious quote. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Off2riorob, and if others agree, then the other two sources are also quite trustworthy, reliable and good as well!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:RS and the WP:SPS section of WP:V. It isn't a question of whether the other sources have accurately quoted Thompson... the question is whether the article should quote Thompson in the first place.  Ultimately it comes down to determining if Thompson is a reliable source.  If he isn't, then it does not really matter how many websites quote him... he remains unreliable and we shouldn't quote him.  Tied in with this is the question of giving Thompson's views Undue weight by quoting him.Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at those self published links, Thompson although amongst people that follow Osho he is respected as informed on the subject, he is not really a published authourative expert. I would say that inclusion i would not be undue weight as the article is long and this is in the comments about osho section and the comment itself is not contentious in any way, just says, that he admires osho for in his opinion doing this and that... I am unconvinced that its inclusion is really wrong for the article or wrong for the project. However I am not very experianced in the strength of sources...Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good thing. If I read you correctly, Blueboar, then it should be okay to use the Thompson quote.  You say that "ultimately it comes down to determining if Thompson is a reliable source".  If Thompson were not a reliable source, then would his article almost in its entirety be published on a burgeoning news website devoted to sannyasin, followers of Osho?  Would his article be quoted on an official Osho website?  Would Thompson be quoted by an author of many essays on many subjects, Timothy Conway, and criticized by Conway, if he were not considered a notable person by Conway and Osho followers alike?  Thompson may not be notable on a global level, but then neither was Osho.  I never heard of Osho until fairly recently when I stumbled across his Wikipedia article.  There should be no question of Thompson's notability among those who follow and who are "in the know" about Osho's life.


 * We wouldn't even be here if we did not think that Thompson was a reliable source. We are here to find out if the three 3rd-party sources, or any one or two of them, are considered reliable enough in this context to be used to source the Thompson quote.  May we please have a decision on this?  Neither I nor fellow editor of the Osho article, Off2riorob, are experienced enough to make this decision.  There is no doubt in our mind that the Thompson quote would improve the Osho article.  The only doubt we have is whether or not any of the three sources we searched for are reliable sources in this context.  If they are, then we will use them.  If they are not, then other sources, better sources, will be searched for.  Thank you very much for a speedy decision in this matter.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding the issue correctly: So the only case in which we can use Thompson's blog post as a reliable source, is under the exceptions listed ubder WP:SPS, namely if it can be shown that Thompson is an acknowledged expert on new religious movements in general, and/or Osho in particular. Off2riorob you mention that Thompson is "respected as informed on the subject". He himself says that
 * Someone named Anthony Thomas wrote a blogpost "CHRISTOPHER CALDER, KRISHNA CHRIST AND HIS LYING OR MISINFORMED "LOST TRUTH". in September 2007. His profile says that he is a "psychotherapist/University professor" and he has not written any previous or subsequent posts on his blog.
 * Various other websites www.sannyasnews.org, www.rebelliousspirit.com, and www.enlightened-spirituality.org have quoted from Thomposon's blogpost. However none of these websites appear to be acceptable as reliable sources since their publishers are either unknown, or have not been shown to have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking.

Can someone list what is know about this blogger, for example (1) which university does he work at (2) what is his educational and research background, (3) what (besides one blog post) he has published in the area and, (4) if/where that work has been cited by reputable sources ? Such information will help us decide if he does indeed qualify as an expert and if his blog post is usable as a source. Abecedare (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, has Calder's article "Osho, Bhagwan Rajneesh, and the Lost Truth" been published anywhere besides generic websites such as this one ? If not, Calder should not be used as a source on wikipedia either, and Thompson's rebuttal may be moot. Abecedare (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is not a big deal, it is simply a well written, sourceable comment from a man that it is not disputed that is knowledgable on Osho and has commented around the web, wiki lawyering about its inclusion is a waste of time. its totally harmless. I have taken it out twice as unnotable and uncitable to a wikipedia reliable source, but hey, the person that inserted it, asked me to leave it in as it was not much trouble and I agree with Paine, it is a simple harmless comment that is well written and imo reflective of Osho's work. Sometimes here the depth of guidelines to control inserts is used here to over rule common sense. I have been also programmed to react in the same way, oh no, is is unreliable, oh no it is self published...well the truth is that it is a simple comment that is non disputed and is around the web and it's insertion does no harm at all to the article or the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * rob, there is nothing gained in adding some randomer's strongly POV remark, doing so does not benefit the quality of any article, and it does not serve wikipedia long term to add random opinions here and there because we can. If every Osho fan who rolled in here adds their favorite quote where will be? Qualified and appropriately sourced opinions are already presented in the article, personally I think they should suffice for now. There is no concensus for the inclusion of this item. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi, It is a POV remark, it is thompson's opinion, but that is clear..so not really a problem. I can easily agree with you, right now over this, I agree with you when you say ...where would we be if we had random comments from john and harry, perhaps I can support removal and more discussion about the addition. As I said I have twice taken it out myself but on interrogation from the inserter I consider the comment harmless. For the wiki lets take it out for now, it is a single comment from a slightly notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that WP:V requires that all quotes be attributable to "reputable, published source". Since a blog post by an unknown person does not fall in that category, it cannot be used in the article; even local consensus cannot overrule core wikipedia policy. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More wiki lawyering..... this is atributable to a reliable source, so it can be overruled, ... have a look at what is being inserted Abecadare, you are quoting core policy that is designed to protect the wikipedia.. this discussion is over a harmless comment that whilst we have been discussing it has remained harmless in the article.. this is not a case of core policy at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "this is atributable to a reliable source" What reliable source ?
 * PS: When a query is raised at this board and uninvolved editors respond based on wikipedia policy, calling it wikilawyering is not really civil, and doesn't reflect well on an experienced editor such as you. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ok, I take the wiki lawyering back, you are involved previously in this topic aren't you? Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion over this has been moved to my talk page. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Abecedare. Thompson gives some details of his qualifications here; he claims he is extensively published in his native Spanish. However, I can't actually find any evidence of relevant publications, i.e. in google scholar or google books. Not RS. -- JN 466  15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Calder is the same sort of thing – a self-published website. We don't feature Calder, so Thompson's rebuttal of him is indeed moot. -- JN 466  15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Jayen, please remember that I didn't bring this here to debate the merits of Calder or because Thompson answered some of his criticisms of Osho. This is about sourcing a harmless quote that I believe balances out the rest of the section and sets forth avenues for further expansion.  If not Calder, who by the way is notable enough among Osho followers to be mentioned in an adversarial way both on the official Osho website and the Sannyasin News website, then some of the others already mentioned in the section might be more detailed in the future to continue to keep the section and article NPOV. And to give our readers more useful information about Osho and his followers, both when he was alive and now that he's dead.
 * All I would like here, in fact the only reason I came here, is because I sincerely believe that Thompson's quote improves the section and the article (not to mention Wikipedia), and that all I need is an experienced and decisive editor to check out the three sources I submitted above and to rule on which, if any, would be okay to use to support that the quote is a real Thompson quote. One website is a burgeoning news source for those who still follow Osho's teachings; one website is the official Osho website (both of those websites printed Thompson's words almost in their entirety, so this shows me that Thompson must be considered notable among Osho followers); one website is full of essays by its webmaster about many different subjects and includes not the whole Thompson essay, but only the exact same quotation I want to keep in the Osho article.  Hopefully, one or more of those web sites is reliable enough in this context to be used to support the quote.  If none of the three sources are adjudged supportive enough, then I shall find others if I can.  Thank you again for your experienced input and counsel!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   17:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fail. None of the reasons for inclusion make any argument to dismiss the valid reasons for keeping it out. Not RS, not a notable source, not an expert, no corroborating works referencing anything else from this "qualified" source, inability to find anything else from this "expert" even in spanish. On a sidenote, there seems to be a reasonably high quality of sources throughout the rest of the Osho article, this source seems even less worthy when compared to those already included (Which has no bearing on my opinion if it's RS or not, just an observation). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your decision, Maelefique, and I thank all for your input! I've searched and searched for a better source, and none seems to be available.  So this issue is resolved.  Best of everything to you and yours!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Question conserning the relaibility of the source, Beacon Light of the Himalayas
Comments would be helpful on the reliability of the source, Beacon Light of the Himalayas  being cited on the Transcendental Meditation article, 5th paragraph.


 * Fundamental points about the source include:

The source was published as a souvenir, probably by the individual running the week long “conference “ at which Maharishi Mahesh Yogi spoke. The source seems to be a transcript. Part of the book 18 of 170 pages are stated to be a transcript of Maharishi’s words. The rest of the book is made up of addresses, pictures, and pages in Hindi or Sanskrit.


 * Those supporting the books’ reliability say it can be used because the book in mentioned in other sources as a transcript of Maharishi’s words, verifying that the words are the Maharishi's. .As well, the book itself attributes 17 pages of text to Maharishi.


 * Objections to the book's reliability include, the publishing record of the book:
 * From WP:Reliable Sources

''Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process… How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.''

The book was published by the organizer of the conference, not a publishing house, so is self published. There was no “reliable publication process”.


 * And again from Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made….

The book is being used in the Transcendental Meditation article but Transcendental Mediation is never mentioned in the book. Concerns are that, by relying on other sources to support the assertion that parts of the book are Maharishi's words, and therefore by extension must be about the TM technique, WP:OR is violated.


 * Extended discussion is here.(olive (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I disagree about the OR assertion. The topic of a source will not always be identifiable by specific keywords, especially for religious and spiritual teachings. For example, the third epistle of John the Prebyster makes no mention of "Jesus", "Christ", "Christian", "Christianity" or any other such explicit keywords, but it is unquestionably a Christian text (as part of the standard biblical canon). If a number of reliable sources make it clear that a source is regarding a particular topic, we should accept that the source is about a particular topic. To argue against the body of reliable sources is OR, not accepting their report. (That is not to say that we should report grossly inaccurate information, obvious misstatements, aberrant tiny minority views, or anything of the like. However, such concerns do not appear to be the case here.)

That all said, a source such as this should only be used as supplementary and complimentary material. For example,it would be appropriately used to provide illustrative quotations to accompany material cited to reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. As another example, it would be suitable as a secondary citation to accompany a main citation to a reliable source discussing the material. Overemphasizing such material, citing it to highlight aspects not highlighted by secondary reliable sources, using it to push points not represented in other reliables, and similar usage almost assuredly runs into the territory of undue weight and other serious concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that you have identified the salient point about this source. As shown on the TM Talk page olive linked to above, multiple reliable, independent secondary sources identify "Beacon Light" as the Maharishi's first published book on Transcendental Meditation. So, there isn't any legitimate question that the words attributed to the Maharishi aren't the Maharishi's or that it isn't about TM (although he hadn't invented the term just yet). The book appears on its face to be a compilation of documents from the Maharishi's "Spiritual Renewal" conference in October 1955 at Kerala, including transcripts of speeches delivered by the Maharishi, published and printed by the organizer of the conference.  To argue about it being "Self-published" misses the point entirely, as self-published sources certainly can be used in Wikipedia, with limitations. It is best characterized as a Primary Source, and as such certainly can be used in a Wikipedia article, subject to the various policies on the limited use of Primary Sources.  A short quote or two can hardly be regarded as giving the source undue weight, as it is hardly the sole or even primary source for the article, particularly for an article as extensively footnoted as the one in question. Fladrif (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vassyana I appreciate your response, and you make some good points.
 * I'm not convinced that the comparison to Christianity is a true parallel. The gospels underlie and support Christianity's philosophical structure. If we look at the gospels for specific techniques, not guides but actual techniques, to support a Christian life there aren't any really. The Catholic Mass as an example isn't described explicitly as far as I know, so we can't really use the gospels to describe or support descriptions of that "technique". I certainly could go into the gospels and tack together references that would seem to describe the Mass for example, but the Mass as we know it today is never described in the gospels.


 * No one doubts the words in the Beacon light can be pretty closely attributed to the Maharishi. He comments are more philosophical though, and at no time does he explicitly describe the TM technique. I could go into the book and put together certain words and phrases that would seem to describe the technique, still I can't say that the technique itself is being described, nor can anyone else.  No one knows when the present day technique was finalized. There is evidence that the technique was once a single-mantra technique, for example, and later became a multiple-mantra technique so the book as a source used to reference aspects of the TM technique as we are referencing it in this article, not the Philosophy but the technique itself, are pretty weak, by Wikipedia standards hardly reliable, and do rely on a synthesis OR combination. Its critical to this discussion seems to me, to separate the philosophy from the technique, just as it is in the gospels to separate the Mass, from the gospels and the philosophy they give rise to.


 * The most fundamental concern though with this book is that it doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion because it is self published.


 * The book may be described as a primary source as Fladrif says, but then again even a primary source must describe what it says is being describes and I don't see that here.


 * I think what we have in this book is more accurately a historical reference in which can be seen the glimmerings of what would become the underlying philosophy, and a technique for meditation.


 * I agree then that this source should as Vassyana says be only used a s supplementary and complimentary material. I don't necessarily agree with how Fladrif interprets that, but we can deal with that with in more discussion on the TM page. Thanks for the input both. I think we have more clarity on the subject.(olive (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I'd like to see if any other uninvolved editors have any thoughts or comments on this question.Fladrif (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC).


 * What constitutes an uninvolved editor? I have been working on other parts of the Transcendental Meditation article and have come here because of Olive’s note at the end of the talk page asking for more editors’ comments. The last sentence of Vassyana above is the one most relevant and applicable to the reference being discussed. If one reads the scientific articles, press articles, and other literature about this meditation technique, including the later writings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, it is clear that the quotes drawn from Beacon Light of the Himalayas are not consistent with the current writings on the topic. Furthermore, I recall having seen somewhere a quote or passage from the Maharishi in which he states explicitly that his intention in reviving and refining the Transcendental Meditation technique was to remove it from any religious or ritualistic context and place it in a scientific one. He even refers to the technique itself as being “scientific and systematic.” So, even though in the early period when the technique was still being formulated, and especially in the context of a “conference of spiritual luminaries,” expressions of the sort that were drawn from this book may have come from him, these expressions do not reflect the subsequent evolution of the technique nor of the philosophical context in which it came to be presented. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors are editors who haven't been editing the TM-related pages. The whole point of this exercise was not to move the discussion from the TM pages to here, it was to get the perspective of other editors not involved with those particular pages. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a primary source, and the assessment of its reliability and what is the most appropriate way of using it or not using it should be governed by the way it has been cited in secondary sources. So it is probably inappropriate to quote passages from it that have not been quoted in secondary sources, unless such passages chime in very well and merely illustrate points made in secondary sources already. The book should not be used to introduce new points or analyses that are not present in secondary literature.  JN 466  16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think that is an acccurate reading of WP:RS or WP:PRIMARY on the limitations on the use of primary sources. A simple and short quote, without attempting to analyze the statement, is a permitted use of a primary source:
 * Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
 * Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, c'mon now Fladrif you commented here. Its fine for ChemProf to add information On the source, and sure more uninvolved editors would be nice.(olive (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I was just answering the question about what I meant by "uninvolved editors". I obviously don't have any problem with any editor posting their opinions on these questions, whether or not they've been editing the TM articles.  I was just hoping that more univolved editors would give us their thoughts, which was the whole point of this exercise. Fladrif (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying what you meant, Fladrif. I agree that opinions of some different editors are what we are after here. And thanks to JN, who makes another good point. None of the literature on the Transcendental Meditation technique that I have seen ever refers to the Beacon Light book. It is obviously not part of the current discussion of the technique or the philosophy underlying it. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's relevant. A number of reliable secondary sources identify this book as the Maharishi's first published work on TM. Other sources on the 'net, which I freely admit are not reliable sources under Wiki policies for purposes of sourcing an article, claim that the TM Org has attempted for 40 some years to supress this book  not because it is not party of the philosophy underlyhing it, but because it IS  he philosophy underlying it, and disclosure of the true underlying philosophy would presumably undermine the marketing plan by contradicting everything the TM Org presently claims. I have no way of assessing whether that is true or not. But it is every bit as plausible an explanation as yours is.Fladrif (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I guess we will agree to disagree on this one. I find the above comment of JN to be quite in line not only with WP rules but also with the cannons of scientific discourse. Maybe you will counter that this WP article is not scientific discourse. I would claim that, given the nature of many of the disagreements that arise in these pages, the article would benefit from a more scientific treatment. The reference you give to prove that the goal of Maharishi over the years was to suppress the "true nature" of the technique he was teaching is about as far from a scientific treatment (and WP rules) as one can get. To me it represents nothing more significant than the rantings of one or more persons who have become fanatically displeased with what they perceive is Maharishi's teaching and who want to do all they can to discredit it, whether their claims have any reliable backing or not. If this is the type of sources you want to believe in, you have the right. But this does not represent a rational direction for a dispassionate treatment of a topic that is meaningful and useful to the lives of millions of people. Is it possible that we can take a more dispassionate attitude toward the article and try to report it the way the vast majority of practitioners and teachers of the technique see it? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So far there seems to be a general consensus developing with Vassyana, JN466, Olive and Chem that BLH, is a primary source. I agree and would take this conclusion a step further and say that there is serious question as to whether or not this self published document applies at all to the article on Transcendental Meditation where it is currently cited and quoted three times. Only 18 of the 170 pages of the document are attributed to the Maharishi. Nowhere in the document is TM or Transcendental Meditation mentioned. Not even one time.  Instead it describes itself on the cover page as a souvenier of an event on the "easy methods of Spiritual Sadhana". The cover page reads as follows:


 * Beacon Light of the Himalayas, The Dawn of a Happy New Era In the Field of Spritual Practices, Mind Control, Peace and Atmananda, Through simple and easy methods of Spiritual Sadhana, propounded by Maharishi Bala Brahmanchari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj of Uttar Kasi, Himalayas. Souvenier of the Great Spiritual Development Conference of Kerala, October, 1955


 * To say that "Spiritual Sadhana" (which contains multiple undefined "spritual practices") is the same as Transcendental Meditation, is a big stretch. I would also note that only the first source(78)cited by Olive in her opening remarks says that BLH is the Maharishi's first book on TM and contains the translation of a lecture given in Hindi. Second source (79) is simple a footnote acknowledging Mahesh as the author. The third source (80) says the book is a commemorative publication created by the organizers of the event and that Sadhana refers to "the spiritual practices and disciplines that lead to Atmananda". I would further note that all three of these citations are from books on New Religious Movements and these assertions are limited to that particular point of view and are not widely held.-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple independent, reliable sources say this is MMY's first book on TM. Other independent, reliable sources say that MMY renamed his technique and his Movement many times, and that they are all the same thing, dating TM back to the 1955 speaking tour in India of which this conference is a part. The TM Org's official sites quote this book. They also claim that MMY didn't invent TM, but simply popularlized it, handing it down from Guru Dev and an unbroken line of gurus back to the Upanishads. It is disingenuous to claim that what MMY was teaching in 1955 wasn't TM in light of these claims. To assert that "Beacon Light" isn't about TM based on your personal opinion to the contrary doesn't even rise to the level of original research. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Subscription services question
Apologies if this has been covered here before but I would appreciate some advice on the acceptability of using subscription services, especially ones which have to also be searched, as sources for references. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, subscription services?  If you mean like the NY or LA Times, where you have to buy an article, it is perfectly acceptable, after all, it can always be verified by other means (say, going and looking through microfilm).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. If such sources are acceptable then how should they be referenced in articles - in other words, what details should / need to be included.  Just a link to the LA Times website doesn't seem acceptable to me. Afterwriting (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cite the original article title, author (if known), publication and date. Cites don't need URLs. They are handy, but unnecessary. In this case you can provide a link to the subscription service so that those who do have it can go there quickly, but it isn't needed.DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the way I've done it in Checkers speech, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to stem from a discussion at Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my response here. Links to subscription services are provided as courtesy links to help readers locate the full article, but URLs are not required-- sources do not have to be available online.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem, or proscription against, using sources whose access is limited to paid subscribers, as long as they otherwise meet WP:RS standards. Most academic journals, many newspaper archives, and some newspapers fall into this category and are perfectly acceptable. Sources being available online, or free of cost, is not required by any policy or guideline, and indeed, the best sources often aren't (since they can command a price!). Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. My current FAC, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, I went to three archives for materials, such as newspaper clippings from obscure newspapers that are mostly out of business.  I would suspect that very few FA's contain only free web stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles
Hi, user LeadSongDog, a guy that "deal with transformers routinely" is trying to use an article's commentary where the author expresses his own opinions about generalities without making any specific conclusions, using words like: "It is hard to believe", "I give most credit to studies where", "I doubt that", "I appreciate", "it seems unlikely", "Unfortunately, there are reasons to believe", in a Wikipedia article (Alzheimer's disease) which, as any other medical and health-related article, has specific reliability guidelines WP:MEDRS. Additionally the little time between submission and publication of such article's commentary doesn't reflect the nature of a peer reviewed article. I don't see why and how, such commentary should be cited under WP:MEDRS and user LeadSongDog himself failed to expose so, but he continues pushing its use. Since the issue is unresolved for more than two days I'm bringing it to the noticeboard.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a pointer to past related discussions: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27 if I understand the question properly. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably similar but we are talking about a medical and health-related Wikipedia article, that has specific reliability guidelines WP:MEDRS. I don't see even how we can take a conclusion of that commentary, because of the wording and absence of definite conclusions (it doesn't even has a summary or section) and he also goes beyond the topic it was supposed to comment (associated risk of occupational exposure), theorizing about causation and ideal studies.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion is to ask at WT:MEDRS. My second is to determine whether or not the person quoted is an 'expert' as it were on these sorts of things and if he is, include his comments in the article as his opinion. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if he is an expert, it would be difficult to determine that. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? profile, work page, publication list, pub list from scholar including who cites whom.  Doesn't seem that hard to take a stab at what his field of expertise is and what kind of work he has done. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He is an expert but WP:MEDRS predicts the inclusion of "expert committee reports or opinions" not of a single expert commentary.
 * And his opinions aren't conclusive, at the same time he criticize the methodology, "I doubt that these pooled effect estimates are meaningful and they should be considered with caution.", later, when talking about "causation" he agrees with association " the majority of studies in the meta-analysis suggested an association. (...) Since completion of García's literature search (...) only one small case–control study did not. It is hard to believe that these associations are entirely due to bias."
 * And his later study concludes, talking about causation, "The results of our study support the hypothesis that magnetic field exposure plays a role in the etiology of Alzheimer’s disease"--Nutriveg (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I read MEDRS the same way you do. I also don't really see how the nature of his critique precludes its use as an RS.  If he doesn't make conclusive statements then we don't use his words to support a conclusive claim.  We can use his words to support a claim that the studies he is commenting on should be treated with caution.  Invited commentary from field experts plays an important role in scientific discourse.  So long as the journal inviting the commentary is reputable and the commentary comes from an expert, we should include it, insofar as good judgment would allow. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He critizes the methodology, not the conclusion: "association", which he supports. He recommends caution for the "causation" "because of the lack of known biologic mechanisms". The text in dispute is about "association".--Nutriveg (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. What does that have to do with this noticeboard?  the actual dispute over the text is a matter for the talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you said: "We can use his words to support a claim that the studies he is commenting on should be treated with caution." I don't see that so clear, exactly because of the nature of the source: "a commentary", that makes no conclusion.
 * WP:MEDRS is not just about what, but also about how, like "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source", "Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors" and "expert committee reports or opinions, (...) are weaker evidence than the scientific studies themselves".
 * So I don't see why/how we should cite a commentary at all, because commentaries aren't organized as articles, with clear conclusions, so the conclusions we can take out of them are merely interpretative and bias to decontextualization, which disrespects WP:MEDRS overall principles.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) I think we are talking past each other.  I'm pretty sure that MEDRS doesn't mandate a format for sourcing.  I'm also absolutely sure that this isn't a primary source.  I'm perfectly willing to concede that our articles shouldn't weight claims supported by this source as strongly as claims supported by stronger secondary sources (i.e. peer reviewed studies) but that has more to do with the mechanism of selection and fact checking than structure.  But let's do this.  Your stance on the subject is clear.  My stance on the subject is clear.  Let's let some other folks either here on RS/N or involved with the dispute weigh in and we'll see how the discussion moves along. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the issue here is one that stems from two different ways of approaching a claim. One way to approach a claim is to attempt an experiment/observation/test to try to falsify or confirm the claim. This is generally what has happened with regards to EMF safety concerns with mixed results. Alternatively, one can make mechanistic arguments for or against a claim and dismiss/accept the claim out of hand. This is done in the case of, for example, the claim that exposure to outer space is deadly. We pretty much accept this as fact even though no randomized control studies of this environment have been done. In the case of EMF-safety concerns these two groups essentially talk right past each other. The clinical trial group cares not about the mechanism and the mechanism group cares not about the clinical trials. Which group is right? In my book they probably both deserve equal hearing. This is my own editorial opinion, but I think it reasonable. MEDRS is slanted towards clinical trials research because that's the most common research available in the medical community. But mechanistic arguments are also valid and valuable, even if they are relied on less and do not feature as prominently at MEDRS. I say give them equal say. In this case, I think the "commentary" is actually just as good as the clinical trial. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no "mechanism group" here but both accepting "occupational association" and the commentary discussing causation and more detailed research in order to get closer to it. But you made your point about the use of the "commentary" as a source.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit, but it is well-acknowledged that EMF-paranoia has some very strident proponents who are not, shall we say, mainstream? Many times their claims are denied for lack of mechanistic rigor and, indeed, studies attempting to link EMF with various conditions have never really posited a mechanism beyond general fear. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's just talk about the reliability of that source "commentary" for now. You're reading way of the lines, the majority of the studies support the association and no one is discussing causation. Roosli makes no "mechanistic" study until what I know. His commentary, but not his last "peer reviewed scientific article", is being pushed as POV denying occupational association. But his commentary doesn't state that or have that purpose. That's the problem with commentaries, they don't provide a clear conclusion (nor are peer reviewed) so they leave space for interpretation (WP:OR) maybe because of that they aren't listed as a source in WP:MEDRS.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no mechanism then there is no relevant association. If the opinion of the author is that studies are problematic and he is taking the tack because the associations have relevant weaknesses or problematic priors, then it is reasonable to use such commentaries in our articles. This perspective is wholly different from simple correlative studies and should be treated as such. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that a commentary is non peer-reviewed (only editorially) and therefore a less perfect source per MEDRS it is of course relevant since it directly talks about an specific article that is wanted to use as a source and as such it should be noted in the article. However this article only adds to other articles that are being provided in the talk page that point towards a much less consensus among experts that Nutriveg is willing to admit. Specifically he/she has one time and another tried to dismish as a source. I will like to ask for comment here about this specific source since from my point of view is of similar quality to the meta-analysis he provides; but with opposite conclusions. The commentary on the meta-analysis is just another indication that conclusions of the the meta-analysis should be taken with great care and that there is truly no agreement on the effect of electromagnetic fields. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry people are discussing their own opinion about the subject and making interpretations of that commentary instead of evaluating if a source of that kind, that talk about generalities and makes no clear conclusions is a reliable source for a medical article by WP:MEDRS. I'd like to hear more opinions about that and if that's the case I'll update WP:MEDRS to include "editorials" (as it's classified by the journal) as reliable sources and that people can take their own conclusions (WP:OR) from such commentaries, since they don't follow the language, rigor and structure of scientific articles. Since I'll assume the opinions here are not biased towards that specific subject.
 * Taking this commentary as an example one may similarly include in a Wikipedia article that veterinarian's psychological sanity is affected by "ready access to drugs, social and professional isolation, subconscious acceptance of euthanasia as a treatment option, rising client expectations and financial pressures.".
 * Garrondo, while as well talking about "causation", now brings another source we had previously discussed about being reliable for medical articles. He supports that a review (Kheifets,2008) that assumes to supposedly review "any health issue" which the leading author "consults with utilities" and "works with the Electric Power Research Institute" fills WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field". If consensus agree with that, that's open another precedent for similar advocates (industry or fringe) making general conclusions.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Kheifets article I have already said in the AD talk page that its article has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and that means that experts in the field (not you or me who are not) have considered that it was reliable, it had no important technical fallouts and was in summary a good review of the existing literature. This is what truly converts an author into an expert: if a reputable peer reviewed journal decides an article is suitable, then we should not be the ones crying aloud that the author has no knowledge on the field or has a COI. We are not the ones to decide that, but true experts (reviewers). Deciding that from your point of view an article is not suitable is WP:OR since you are implying to be above the peer review proccess of an specific journal: what you are truly saying is something like I do not really care about what experts think about this article or author: I believe it has no value. (Just as a secondary note: I have never talked about "causation" No epidemiological study will ever bring conclusions on causes and I really do not know where did I gave you the impression to be talking about causes.) --Garrondo (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On causation you've brought "there is truly no agreement on the effect of electromagnetic fields".
 * About the expertise, WP:MEDRS is clear to separate the publisher from the writer WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field". If your argument was true the last part should be omitted. As I've said before I don't see how to prove expertise in "any health issue" and to my knowledge Kheifets is an expert in "issues of interest to the electric power industry in the USA".--Nutriveg (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that the fundamental issue is being skirted here: the difference between a medical study and a scientific evaluation of a claim. I read the commentary as being an excellent source of giving an alternative opinion about a series of medical studies that are of a controversial and dubious nature. We can complain about the supposed motivations of each of these camps arguing about the safety of EMF, but it all boils down to ultimately two different means of analysis. I, personally, do not think the commentary's analysis is any less powerful or deserves any less WP:WEIGHT than the statistical analyses of medical tests. This is probably due to my bias as someone who prefers to see plausible mechanisms before correlations or causations are reported (I'm a Bayesian and not a frequentist). Skepticism about correlations and causations inferred from medical tests only is, in my opinion, rightly given more weight when no plausible mechanisms explaining causations or correlations exist. Fair? Perhaps not, but I do think it is closer to WP:NPOV than the alternative. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Treat similar to self-published This is a commentary, which is the academic equivalent of a long letter to the editor or, more precisely, an op-ed piece. Based on comments above, this author appears to be an expert in this area for the purpose of complying with WP:SPS.  However, there's absolutely no peer-review involved.  This means: Yes, you can use it for any statement that is directly made in the letter; No, it's not the single most stellar source for most purposes; and Yes, you need to explicitly attribute the views directly to the author.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is some peer review involved here. The writer was not just given a blank slate and a blanket permission to write whatever he wanted to. The editor and perhaps even the reviewers of the article were given a bit of editorial control over his commentary. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Please cite the source.
 * "The International Journal of Epidemiology is produced six times a year and publishes original work, reviews, articles of interest and letters in the fields of research and teaching epidemiology." "Letters intended for publication should be marked 'For Publication'". The criteria doesn't seem to be much different of regular letters.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote you give does not seem to contradict what I was saying. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how " the reviewers of the article were given a bit of editorial control over his commentary" since letters don't follow the same review process, where the articles are submitted and available online for review trough the reviewing tool.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the letters don't follow the same review process doesn't mean that there is zero editorial control. "A bit of editorial control" need not exclusively entail submission and availability "online for review trough the reviewing tool". There are other ways to exert editorial control. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Treat as reliable for narrow statements of how the paper has been received by the wider community and statements of the author's opinion. Anything cited to commentary should be explicitly attributed. Whether the source should be used is beyond the remit of this board, but with an article on or over the bleeding edge it seems appropriate to include the commentary. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Usability of Keiffets review

 * I still have doubts on the usability of Keiffets review since most commentaries have been on the use of the commentary on the metaanalysis : Nutriveg says that it is not a reliable source. While it seems that we have already agreed that it is published in a reliable journal he is saying that the article can not be used because: (I quote his/her words): leading author "consults with utilities" and "works with the Electric Power Research Institute" and therefore does not fill WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field".. I believe that we are not the ones to judge whether somebody is an expert. My point of view is that from the moment the article is admitted the author can be considered an expert. However this is not even the case here: the author has no less than 46 articles in pubmed that tackle epidemiological facets of electromagnetic fields exposure (at least there were 46 articles by an author with that name; and a fast look them seemed by the same person since treated similar topics). No matter the author POV or where he works he is clearly an expert in the field. It is not very easy to have 46 articles in a similar topic in peer-reviewed medical journals.--Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also looked at her working site as a professor and her curriculum . If she is not considered an expert by wikipedia then there is something wrong on WP:MEDRS.--Garrondo (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She is not an expert in "any health issue" as her review proposes to be. Talking specifically about the "ELF-EMF Alzheimer's" field, she is neither "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill". She had written/co-authored many articles because she has been making studies for the industry for more than 20 years.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By Wikipedia standards, she definitely is an expert. Having her reputation impugned by a journalist and someone who can only be described as fringe-advocate for EMF paranoia does not discount her academic degrees, publication record, committee standings, etc. Perceived conflicts of interest may be of incidental interest, but the reputation of this scientist is not so tarnished as to warrant exclusion or marginalization of her points. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have created an specific subsection for the question on weather the author can or cannot be considered an expert to ease commentaries. I have asked for specific input in the medicine project.--Garrondo (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course she's an expert on the epidemiology of radiation. Khiefets is exactly the kind of person that Wikipedia should be using as a source. I can't even imagine a more appropriate source. (Having said that, her status as an expert still doesn't authorize editors to exceed the usual conservative, "obvious to the non-expert" reading of her paper.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely an expert. She was the head of the radiation program for the World Health Organization, and she's now a professor of epidemiology at UCLA, and there's still some question about whether she's an expert on the epidemiology of radiation?  She was on the radiation standards safety committee for the IAEA], and we're asking whether she might know a thing or two about the harmful effects of radiation?  She's been on the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)'s Standing Committee on Epidemiology since 2001, and we're wondering if she might know something about the epidemiology of non-ionizing radiation?  She's published dozens of papers, including papers about this specific risk factor in several different diseases.
 * A professional lobbyst Herself, has said to work "with the Electric Power Research Institute (...) and consults with utilities.", I just cited another source. She was invited to those committees by others professional lobbysts. I repeat she is not "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill", not in Alzheimer's EMF research neither in "(all) health issues" as her review concludes.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the conclusion of her 2008 review, "extensive epidemiological research conducted during the past 20 years on occupational EMF exposure does not indicate strong or consistent associations with cancer or any other health outcomes", is a rephrase of an 2005 industry proposition "It would be useful for the summary to include a clear statement that the scientific research does not establish ELF EMF as a cause or contributing factor in any disease or adverse health effect, including cancer.". A puppet.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Microwavenews.com? That's your authoritative source? We understand that the woman has worked "with the Electric Power Research Institute (...) and consults with utilities." That's maybe relevant, but it does not make her any less of an expert. She is a professor of epidemiology, well qualified to review, discuss, and conduct studies related to medical conditions. Just because she agrees with the industry doesn't make her any less of an expert. If you are going to impeach her objectivity, do so with someone who is similarly credentialed, per WP:PARITY. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The cited 2005 microwavenews article cited a phrase attributed to the industry as the ideal phrase for the summary of a ELF EMF reivew is basically the same Khiefets used in the conclusion of her 2008 "any health issue" ELF EMF review. Another 2006 published article cited that microwavenews article, and the same phrase, further supporting the published date of that microwave article. In this case it's not microwavenews questioning her review, but her review confirming the microwavenews citation.
 * The meaning of expert is not just knowing an issue is "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill", what she is not, at least in the "ELF EMF Alzheimer's" field. She "reviews, discuss, and conduct studies related to (EMF) medical conditions" because she's paid for that by the electrical companies she works for.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By that logic, anyone who has ever been a consultant for a power company is not an expert in electricity. It's an absurd argument on the face of it. Look, I understand why the "ELF EMF Alzheimer field" (which is looking more and more to me like code for "those who believe that electromagnetic fields cause Alzheimer's disease") would want to criticize a scientist who may have a conflict of interest. Mentioning her possible conflict of interest is fine. But dismissing her and excluding her from the article is totally unacceptable and totally contravenes WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I suggest filing a report at WP:NPOVN. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which logic? Let's go by the expert definition above. Someone who has spent years working for an Institute that represents the Industry's interest is not generally accepted as a reliable source when talking about a subject that may contradict that Industry's interest. That's why a journal once decided to publish her association as a conflict of interest. The "ELF EMF Alzheimer field" is composed by researches that make studies on that field, Khiefets is not widely, if at all, cited or recognized by them. Beyond that her review is unreliable by itself when proclaims to have analyzed "any health issue" as if it was possible to have expertise in and analyze all health issues. And only a blind person wouldn't see the similarity between her conclusion and the "industry's dream of a review conclusion" cited above.
 * You surely don't know those authors by the definition you made, since those were the same cited in the past, including by Khiefets, as sources critical of the association. You may question those sources expertise when you get in contact with them in that Wikipedia article talk page.
 * That's a question on reliability as WP:MEDRS has specific reliability criteria of "what" and "how" to cite the sources, as in "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field" where Khiefets doesn't fill the expert definition as we have seen above.
 * Rejecting that source wouldn't contravenes WP:NPOV since all cohort studies, and most of the case control, support the occupational association, as well two updated secondary sources. The only exception is this review which the conclusion was previously designed by the industry, as demonstrated. And those editors pushing that same "nothing to see here POV" interpreting a "future work" commentary (by someone who has already published that future work, supporting the association) as a critic to the association. WP:NPOV is not to balance content by weighting what wikipedia's editors believe or like, but by the reliable sources, as defined, in this case, by WP:MEDRS. There are similarly weaker secondary and primary sources on the same subject that push towards causation, general association or general EMF, but which aren't cited as well, by WP:MEDRS.--Nutriveg (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "as demostrated", "as we have seen above", etc; but for the moment 3 people think that she is an expert, while it is you the only one pushing your own point of view. Wikipedia is not about fact but about verifiability: until it is truly verifiable that Keiffets has lied or misinterpreted data and that her research is of no value she is a valid source of information. Again: if it was as demonstrated as you assert no journal would publish her work which is clearly not the case. Anything else is POV-pushing.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nutriveg has asserted that (quote):Khiefets is not widely, if at all, cited or recognized by them: I do not know if she is recognized or not; but she is cited: When you do a search for her in academic google some of her articles seem to have been widely cited; even some very recent ones. Some examples: (39 times);  (108 times),  (27 times).--Garrondo (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

<- I think it is pretty clear that the consensus is that Khiefets' review is perfectly fine for inclusion. I have yet to see anything that indicates the arguments against including this source are more than sour grapes. It doesn't matter if she copied an industry memo, it doesn't matter if she's being paid by "the industry", it doesn't matter if those who believe in an occupational association don't cite her, and it doesn't matter if she makes claims that certain editors here think are "unreliable" simply because they are "impossible". Citing a bunch of websites and amateur EMF-activists who don't like the source does not indicate that she is not an expert. Neither does simply repeating the same argument over and over again. I've seen enough, understood the argument Nutriveg is trying to make, and stand by my conclusion. Include Khiefets. Mention her possible conflict of interest (similar to the way it was mentioned in the journal article itself is probably the best way to handle it). But do not exclude her. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Garrondo, when I say "as demonstrated", I talk about my last argumentation above. Up until know only you, which is the one who proposed the use that source as a secondary reliable source, and ScienceApologist, who has previously stated "This is probably due to my bias as someone who prefers to see plausible mechanisms before correlations or causations are reported". So I would like to the hear what independent and unbiased opinion have to say about my last arguments. I don't think that journal has analyzed the review conclusion similarity either.
 * About your citations her former overall EMF work is cited in overall articles, but not by experts in the "ELF EMF Alzheimer field", less as a recognized reliable source.
 * ScienceApologist, you're going nowhere saying "those who believe in an occupational association don't cite her", assuming that the results of all those cohort studies, most case control studies and two updated reviews were driven by belief. You're trying to push that Khiefets is a reliable and representative opinion in the "ELF EMF Alzheimer field" when she is just someone paid to make research in the name of the Industry's interest.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatamidoing has also clearly stated his support to its use (that is 3 people). Regarding citations: I am providing quantitative evidence that she is an accepted author. If you have ever wrote an article you will know that to get a 100 citations for an article is really complicated and it is proof that she is trusted in the scientific community. What does experts in the "ELF EMF Alzheimer field" really mean...? That's a really specific subgroup of people and in reality scientific publishing does not work like that. Thankfully people have wider interest than devoting their work to something like "ELF EMF Alzheimer field" (where there is not so much really to tell). She has published a big bunch of papers in epidemiological aspects relating health and EMF and she has been cited many times for that and it should be enough.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatamidoing opinion was stated previously of my last arguments and exposed facts, so we can't say he analyzed it.
 * Her co-authored review on broad RF you cite, was similarly about a broad range of diseases, so that review will indeed reflect almost all diseases where there's no or weak association, so that study will be cited in that context and preferred for its bold words. But not by Alzheimer's EMF experts, those authors of many studies about that subject as well cited by their peers as authorities in the field. She may be considered an expert in Leukemia EMF though.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two editors have given their opinion, and no new commentaries are given apart of you giving one time and another the same reasons. I have asked Whatamidoing to state his opinion once again, and I'll ask again for some opinion in the medicine project and alzheimer's disease talk; but if nobody says anything else I believe that you should accept what has been decided here. I would not address here anymore of your comments until sombedody else states something new.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely an expert. She's not a lobbyist: "consulting" means something quite differently. And wouldn't utility companies be really irresponsible and stupid if they got advice from consultants that are not experts? Review has been published in respected, peer-reviewed journal. As far as I can see, she does NOT work FOR the EPI, she states that she has worked WITH this institute. There's a difference: "working with" may mean that she has collaborated with researchers employed by the EPI, it may mean that some of her research has been financed by the EPI, etc. "Financed by" generally does not imply that the scientist in question obtains any financial advantages from this, it means in 99% of cases that her research expenses were covered by a grant from this institute. This in turn does not mean that the outcomes of this research can in any way be influenced by this institute. No respectable university (and I count UCLA as such) would ever accept financing with any strings attached. The objections voiced above are either the result of being unfamiliar with how academic research works or with a strong POV. --Crusio (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She DOES work for the EPRI "1988-2001 Positions reflecting a steady progression of increasing responsibility, Electric Power Research Institute"--Nutriveg (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reference which conclusively proves that she's an independent expert. 1/ She worked for the EPRI, she has not worked for them since 2001. 2/ UCLA is not in the habit of recruiting industry lobbyists for professorships. 3/ She's considered an expert by the WHO, the National Academy of Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH), International Agency for Research on Cancer, International Atomic Energy Agency, Bioelectromagnetics Society, International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. I think this shows that she's an expert on an international level. --Crusio (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly an expert from the above (Crusio and SA, etc). Verbal chat  13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She only didn't work but was a director (Director level position) of that lobby institute and is still being paid for that "2007-2008 LEEKA I. KHEIFETS (Electric Power Research Institute, $252,545 for 2 years)". We are not just talking about if she is an "expert" but an "expert in the field" (as stated by WP:MEDRS) in this case "ELF-EMF Alzheimer's"--Nutriveg (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a scientist myself, I wish these kind of things were "payments received". This is a grant to fund her research, as I explained above. And defining a field as "ELF-EM Alzheimer's" really is very curiously narrow. Keep narrowing it down and there will be only 1 (or even no) expert in the whole world. This discussion seems pointless, as it looks to me that you have made up your mind and will not be convinced by any argument. If you write above "is still being paid for that" then either you don't have a clue what you are talking about or you're turning and twisting words to make them mean something different. --Crusio (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just find an Alzheimer's scientist that cites her Alzheimer's work (negligible beyond that all-health-issue review) as a reliable source and I'll be convinced. I can find few that are in such expert condition, like Garcia, Roosli, Huss, ...--Nutriveg (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a "curiously narrow" definition of the relevant field. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not require scientists to limit their entire career to tiny sub-sub-fields.  Kheifets is an expert in the epidemiology of human disease related to EMF/ELF; that she knows about more than just EMF/ELF for a single disease is, in my mind, a benefit.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more than 20 studies on the subject ("EMF-ELF Alzheimer association") and a yet larger number of Alzheimer etiologists. I'm not saying that she should "limit her career to tiny sub-sub-fields", but she need to know what's relevant when we're talking about that disease to give proper analysis of the studies she supposedly analyzed, not outweighing some factors to direct her conclusions towards a previous defined POV.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support using review. This looks like a classic case of WP:FLAT. The Alzheimer's page discusses the EMF issue quite properly, as a subject where there is ongoing controversy and by presenting both sides, so no reader will come away with the misunderstanding that there is only one side. Having consulted etc. does not disqualify this person as a expert, although it might require some caveats in the text if the text made it sound like this person were the only reliable source -- but the text doesn't do that. Clearly, there is consensus for using the review, and only editor who disagrees needs to come to terms with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "ELF-EMF" and currently there's no controversy in the "occupational association" beyond the Kheifets all-health-issue-copied-an-industry-memo" study. All cohort studies support the association as well two reviews, one of them written by one of the most cited scientists in the field (García). That's why those personally supporting "Kheifets-20-years-working-for-the-Electric Power Research Institute]EPRI POV" want so much to use her review to unbalance the current scientific consensus. Certainly a classic case, she is the only one in the WP:FLAT.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Current scientific consensus," huh? Just in case I wasn't clear enough, by WP:FLAT, I was referring to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of "All cohort studies consistently showed increased risks of Alzheimer, for men, associated with occupational ELF-EMF exposure" you don't understand? If I wasn't clear enough, it's not me trying to cite the "church" as the only source to prove the earth is WP:FLAT.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just an expert but one of the experts. See her bio. Or simply accept that she was the expert that the journal's editors chose. But any implication that she is skewing her results is not simply offensive, it flys in the face of reason. See what she said last July about publishing results in Epidemiology: .LeadSongDog come howl  15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary of opinions up to the moment (chronologichally) by garrondo:
 * Against using the review
 * Nutriveg (initial request at the noticeboard)
 * Not against using the review
 * garrondo (although Nutriveg does not believe my opinion is valid since I am involved in the Alzheimer's discussion)
 * ScienceApologist (although Nutriveg does not believe his opinion is valid since he is involved in the Alzheimer's discussion)
 * Whatamidoing (although Nutriveg does not believe his opinion is valid since he made it before some of Nutriveg reasoning)
 * Crusio (which has stated twice his support since first time Nutriveg did not believe his opinion to be valid since he stated that Kheiffets could be considered an expert but Nutriveg feels that it has to be specifically considered an ELF-EMF AD expert.)
 * Verbal (although Nutriveg does not believe his opinion is valid since he stated that Kheiffets could be considered an expert but Nutriveg feels that it has to be specifically considered an ELF-EMF AD expert.)
 * Tryptofish
 * Leadsongdog

Conclusion seems quite clear to me...--Garrondo (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) ~ Summary of opinions up to the moment by Nutriveg:
 * Brought the use of this all-health-issues review to the noticeboard
 * Garrondo (the only updated source supporting his POV he could find)


 * Stated his own opinion was compromised because of bias
 * ScienceApologist (still he said her conflict of interest should be mentioned)


 * Pushed the nothing-to-see-here POV since this discussion started in the AD article
 * Leadsongdog (also said to work with ELF-EMF as his daily job)


 * Against the recognition of Kheifets as "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill" in the "Alzheimer's disease" field
 * Nutriveg (I don't count either but my arguments are above)


 * Recognized Kheifets as "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill" in an unspecified health issue:
 * Whatamidoing (first to answer, before my arguments about the reliability and before explained what health issue we are talking about)
 * Crusio (joined today and said (almost) no one is an expert in "ELF-EMF AD")
 * Verbal (joined today, didn't say what health field he was talking about)
 * Tryptofish (joined today, also didn't say in what health field she was expert in)


 * Recognized Kheifets as "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill" in the Alzheimer's Disease field:

So far, any conclusion is precipitated...--Nutriveg (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a conclusion. Consensus here is clearly in favor of considering the source useful and encyclopedic. As far as I can tell, no other editor was convinced by your arguments to the contrary. Furthermore, you're perseverating in a fairly major way, presenting a grossly slanted and misleading summary of other peoples' comments, leaving out some of them (where is 2/0's comment in your list, for example?), alleging bad faith, and generally comporting yourself poorly. MastCell Talk 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "2/0" comment was about the "commentary" not the all-health-issue review and garrondo didn't include his opinion either. I did a summary because garrondo misleaded my opinion in his, but no one come to say his summary was "grossly slanted and misleading" then. If you think my summary wasn't true about someone's opinion I'll be happy to correct it.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might as well include me on the list of people who don't need much convincing to believe that Keiffets is a reliable source here. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Garrondo correctly summarizes my position. Nutriveg only extrapolated one detail from my much longer comments. Kheifets is a reliable source, her review is published in a reliable source, Nutriveg seems to be editing from a clear POV and seems to stand alone in her/his opinion. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have to take exception when Nutriveg seems to portray me as having a WP:COI in this matter, taking my "that misnomer jumped out at me because I deal with transformers routinely" and twisting it into his "Leadsongdog (also said to work with ELF-EMF as his daily job)". I do not. Any such COI exists only in his/her imagination. The transformers I deal with professionally are not used at ELF. Of course in the modern world we all "use" ELF-EMF as consumers of electric utility service, but that's not the implication. In that sense, we all have a COI. We're also all exposed to ELF-EMF, so I don't see that as an issue in the WP:COI sense.LeadSongDog come howl  14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A question, so this won't be all ado over nothing
Is there anyone who has a serious problem with the sources presented in either section above aside from Nutriveg? Protonk (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that you agree that source is reliable, let the article content reflect the quality of that decision.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)