Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45

Review aggregator sites
Apologies if this has been discussed a million times before, but I would like to solicit thoughts on the proper use of review aggregator sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It is standard practice in high-end articles to use these for their aggregated scores. Examples:


 * Mulholland Drive (film): "reviews of the film were mostly positive (receiving an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes)"
 * Unbreakable (film): "Metacritic collected an average score of 62/100, based on 31 reviews"
 * Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: "Reviewers' comments were positive, as reflected by a 78% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and by a score of 64% at Metacritic representing "generally favorable reviews"."

These sorts of uses seem unproblematic; what I am interested in is whether these sources can be employed more authoritatively. I am thinking specifically of two instances:


 * 1) Using the summary of critical consensus disquotationally. For example, the Metacritic page for the film Inglourius Basterds gives it a rating of 69/100, signifying "Generally favorable reviews". Would the following be appropriate sourcing in the Inglourious Basterds article?
 * "The film was mostly well-received amongst critics. "
 * 1) Using their summarized data as support for a synthesis. For instance, the Rotten Tomatoes summary page for Quentin Tarantino gives a list of his directorial credits, with Pulp Fiction getting the highest rating of 93%. Would the following be acceptable sourcing in the Pulp Fiction article, or would it be original research?
 * "[As of date] Pulp Fiction is the most widely critically-acclaimed of Tarantino's feature films"

Nuanced responses appreciated, Skomorokh  22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking in the abstract, I think I'd prefer to keep the explicit attribution of such numerical ratings. These sites are extremely useful, but only to a point.  There are lots of different types of critics (respected, popular, logrolling, academic, etc.), not to mention that these days the relevance of film critics to what people actually choose to see--or what they like--is in greater and greater doubt.  It appears to me that Rotten Tomatoes lumps together reviewers we'd all agree are authoritative and others that are . . . well, not so much.  Metacritic seems to be more restrictive (although I don't as much experience with it).  The numerical ratings are concise and can be meaningful, but also subject to over-interpretation if not clearly attributed.  Of course, in a particular situation a different outcome might be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably should say stuff like "According to metacritic, Pulp Fiction was the most critically acclaimend of tarantino's film's." I don't think "The film was mostly well-received amongst critics." is too much of a stretch, though.  We actually say that kind of thing now, with less to back it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing something simular with regards to albums here --Iron Chef (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel on Rifqa Bary. She wants to be a prophet
The article in question here is on the topic of Rifqa Bary and all the controversy over her conversion and custody. I have found some sources which contain block buster information. These are the websites of news papers, they are not opinion pieces. One declares Fathima Rifqa Bary: Rifqa's personal writings indicate she wants to be a prophet Rene Stutzman and Amy L. Edwards Sentinel Staff Writers 12:14 a.m. EDT, September 17, 2009. They are not the only ones reporting this. It has been picked up at least by the desert news  But they re relying on the reporting of the Sentinel.

My question is should we run with these sources or should we wait? Wait for some kind of independent forensic examination of the writings to be sure they are hers and not written after the fact to make her look batsh_t crazy, loco, cattywampus. Though I would not write that conclusion, what else would the majority of our casual readers conclude? She is a living person after all so WP:BLP rules apply. What say you all?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspaper sources are in general reliable. However, letting this factoid be your primary use of this source (singular, the second is a reprint) would be to violate WP:BLP by failing to write in a style more conservative than the sources.  On this aspect, the main message of the source is that she has embraced "fundamentalist christianity".  My reading of the article is that the author doesn't know enough about Christianity to have gotten the label correct, but that is the label the author chose to use, so it is the one you can use this source to support.  I read it that way because the evidence they present contains nothing to support the label fundamentalist, and because fundamentalist Christianity largely broke up and became fragmented a few decades ago, but the evidence the author presents would support either of two other and different labels that the author didn't use.  GRBerry 14:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok but what about using that as a source for what she wrote in her Diary? As far as it being a factoid, as you put it, that makes it a fact.  Perhaps one that could be put here but given very little weight. Like a sentence which said...  Rifqa Bary according to one published report wrote of wanting to be a prohphet for christianity (Cite:orlando sentinel).  --Hfarmer (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide
Is The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson, a Fellow in English at St. John’s College, Cambridge, published by the Lutterworth Press a reliable source for Communist genocide? Google scholar returns 8 hits. I am unable to find any reviews of the book in mainstream publications. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick reference to it in the American Thinker. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an article by Watson about his book in The Independent. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that page survived it's AfD… Irbisgreif (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be relisted. It's quite possible that the AfD discussion was derailed by an orchestrated attack in violation of Wikipedia policies. csloat (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have put a 2nd nomination for AfD up. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The publisher's page lists blurbs from these five publications: Contemporary Review, The Salisbury Review, Chronicles, The Freeman, and The Review of English Studies. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of the page, here is the relevant talk page discussion. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No academic publishing outside of their field in an inappropriate (vanity) press, their status as an academic is lost as they've violated disciplinary and peer review structures that ensure academic quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He wrote a book on early socialist literature and is an academic specializing in literature. Literary history is not exactly outside of his field. It was reviewed in Contemporary Review, Salisbury Review, and The Review of English Studies. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Genocide" as a literary concept? Its nawt but new times. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The advocacy of acts of genocide in the historical literature of socialism. And why they are there. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm attacking him for being a literary scholar. Genocide is history, sociology and politics.  The literary analysis of socialist texts is not disciplinary history, nor disciplinary sociology, nor disciplinary politics.  He doesn't have RS standing on the basis of academic speciality; much as if he read Mutual Aid and started discussing genetic inheritance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is Lutterworth Press a vanity press?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, rechecked the Press, modified opinion (as struck above), still stand by inappropriate press for putting forward major controversial historical interpretations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think that this is a minor controversial historical interpretation - which certain editors have tried (but failed) to establish as a major mainstream interpretation. (The page has an identity crisis.) I would argue that it is suitable to mention in passing so long as the page is balanced between those who agree on the link between ideology and large scale kilings, and those who do not.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's far too narrow. History and politics are far, far more fluid and accessible subjects than molecular biology or some such specialized hard science. The analysis of historical socialist literature stands at the intersection of the disciplines of history, politics, and literature. Anyone who writes there must be familiar with all three. If you look at the other books Watson has written, you will find others in a similar vein: "The Idea of Liberalism", "The English Ideology", "Politics and Literature in Modern Britain". He has specialized in historical, political, literature. This book is within his realm of expertise and the material from it included in the Wikipedia article is as well. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So he has a habit of making crank claims outside of discipline and shopping them to small inappropriate presses where he won't receive appropriate peer review? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Crank claims? Inappropriate presses? Where are you getting this from? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lutterworth Press "The Lutterworth Press is one of the oldest independent British publishing houses. It has been trading since the late eighteenth century initially as the Religious Tract Society (RTS). [...] The main areas have been religion, children's books and general adult non-fiction." If you're intending on making large claims, you'd take it to an appropriate press.  Lutterworth isn't an appropriate press for a historical or political academic claim.  That similar quality work has been published in the past, simply means that the author's choice of press is similarly poor. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So this would fall under the "Adult non-fiction" area. Are you saying that Lutterworth is an unreliable publisher of non-fiction that publishes cranks? Did the reviewers mentioned above lie about the book? The author is a respectable academic, the book is within his expertise, and his claims are verifiable and appropriate for the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stated my case that he's outside of his field, that the publisher is not a peer-reviewing academic publisher of history. If you're trying to use him for history, then I don't particularly care what reviewers of the discipline literature say.  "Adult non-fiction" is clearly not the ambit of an academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've only made the assertion that he's outside of his field. At St. John's College, his area of research is "Political literature and critical theory" for pete's sake. Not an academic press does not mean unreliable. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. This is a perfectly acceptable source for the claim in question. If editors are just going to make snarky comments about authors and not bother to actually read the work in question then they really should go edit elsewhere; they are not being helpful. L0b0t (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I have been reading your arguments and I can't help laughing. (You are really funny.) Please get back to legitimate arguments as it is a serious matter whether or not to accept this book as an RS. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought from someone that stumbled on to this discussion: Since Watson's field of expertise falls into a gray area, why not simply state after George Watson's name, his field of study and if appropriate his employment in the academic field? There is a link to Engels' Neue Rheinische Zeitung, for the reader to peruse and decide for themselves if Watson's interpretation is correct or simply poetry. This way the readers will know for themselves Watson's qualifications and decide if they believe he is qualified or not. Sorry to have interupted your discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. You're actually the first person to comment here who wasn't already following the article in question. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, overlooked L0b0t. One of the first... AmateurEditor (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good proposal. Let readers judge for themselves. --Anderssl (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the interests of not making anyone here look like a mule, I'd suggest you read Robert Grant "Reviewed work(s): The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson" The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 50, No. 200 (Nov., 1999), pp. 557-559 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/517431 (probably requires a JSTOR account). There is a summary of the Review's points in article at: Article's section ¶George Watson..., and there is a summary of the Review's esteem of the press at Talk ¶If you wanted... Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what you have done is the best way to handle it. Present one RS and another that disagrees. The whole thing is a bit long and so UNDUE. I've taken out the statement that it hasn't been reviewed by historical peer-reviewed journals, as it's OR (or you need to source it).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [Copied comment from the talk page] It seems Grant is not a fan. I don't have any problem with including criticism in the article. I will read the review when I can get to a library. However, so that people don't think his opinions are universal, and in the interest of the discussion here and at the RSN, I want to reproduce the five blurbs from the publisher's website (which include one from his review):
 * "A stimulating book and if it sparks genuine debate, it will have done much good."
 * -Contemporary Review
 * "George Watson’s stimulating contribution to the problems of political theory is most welcome. It is a pity it is not a longer book."
 * -The Salisbury Review
 * "George Watson has devoted many thoughtful hours to the problem of the crimes, privileges, and general behaviour of the socialist elite. He has succeeded in producing a startlingly simple explanation of the otherwise inexplicable. A fascinating, very readable book, filled with deeply satisfying quotations from the perpetrators themselves and their publicists. Lively and fascinating account of current forgetfulness."
 * -Chronicles
 * "George Watson has been re-reading this literature as a professional literary critic, with strong interests in both political affairs and the history of ideas. Many of his findings are astonishing."
 * -Antony Flew, The Freeman
 * "The merits of Watson's book are its brevity, its admonition to socialists ignorant of what has been done in the name of their creed, and a few discoveries."
 * -The Review of English Studies
 * AmateurEditor (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please get hold of the actual reviews if you can - blurb can be very selective.
 * Should we take this all back to the talk page? I think we're back on track now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I think you may be missing the point. The reviews do not represent academic criticism, they are merely opinions by people who have read the book. The fact that a writer said in Contemporary Review that it was "a stimulating book" does not really tell us how it has been accepted by the academic community. It is unfortunate that you are not familiar with how academic theory is developed. Academics write articles, they are reviewed by other academics and then their theories are categorized as generally accepted, minority or fringe. Watson has not submitted his work to academic scrutiny and so there is no academic criticism. Also, most of these sources are not even academic publications. Wikipedia should follow the same high standards as other encyclopedias and should not give any weight to fringe theories that receive no academic support. It would be helpful if you would familiarize yourself with academic procedure. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, reviews in academic journals can help to give us a lead into RS critical reception of the book. It's not just anybody reviewing them. However, for this book, only Flew's opinion is kind of significant, but that's about it (and Flew is not an expert in the field). Another check is to see how many times the book is cited by other books and articles. On this count, the book doesn't appear to do so well. Compare it to Valentino's published only five years ago, at least through what's available on google books and scholar, and the two are clearly considered to be of vastly different quality. I also note that it's predominantly libertarian and conservative journals reviewing this book. It hasn't received much attention elsewhere, in terms of reviews or cites at least not in academic imprints. I'm beginning to think it's undue except as a passing reference, (as a nod to the fact that it is actually a Cambridge literary scholar).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic approach of this book seems unusual. It focuses on lost literature, which are writings that were ignored and did not influence socialist thought. Although it is a legitimate study and may be helpful in explaining socialist thought it seems peculiar to base an analysis of 20th century governments on forgotten 19th century texts. It seems paranoid, that somehow there are secret writings that were only shown to the initiated, or that the main writings somehow conceal secret plans. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-published book
Can we use a self-published book for citing as sources to Wikipedia articles. The content is related to population of Non-indigenous ethnic groups in a specific country. As far I know, population of a particular ethnic group obtained respectively from their diplomatic missions and I don't think so, it is a sort of original research. Please comment. VPM --  Gaikokujin  talk  17:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound right. Would need to try and have this source published by someone reputable or to be recognized as an authority on the subject involved, preferably with scholar credentials of some relevance.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there are circumstances when self-published books are allowed, this is not one of them. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't evaluate, requires context Like the article, the book, the talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed, especially on this noticeboard, that most editors here on Wikipedia seem to have this false notion that publishing houses routinely do research on the books they publish to make sure that they have reliable sources and correct interpretation of the facts they present, thereby making those books reliable and "self-published" books not. Publishing companies worry about 1- will it sell and make money; 2- does it fit in with what the publishing company is known for, in topic, interest, and quality; 3- copy-edit for spelling, grammar, etc. And they worry about those three things in that order. They dont care if the book is factually true, unless they are a publishing company that specializes in a certain topic and has a reputation to maintain in that topic. Look at the frings history books out there, like that 1421 book that says the Chinese circumnavigated the world before the Europeans did. It was published by a reputable publishing company, because they knew it would be a best seller and make lots of money, being true was not a concern of theirs. We need to realize this in an era when self-publishing will become more and more popular and big publishing companies less relevant (anyone who doesnt think so, go and ask the newspaper publishers, editors, and journalists what they thought about "bloggers" and online self-published "news reports" in the 1990s, oh that is if you can find someone who works for a newspaper now-a-days since newspapers are dying left and right).Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but you can't change the attitudes at this noticeboard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Scholarly presses (CUP, OUP, UChicago) send volumes out to specialist readers who determine if the work's method and conclusions lie within the disciplinary practices of that field. Then reviewers in journals whose articles are peer reviewed, publicly review the monographs.  It works, and when it doesn't, you tend to find public reviews attacking the works in dispute.  As far as non-scholarly presses go, even the respectable non-vanity presses, all bets are off.  Works are reviewed at precis stage for marketability, and depending on the house by the sponsoring editor for readability but not for facts. This is why RS is about scholarly and peer reviewed works. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've certainly noticed that to be true about Arcadia Publishing - the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published. --NE2 07:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, do I understand you correctly that unless a book, or journal, is scholarly and peer reviewed it is not a reliable source? If so there are alot of citations that need to be removed, including just about every historical book from Google Books I've used on history as they predate any notion of peer reviewing by publishers (who back then were really just printers). As NE2 mentionas anything from Arcadia would be out, and I am going to assume there are plenty of uses of their books as RS. I am interested in your opinion and if I read too much into your post.Camelbinky (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (opinion) RS is an ordered list. Wikipedia's preference amongst RS is to use scholarly peer-reviewed and scholarly press monographs.  I was responding to a comment which labelled published books as having less reliability, and was pointing out the varying reliability of various book publication methods.  It is important to check books to see if they're published in a vanity press, ie SELF published.  Works published prior to 1950 are dubious as RS for Historical articles due to Primary, or having lost disciplinary currency (hell, history as a discipline begins around 1900).  If you're reliant on texts published before 1900 for historical articles, I would suggest you look strongly at why you're not using recent scholarly articles; or, if you're actually using secondary texts as Primary.  As far as my opinion goes: if its an academic field, and nobody's publishing appropriately, why the hell are you writing an article on wikipedia.  Popular culture articles have a different criteria, necessarily.  Additionally, I am rather angry about non-experts getting google-books / scholar and cherry picking crap out of discredited sources.  The sciences articles don't seem to have this problem to the same extent as the social sciences and humanities. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Contending liberalisms
Is Contending liberalisms a reliable source for Social liberalism? The article appears in Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power (2001) by Professor emeritus James L. Richardson published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The article previously appeared in an earlier book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 149 hits and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Source is a reliable source for Social Liberalism. To improve the article, improve "reliable source" to "high quality reliable source" by citing from the original peer reviewed journal article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor as a source for Marc Garlasco
NGO Monitor is a political organization which monitors and responds to what it perceives to be anti-Israeli bias. Marc Garlasco is an analyst for Human Rights Watch. Are allegation made by NGO Monitor suitable for a BLP if they are outside of NGO Monitor's expertise and not picked up by reliable news organizations? Should tags on the statements be removed instantaneously? Thanks, --99.130.161.159 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NGO Monitor is a propaganda mill and is in no way acceptable as a sourcce for claims of fact in a BLP. L0b0t (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to remove the material and have been rebuffed, and then I have attemped to place tags on the statement and article and I have been repeatedly reverted. I am attempting to have a discussion on the article's talk page with limited success and have been told that including tags about the discussion of credibility is POV.
 * To clarify, I originally questioned all usage of NGO Monitor. I am now questioning the use of it as a primary source for the article.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it seems to me that they are RS for their views, but that they do fail somewhat as RS for BLP. Given that they do seem to reply on Rumour and inuendo (and unchriticly report blog accusations) for their facts about people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To me there is a very strong burden for inclusion in a BLP and if they have any negative reputation for rumour and innuendo then they aren't appropriate for a BLP.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above two users - the latter IP editing under multiple IPs, by the way - have POV reasons for stating that NGO Monitor is political and unreliable, namely that the international press have quoted NGO Monitor's criticism of Marc Garlasco's work at Human Rights Watch, as well as the recent notoriety NGO Monitor has had during the outing of Garlasco as an avid German/Nazi war memorabilia devotee, and they seek purging these references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to NGO Monitor's article, they were founded by a Jewish public relations group and they are run by an Israeli political scientist who was formerly paid as a consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, I don't contest they have been quoted by some media for an Israeli response to the incident. I don't feel this qualifies them as a primary source for a BLP.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it seems to me that they are RS for their views, but that they do fail somewhat as RS for BLP. Given that they do seem to reply on Rumour and inuendo (and unchriticly report blog accusations) for their facts about people. "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel.

"
 * Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unacceptable as a source in a BLP. User:A Sniper should give WP:AGF a thorough reading as well. L0b0t (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you should sign your posts LoBoT ;) A Sniper (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is not are they RS for their views, they are and I do not object to their use on a non BLP. The question is do they breach the rules for RS on BLP, I think they do. But I agree thyat signing posts here would avoid the invetialbe accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inevitable accusations aren't part of a civil discussion.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source, especially for a BLP. That said, if what they have said about Garlasco has been repeated by reliable secondary sources it can go in. But you cant use NGO Monitor itself as the source, you have to show that a secondary source actually cared about what they said. (Also, a note was left at WT:JUDAISM asking for others to help oppose a zealous effort at Marc Garlasco to purge all references to NGO Monitor. Just dont be surprised to see some people come in and just say "Support".  nableezy  - 16:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NGO Monitor has been referenced by many mainstream news sources, even allowing Steinberg to write articles: Wall Street Journal, The National, The Guardian, The Telegraph. Yes, I alerted a user project to the discussion, without stating one way or the other how folks should edit. All the above is is an attempt to censor by a small band of four users, POV-motivated. A Sniper (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * and in accordance with the rules on BLP'S where they are referenced by third party sources the reference can be used. But they are not suitable to be used as a source according to those same rules. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first NGO Monitor reference is based on Garlasco's work, not on Garlasco himself. Similarly, the second reference is about a noted news story that broke concerning allegations made about Garlasco that were carried internationally. How is this in violation of BLP? A Sniper (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If it’s not about Garlasco then why is in on the page about him? If it is not about him then it should be removed. The second is not in breach of the rules because it is a reference to a third party source reporting what NGO monitor said.--Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I only have issues with the first reference, but on reliability grounds. They are making allegations outside their field of expertise and the allegations aren't being carried by a reliable source.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How are they "making allegations outside their field of expertise"? Steinberg is a university prof specializing in Middle East diplomacy and security. NGO Monitor lawyer Anne Herzberg has assisted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has published on the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. How is this any more or less than the expertise of Marc Garlasco himself, based on his own credentials studying International Relations? A Sniper (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If a third party source referances the allegations use that, argument over. If not then it breaches the rules on BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NGO Monitor's primary purpose is to offer defense of Israel, not evaluate human rights. Further, they have no third-party recognition evaluating human rights. Their work is still appropriate on their own article page or when it is picked up by a main stream news organization. I just removed a blog from someone representing HRW and replaced it with a quote which was carried by NPR, so see if you can do the same for NGO Monitor or find a quote which did appear in a reliable publication.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you all want to just continue the same argument with the same participants do it on the article talk page. If you want to get uninvolved opinions stop arguing. Make your points and see what others have to say. This type of arguing makes it exceedingly unlikely that others will even try to get involved.  nableezy  - 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nableezy - this is just a re-tread of what we're already doing at the talk page for the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. IronDuke  22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourthed as we have determined they are unreliable as a source by themselves but ok if attributed from a reliable source.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

bookrags.com
Is bookrags.com a reliable source? It is used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles, either as a reference or as an external link. Our article BookRags says the content is written in part by students. I would be inclined to think bookrags.com shouldn't be used as a reference, but it might be OK as an external link. I am interested to hear others' opinions. Also, many of the pages linked to at bookrags.com have nothing but ads on them, and many just have links to content hosted on other sites (including Wikipedia itself). These seem like links that violate Wikipedia's external links policy. What should be done? Peacock (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit hesitant to say that its an acceptable external link; as most information on there can be properly cited into articles. A blanket ban isn't in order, as there are always exceptions to the rule, but most of the pages on the site don't really add anything that cannot be incorporated into our articles, which is the point of WP:ELNO #1. I also doubt that it's a reliable source, as it doesn't give attribution to its writers nor does it publish any sort of quality control guidelines. Also, I note the site has an "as is" warranty in their terms of service  where they don't guarantee the accuracy of any of the information posted there.  Them  From  Space  19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a blanket ban would be appropriate, as I can't imagine any page on the site meeting WP:RS or WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What then do you think should be done about the ~2000 links to bookrags.com? Peacock (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
In this article an LA Times article is cited


 * Benedict Cary Troubling Record for Anti-Aging Doctors Los Angeles Times May 08, 2000

I found a supposed rebuttal of this article (link) on "antiaginginfo.net". However, this isn't the official Academy website, and the owner David Bloom seems to have little to do with the organization, so I an unsure whether to use this as a source. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the old version of the article is currently the subject of legal action, so if you want to provide editorial feedback to me privately by e-mail, that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The WHOIS report says that David Bloom owns 165 other websites (though it's possible that they are conflating different people of the same name). Looking at the front page, http://www.antiaginginfo.net/, it looks like the main purpose of the site is to sell products. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the webmaster has probably compiled enough text sources to give the website legitimacy, but may have copied the letter in question without permission and might not be involved directly with A4M at all. It's possible that the letter is legitimate, but we shouldn't use it unless it's posted on the A4M website or the writer's personal website. In cases like this we should be extra careful to make sure that all sides are given the opportunity for rebuttal, but this is still outside the boundaries of a reliable source. I checked the LA Times archive and there's no indication they ever ran the letter, though they did issue a correction to another aspect of the article.   Will Beback    talk    20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you. That seems sensible. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States
Could someone have a look at Race and crime in the United States? There are some sources-related issues that seem to be a bit complicated. (See also Fringe theories/Noticeboard.) Cs32en  23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ibid is entirely unacceptable as it breaks constantly. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shaun L. Gabbidon and Helen T. Green, Enyclopedia of Race and Crime, 2009, p. xxvii. unsigned tertiary source Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * State University of New York - Binghamton Entirely inappropriate, an invitation to a conference is not an RS.Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * is not a full citation Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnson and Kiser (1940) quoted in Myrdal (1987) is not a fullcite: page numbers required for this kind of citation Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Race and Crime - Conflict Theory entirely unacceptable unsigned free tertiary (encyclopedia) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sampson, Robert J; Wilson, William J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban Inequality in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (2005). Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94707-3. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whitney, Glayde; Taylor, Jared (1999). Crime and Racial Profiling by U.S. Police: Is There an Empirical Basis? in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (2005). Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94707-3. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Russell, Katheryn K. (1996). The Racial Hoax as Crime: The Law as Affirmation in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen Taylor; Young, Vernetta D. (2002). African American Classics in Criminology & Criminal Justice. pp. 351-376. ISBN 0-7619-2432-9. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lea, John; Young, Jock (1993). The Race and Crime Debate in: Jewkes, Yvonne; Letherby, Gayle (2002). Criminology: A Reader. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 0-7619-4711-6. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absence of publication location in most sources in bibliography Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alphabetise or year-order sort Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Citations fixed Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of these look not like anything relevant to this noticeboard, but rather like a case of WP:SOFIXIT (incomplete, but clear citations, alphabetization), some even look like WP:WTF to me (its entirely ok to cite modern collections of older papers). Please don't use a shotgun approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice for W:RSN editors if we had sufficient context to actually deal with an issue. If someone points me at an article with insufficient context, then this is what they get, a general critique of the quality of their sources.  Citing works in collection is inferior to citing works directly, and can cause the elision of publication date material.  Fifelfoo (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not, mostly, talking about the quality of the referenced sources. You are talking primarily about the quality of the references themselves. No doubt these comments are useful on the article talk page (even better would be to fix them - this is a collaborative effort, not a teacher/student situation), but they are off-topic here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice that you think that. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would Cs32en like to direct us to specific sourcing reliability issues? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the references tagged above with "please cite originals" might be chapters in edited books. If so, all that's missing is (eds.) after the names of the book editors. I also commented on FTN and now I'll come over to the page to have a look, and hope others will too Itsmejudith (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked that they were "Readers" or "Classics" before requesting originals cited. Edited collections with original chapters tend to steer clear of those titles. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo correctly points out that the references to the sources can be improved. My main concern is whether the different sources are appropriately used in the article, i.e. are they appropriate and sufficient to support the respective pieces of information? The structure of the article is another issue. See the article's talk page for further information. Cs32en 12:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Robotics Design page
Hi i posted some more sources of highly reliable external sources mentinning my products, whatever i need to give whoever to have the lack of notable sources removed ill do. Or just see the soruces and they are notable. Thanks all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs)

''What's the issue: Requesting editor is the business owner of the article. Wishes templates regarding source quality removed.''

Decline: Article is predominantly self-sourced. Non-self-sourced references are inadequately dense. Additionally you've self-sourced a claim about a major external award, that does not look good, "The ANATERGOARM, winner of the gold medal at the 31st international Geneva Exibition" is cited in relation to one of your own publications. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has many sources, but most of them are what we would call primary sources. Those can stay, but more secondary sources should be added, such as newspaper articles, mentions in books, etc.  Basically in our world, a secondary source is media that is independent of what is written about and has an editorial board.  We like to see that all of our articles have been in at least a few secondary sources, because that's a rough indication the subject is important enough to include in the encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Mullen
Robert's article "Holy Stigmata, Anorexia, and Self-Mutilation: Parallels in Pain and Imagining," will be published shortly in the European Journal of Religions and Ideologies. Comments on this article by contemporaries are provided on his personal website.

Robert F. Mullen is a published writer currently completing his doctorate in Philosophy and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He has had three plays produced and an article will soon be appearing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Religions and Ideologies. He is an editor for ESL professionals and has conducted workshops in guerrilla marketing. His CV includes working as an entertainment marketing executive as well as consultant for the creation of proposals, treatments, and other creative and professional endeavors.


 * No context provided: what do you want us to do? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for a fact about Uri Geller's life?
Editors on Uri Geller are deadlocked about whether a Uri Geller biography is appropriate to use to source as fact Geller's claim that he is related to Sigmund Freud through his mother. The biography being used to source this as fact is [http://www.amazon.com/Uri-Geller-Magician-Jonathan-Margolis/dp/1566490251 Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic? by Jonathan Margolis]. Looks like it was first put out by Orion Publishing Group in 1998, which is, I think, a pretty large outfit. US edition published by "Welcome Rain" in 1999. Biographies tend not to be the most rigorously-sourced, but there are exceptions. Margolis bio:. Welcome opinions. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This was brought up earlier at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I have to concur with the folks over there, not really a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, I was unaware of that. Thank you for the link.  Unfortunately the two most vocal people at that page are the two who are now disagreeing (Moondial and Arthur Rubin).  The rest of the commenters didn't really speak to this particular book, but rather to the overall question of whether the article is biased against Geller or not.  For now, I'm only asking for opinions about the book. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. My reading of the discussion there was rather cursory and I was unaware that those were the same participants from the article. L0b0t (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Although one of the participants, the article is using the book to source that Geller's mother is related to Sigmund Freud.  If it said Geller stated that, it might very well be acceptable, even if not otherwise a reliable source.  I'm more worried about the third reference to the book, where the book was being used for a source that (Uri) Goldstein went to a Geller performance with the intention of suing.  That is a controversial statement about a living person, and requires a better source than most, even if his (Goldstein's) intent were the laudable one of defending his good name (Uri).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hotline
Is the daily political briefing The Hotline, published by the National Journal, a WP:RS source for info on politics? Cirt (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say, yes, generally speaking. National Journal is highly respected and Hotline is basically a news aggregation service; they mostly read other news outlets and summarize it in a digest format. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now the context in which this is occurring. Sometimes their headlines are flip, but the news is accurate. Hotline certainly meets our standards for editorial integrity. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal
There is a slightly stale RfC (with no contributions) on the talk page about the inclusion of material about allegedly widespread rumours in the middle east that the Lewinsky affair was part of a Zionist conspiracy, and a reported quote from a Saudi diplomat saying the same thing. The issues are to do with due weight and sourcing. Comments welcome.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Various football biographies are using this as a primary source,

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved. This blog, I'm sure, does not meet our reliable sources policy as the blog has no visible authors, and therefore, no hint of fact-checking. For all we know, it could be a single guy making stuff up.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Context please Fifelfoo (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is being used as a source for notability on football player articles. The blog says that it uses information from a respected author, but, as we all know, anyone could say that, and this blog displays no proof that the information is in fact from that author.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Modified opinion after discovery of Author's identity, bibliography and two cites of their authorityFifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Unreliable: no named editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No oversight even if notable. I know a sports historian who writes proper books, with a wikibio, but also runs an ad hoc sports journal, and there were substantially more errors in the ad hoc journal, lots of typos, a stats table formatted wrong with numbers subsequently being in the wrong place  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The site was moved to a blogspot account recently for whatever reason - it is a perfectly reliable statistics site. You are being manipulated by editors who are pointily edit warring over various Northern Irish articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the blog is reliable, it would have, amongst other lacking things, a named editor. The hosting location isn't the issue here. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well why don't you ask them? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first place I looked for provenance information. jcd.nifg@googlemail.com, a pseudonymous identity, isn't a named editor.  Nor is a free email address the standard contact method of reliable sports score cyclopedia.  Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong to accuse me of violating WP:POINT. Per our policies on reliable sources and verifiability, the link to the blog was removed.  There is nothing pointy about it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of WP:POINT at all. I was saying you are being manipulated by people who are. (User:Vintagekits) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the other editors that this simply isn't RS, because we have no idea who they are. It certainly can't be used to establish notability. However, what you can do, if you think the blog is reliable, is use it to help search for respectable sources. The issue is not whether or not the site happens to have correct information, but that it's not from an organisation with a reputation for fact checking (such as a large or respectable publishing house, or an RS newspaper.) So see if the same information is held anywhere better. google books of course is a good start.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems ridiculous to me that a site that is widely used as a source on WP, can be deemed unreliable based on a four line "discussion" between two people in the middle of the night. I have taken this to WT:WPF for further input.  Daemonic Kangaroo --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's used on, as of this moment, 191 articles. Anyway, to the point, just because it is widely used doesn't make it right, or reliable, by any measurement.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's 3.45 pm where I am. Does that make a difference?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is relevant.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because two users having a short conversation without notifying anybody is not a consensus. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment I replied to had nothing to do with that. Secondly, in case you haven't noticed, consensus isn't how this noticeboard works.  You can't establish that a source is reliable 'by consensus'.  If I wrote a book and claimed to be an expert on some subject, then got a bunch of my wikipedia friends to back me up and support me, it wouldn't make it a reliable source.  Go have a read of our WP:RS policy.  It explicitly states that blogs of this kind are not allowed.  If you want to change that, go start a discussion on the policy talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NIFG was not a blog a few months ago; the individual pages were cut and pasted to a blogspot account from the main NIFG site. Look at the edit history of List of Hibernian F.C. international footballers. I'm not disputing that WP:RS needs consensus, but surely it require consensus to determine the status of an individual site??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * nifg.co.uk is a Wordpress site with no authorial identity listed, or citations / description of their data sources or methods. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a farce. Felix Healy was copy pasted from that blog. Stolen. Now two years later the blog is deemed unreliable because the person who wrote is does not reveal his name. Not only is the source deemed unreliable, but it is also removed from external links. This was NOT discussed at WikiProject Football. Please stop damaging articles.--EchetusXe 07:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject football doesn't decide what is reliable or not. I am simply following policy, as dictated by WP:RS.  The blog says that material X is gained from source X, but it doesn't give a link to source X.  The point here is that anyone could claim that they have material X from source X, but that doesn't make it so.  This blog is not reliable as the information is not verifiable, I'm not damaging anything just because I'm removing an unreliable source you happen to like.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno if this is any help, but the site lists George Glass as a contributor, who is a member of the board of the highly-respected International Federation of Football History & Statistics, Roy Cathcart, who appears to be an official photographer for the Irish FA, and Marshall Gillespie, author of The Northern Ireland Football Yearbook...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The acknowledgement is on the left hand side of the main page, and amounts to "NIFG would like to thank... ...everyone who has contributed to the site. Particular gratitute goes to George Glass, Marshall Gillespie, Roy Cathcart and Jim Murphy who's contributions have been invaluable." I don't see this as a really adequate account of their involvement, its extent, or reliable to demonstrate its actuality. Lets assume this acknowledgement is true, without their involvement in signing articles, or contributing as an editor of a section, we can't take their status as indicative of the authority of the NIFG as a site.  Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, just a thought....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it not make you think that established & respected football researchers wouldn't risk their reputation by contributing to an unreliable source? GiantSnowman 09:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence they actually contributed. Anyone could say 'thanks to so and so for contributing', doesn't mean they did.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  09:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to look at the information provided as opposed to the contributors who provide it - to take one of Wikipedia's own mantras, "judge the content, not the contributor." Does information from NIFG match information provided by other sources already accepted as reliable? Yes. Just look at two recent examples I can remember from the top of my head, Ian Nolan and Allen McKnight. Ergo it is reliable. GiantSnowman 08:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the author, is a good guy and was able to find some pretty rare data about former players. It isn't the most reliable website on Earth, but it's reliable enough for my researches. --necronudist (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's reliable enough for wikipedia.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  09:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Few points, might help for clarification at least.
 * 1) The site's bibliography is listed at http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/08/bibliography-books.html
 * 2) Where specific information is supplied by a specific contributor, that contributor is named at the relevant point, and not just in the general acknowledgment in the LH bar: e.g. George Glass at http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/09/joe-connor.html . I don't think it's particularly constructive to suggest serious reputable professionals would allow their names to remain credited as contributors to a widely-used website for any length of time had they not actually done so.
 * 3) The site's editor has been credited as the source of information for other websites, including England Football Online and Historical Kits. Incidentally, both those pages give his name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm satisfied. I won't revert anyone's reversion of me.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you content that NIFG is an acceptable, reliable source for use on Wikipedia? And if so, are you prepared to withdraw any remaining AfDs based on your previous belief that it wasn't reliable? GiantSnowman 10:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already tried to withdraw all AFDs I started. That said, it is 4am, and I need sleep, as my clock is going to wake me in.. three hours.  siiiiiiiiiiiiigh.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  11:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Get some sleep man! I think the only one left unwithdrawn is the one on Clancy McDermott, but do it after some rest! GiantSnowman 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Second Daedalus969 for the same reasons,
 * Can we attribute Ed. jcd (pseud.) [Jonny Dewart] correctly at the bibliography citations for NIFG?
 * Next question, which would ease any future verification issues, is NIFG notable enough to have its own entry on wikipedia? If it is, then the talk page would be an appropriate place to cross link the archive of this dicussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not well enough acquainted with the notability guidelines for websites. But I will link the archived discussion to its entry in WikiProject Football/Links, which would serve the same purpose. Thanks for suggesting it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do other users think that is a reliable source? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Authorially, londonhearts.com was two clicks away from the authority for the organisation (Meeting house at The Daniel Gooch Address: The Daniel Gooch, Bayswater 40 Porchester Road, London, W2 6ES) and includes standard association information on membership rules, including an AGM. This broadly means that the website is the responsibility of a properly constituted organisation.  As a supporters club, I would become suspicious if historical data was in conflict with another authority of better provenance.  Similarly, the supporters club would be less valueable as a source about matters of opinion, particularly those connected with greatness, poorness, historical rivals, or the status of the supporters club itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Publisher Nortom
A group of about 2-3 editors have been pushing stuff published by Nortom onto Polish-Ukrainian articles. The publisher is privately owned by a leader of a far-right fringe Polish political party. I made an RFC on history and policy pages discussing reliability but this would probably be an even more appropriate venue to discuss it. Any contributions to the discussion page here would be most welcome. To me, it seems clearly not reliable but I would like more opinions.Faustian (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already commented on the talk page after the RFC, so I won't opine here. I'd draw people's attentions to WP:MILMOS for Nortom works that fall into the History category. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Digging for the Truth: The Final Resting Place of Jimmy Hoffa
This is the book that has the latest info abou the case and should be referenced in the biblio--Spectre7277 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Digging-Truth-Final-Resting-Place/dp/0970919166


 * Not a WP:RS/N request; spam. Work is vanity publisher, not a scholarly history imprint, see WP:MILMOS for criteria for history source reliability.  Consider as self-published. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that book is self published, but the stuff at WP:MILMOS goes way beyond our requirements for RSs. We don't have any rules requiring scholarly history imprints, or similar. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On a side note, why would Hoffa page be regulated by Mil Hist ? What's next, militarize Mickey Mouse? NVO (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not. That guideline is to help them make FAs, I think, and isn't really necessary even for military articles (unless they're going for FA or A).  That said, Spectre Publishing looked like it might be a vanity press or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Military History's manual of style is transcluded at History's B-article status for History articles due to the policy on not duplicating policies. Hoffa has lapsed into history.  History has no "C-class".  Do you wish the Hoffa article to remain start class? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making up rules that don't exist. People who come here are impressionable, and we don't want to give them the wrong idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

NY Times Survey as Reliable Source for Shakespeare Authorship section?
Can this NY Times Survey of Shakespeare professors [] be used as a source for this line in the Authorship section of the William Shakespeare [] article: "Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority". The inclusion of an article note, reporting the survey results, has generated a discussion[] about the validity of the note itself, and in the course of this discussion, the Times survey has come under question as a reliable source. Comments from the editors of this page might prove helpful. Smatprt (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with using the NY Times survey, so long as you don't over-interpret what it shows. The newspaper explains how the survey was carried out, and from their description it was done properly. The response rate was good. We can trust that the NYT actually did what it said, and that the results are accurately reported. Interesting question; there may be other views here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try attributing this directly and add a "probably", "Although the New York Times reported that in academic circles these doubts are probably held by a (small) minority." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ itsmejudith. The methodology is clearly laid out, the questions are reasonable and the source is reliable (in other words, I don't really expect the NYT to fudge or falsify data).  the authorship question in general is entangled with a lot of other issues which the polled professors may find valuable (e.g. which versions of the plays were authored alone, how the revision process worked, etc.), so I think the usefulness of the survey is limited. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I have a followup question. Here is the note that was attached to the article:
 * "A March 2007 New York Times ("Education Life" section) survey among Shakespeare professors at 556 American colleges that offered degrees in English Literature found that 17 percent of the 265 respondents answered either "possibly" or "yes" when asked if there was "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon". "
 * Do you feel that this accurately reflects the survey in relation to the line in the article ("Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority")? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 17 doesn't seem that small of a minority. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Academics often like to take questions literally. A lot of the professionals who answered "yes" might believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays: they could be answering "yes" just because they know that literary attributions can be incorrect and/or just because they think some of the works might have been misattributed.  They may not be convinced that someone else wrote all the plays in the canon. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to be aware of the context here. Firstly, the auithorship of many Shakespeare plays is in dispute. For example several collaborators may have worked on the Henry VI plays, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre is generally accepted to have been part-written by other authors. These claims about collaborations, alterations, cuts and other attributions are a standard part of Shakespeare scholarship in just the same way that they are of other authors and artists. To give an analogy, art historians will dispute whether this or that painting is the work of Rembrandt, or by one of his pupils or imitators. There is a whole "Rembrandt Project" dedicated to this. This is wholly different from the claim that the entire works of Rembrandt were actually painted by the Prince of Orange, or whoever. In other words there are two "authorship" debates, the mainstream one concerning attribution, and the "conspiracy theory" one that says Bacon or Oxford or whoever wrote the entire canon. The problem with this survey is that the question as asked does not allow the respondent to distinguish between the two controversies. The wording was, is there "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." Note the phrase "principal author". There is good reason to believe that he was not the principal author of several plays, so we don't know whether those who answered 'possibly' or 'yes' were accepting that he was not the principal author of some of the plays, or of poems such as A Lover's Complaint. The question seems to be carefully phrased to produce a positive response from some scholars. Furthermore the "possibly" respose may imply simply an acceptance that we can never wholly rule out anything. Possibly Milton did not write Paradise Lost. Who can be absolutely certain? The 'possibly's may simply reflect the scholars' need to indicate their open-mindedness. Also, the survey, as reported merges the 'possibly' responses with the 'yes' responses. And as I said above, even the 'yes' responses could easily be a result of the respondents acceptance that Shakespeare was not the "principal author" of some of the plays. So the problem here is that the survey itself is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be fundamentally flawed and misleading unless you start from the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute and then reject conclusions that are contrary to that premise. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss to understand what you are saying. It is flawed because it confuses the different "authorship controversies", the mainstream one and the conspiracy one. It's not people who "start from the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute" who are questioning this survey. It is people who start from the opposite premise. The survey appears to have been designed by people who want "the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute" to be more widely accepted, though I admit I don't actually know who commisioned it. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it conflates the two at all, though if the questions were asked in the order they were printed, the first answer might be skewed somewhat. I trust that the population from which the sample was drawn would take "How much thought have you given to the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespeare works?" to refer to controversial assertions that Shakespeare wasn't the principal author of the works outside the Apocrypha.  The following questions would seem to make this abundantly clear.  Listing of authors advocating various alternative principal authors (Mark Anderson (writer), Delia Bacon, etc.).  Asking specifically "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?".  These are not ambiguous questions and the response seems to be fairly clear: most of the surveyed professors don't give much credence to the authorship question. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the survey as a whole places the issue in the context of the "conspiracy" authorship question. But it is this specific question that is being used and is at issue, and this question refers to whether WS was the "principal" author of plays in the canon, and thus includes room for varied interpretation. (ps, it's not just the Shakespeare Apocrypha that are in mainstream dispute, but several 'canonical' First Folio works). Paul B (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many valid interpretations there can be of the responses to "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?". 82% of the surveyed professors said no. Yes was third, behind possibly. For the relatively narrow question of "what does a survey of Shakespeare academics say about attitudes toward the authorship controversy" there seems to be only one real answer. It obviously can't answer questions about mixed authorship, revision, or plays outside the canon. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I think Paul raises a good question, I think the results of the survey clearly show that the professors knew what they were answering. With a distinct and large majority answering "no", it's pretty obvious that these Shakespeare professors (who all certainly know about collaborations, Apocrypha, etc.) took the question in context of the whole survey, which was all about the "conspiracy" authorship question. If not, then the yes answers would have been 100%, and not the 6% that answered "yes" and the 11% that answered "possibly". I do notice that Paul has focused on the phrase "principal author". What I don't understand about Paul's argument is that even given the circumstances he describes (that some canonical plays are in mainstream dispute), that number is only a handful of plays out of 37 works in the canon, so no matter how you look at it, the mainstream feeling would still be that Shakespeare of Stratford was their principal author. In fact, even if he were credited for only 20 of the 37, he would still be the "principal" author. I also don't understand the accusation that the survey was designed with a hidden agenda. If it was, after all is said and done, it failed miserably! If the NY Times really wanted to influence the survey, they would have done a far better job in creating more leading questions. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question referred to "the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." That might be interpreted to mean EVERY play or ALL plays. There's just enough room for ambiguity that a small number of academics may interpret it in the way I suggested. Simple. BTW, I now notice that Protonk above has already noted that "the authorship question in general is entangled with a lot of other issues which the polled professors may find valuable (e.g. which versions of the plays were authored alone, how the revision process worked, etc.), so I think the usefulness of the survey is limited." So I don't really understand why he now appears to be saying something different. Paul B (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying something different. The survey answers the questions it poses pretty completely and legitimately.  It doesn't, obviously, resolve the factual consideration of authorship (we can't now say that authorship critics are wrong by virtue of the survey).  It doesn't resolve any of the other authorship questions which are not related to the main "authorship controversy" (which I and the NYT take to mean the assertion that someone not shakespeare wrote the bulk of the work we consider canonically his), the question of revision, memorial reconstruction, alternate ur-texts, and so forth.  All of those questions relate to some meta-question of "how Shakespearean are Shakespeare's works" and none of them are connected to the survey.  So I could really only use the survey to support the assertion that a large majority of Shakespeare experts polled by the NYT felt that there was no good reason to question Shakespeare's position as principal author of the works in his canon.  That is a relatively strong statement, but it is pretty narrow given the breadth of textual questions around Shakespeare's work.  So as a general source, its usefulness is limited.  But I don't agree with your repeated assertions that the boundaries of the canon are so diffuse that we should reject the results of the poll.  I also don't agree with your assertion that considerable academic consensus exists that Shakespeare is not the author of some plays in his canon. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the survey is attached to a note referencing this line in the Shakespeare article's "authorship" section:


 * "Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority"


 * I still don't understand the objection. The paragraph leading up to, and the line in the article itself, is all about "doubt" the "doubters". The survey results, in regards to these doubters are reported accurately in the note, and are then linked to the full survey results. The bottom line of the survey is in complete agreement with mainstream academia. Where are these huge mistakes?Smatprt (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the survey is fundamentally flawed, but I am not opposed to mention of it. I can no point whatever in putting brackets round the word 'small'. Either it is or it isn't small. Paul B (talk)
 * I agree with the "small" comment (not that the comment itself was "small"!). I didn't post the original note so have no idea why the brackets were used. But Paul is right - there is no need for them.Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:(small). "Small" is subjective, see for example user Peregrine Fisher comment above: "17 doesn't seem that small of a minority." The brackets were to avoid pushing an interpretation.  Afasmit (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a lot smaller than 49%, which is also a minority. And you only get 17% if you add "yes" and "possibly" (from q. 15) together.  If you just take "yes" it becomes 6%.  So given the margin of error and the possibility that everyone who answered "possibly" meant something like "yes", we could say that the most support among the population likely (indicated by this poll) is ~22%, which is still a small but not insignificant minority. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I objected to the note because it actually overstates the proportion of academics who think there might be something to antiStratfordism. Here are my reasons:

1. The survey misleadingly overstates the support of antiStratfordism among college professors. It suffers from selection bias in that it states the results only for those who deigned to answer the survey, which logically selected out those who considered the survey's topic too ridiculous to spend time answering, and given the evangelical nature of antiStratfordists, it included a larger percentage of them than is actually the case in the academic population. 2. This article is about Shakespeare, not about antiStratfordism. A misleading survey done by a newspaper is not the place for it. 3. The note is misleading because only 16 out of 265 surveyed answered “yes” to the question, while 217 answered “no,” about as close to “universally rejected” as you’re going to get. I think a good case could be made that a lot of the non-respondents thought it was a silly waste of time because of the survey topic, and that the true percentage of antiStratfordians is closer to 3-4 percent instead of 6 percent, especially given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction." 4. The note is misleading in the context of the statement because it surveyed only American universities. 5. The note is irrelevant to the article because the article accepts the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford; it only includes the mention of antiStratfordianism to avoid a tedious edit war; and it is not the place for misleading statistical campaigns. 6. Finally, the form of the authorship mention was hacked out in a long and contentious dispute during the drive to promote the articleto feature status, and the person who wants this note included has defended it from others who wanted to add more material that questioned the primacy of Oxford as the leading contender. Introducing another change will do nothing but cause another long and unnecessary dispute, as this discussion illustrates.Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to Tom's comments above:


 * 1) There is no data to support any of Tom's assumptions. (And I am mystified at the complaint that the survey only provides results from those who took part in it. I mean, duh!)


 * 2) Yes, the article is about Shakespeare, and includes numerous sections on various speculations: Authorship, Religion, even supposed Paintings. The survey is entirely relevant to the Authorship section, and the article itself. The fact that it was done by a newspaper is immaterial, and as it is the NY Times, it is obviously a Reliable Source, with oversight and review policies.


 * 3) Again, there is no data to back-up these assumptions, logical or not. As has already been noted, the term "universally rejected" was misleading and an extremely poor interpretation of available data, especially considering the NY Times survey.


 * 4) As long as it is acknowledged that the survey was taken at American universities (which the survey does), I don't see how the term "misleading" applies.


 * 5) This is addressed in my note #2. Labeling the survey as "irrelevant" is simply personal opinion or OR.


 * 6) This has nothing to do with this discussion, the survey as a RS or the article. But it does show the long-lasting ill will involved on these pages, as well as a lack of Good Faith.


 * On a related note, I find this discussion helpful, not exceedingly long, and certainly necessary -- especially given the fact that the non-aligned editors of this page have all generally agreed that the survey is indeed a Reliable Source for the purposes of the sentence in question. In fact, the only arguments are coming from the regular long-term article editors who have a strict Stratfordian POV. Given these circumstances, input from neutral editors is invaluable and quite necessary. Smatprt (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging by your answer to No. 1 perhaps I haven't explained myself clearly when I say that the survey is skewed because of selection bias. As you know, antiStratfordism is held in contempt by a large proportion of Shakespearians because of its unscholarly methods and double standards, so much so that they won't even talk about it in classes when asked, nor do they acknowledge that there's any authorship "controversy" to be discussed. AntiStratfordians, on the other hand, are usually so fanatical about their beliefs that they flood comment forums when the subject is broached in the media, as can be seen in this recent example [] or in this one: []
 * given these conditions, it is highly likely that a good percentage of those college professors who believe antiStratfordism is nonsense are among those who failed to reply to the e-mailed survey, and that close to all of those sympathetic to antiStratfordism did. The only way to get an accurate percentage of both sides would be to either keep pestering the nonrespondents with more requests until they answered, or actually go around and and interview each one. As far as I can tell with this survey, no follow-up e-mails were sent out nor were they even contacted by telephone. Consequently the percentages are skewed upward for the antiStratfordians and downward for those who believe the prevailing view is correct. That in itself should be enoough to disqualify the survey as a reliable source.
 * As you can see, I am not arbitrarily making an assumption that the survey is inaccurate; I am critically examining the evidence using what I have learned about the authorship community in the 10+ years I've been around it.
 * As far as No. 2 goes, I have no objections to you using the survey in the authorship article, a link to which is included in the Shakespeare article, but I see no reason why the main Shakespeare article, which is a featured article, should be forced to use a source of a quality considerably below the rest of the sources in the article. We had a similar discussion when you wanted to use a marginal source to show that Shakespearians weren't unanimous in their dating of the plays, including Hamlet.
 * No. 4: The survey acknowledges that it was taken among American academics, but the sentence you're referencing specifies "academic circles." As you know, Americans are much more susceptible to crank theories than the English are, and on the average English academics are even more opposed to antiStratfordism than American academics are. I think that as far as Shakespeare goes the English are at least as important as the Americans.
 * No. 5: No, it is not just my "personal opinion," as I hope I have made clear.
 * Responding to your comments, I think that once the non-aligned editors who have commented on this page think about my points, they will see that the source is not reliable for an article with feature status. And when it comes to matters Shakespearian, I would hope that the opinion of actual Shakespearians (or strict Stratfordians, as you call them) would carry more weight than those who have not studied Shakespeare to the depth that we have. I know this goes against the modern mindset, which values the opinions of radio talk show hosts over the opinions of professional climatologists and scientists and economists, but I hope and pray that the culture of Wikipedia has not yet traveled down that road of madness. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't just assert the existence of selection bias without some justification (presumably the company the NYT contracted to do the survey understands selection bias) or some inference as to how selection bias would skew the survey results. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain (not assert), sending out an e-mail survey to a group of which a large percentage is not likely to respond because they think the topic is nonsense is selection bias. As to how that skews the survey results, I think I covered that point pretty well.
 * As far as I know, NYT's Education Life staff did the survey themselves. They sent e-mail invitations to 637 college professors who teach Shakespeare at some unspecified level to fill out an online survey. 265 responded and answered the survey. Since the respondents were in effect self-selecting, I hold that a large proportion of those who hold the topic in contempt--sure "no" respondents--probably didn't bother to answer, while those who believe in the theory would be sure to answer it, since it is an evangelical community, as those who are familiar with it know. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 265/637 is a response rate that any pollster would kill for. Also a sample size of 265 for a population of (probably) <5000 is pretty solid.  I agree that there is the possibility for selection bias in response, but it isn't much worse than selection bias in phone polling and it isn't anywhere near as bad as selection bias in web polls (where the selection occurs very early on and is unrelated to the poll question).  Also, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the selection bias results in underrepresented Stratfordian professors.  I could construct a line of logic to say that anti-stratfordian professors may have thought the questions unduly marginalized some important view and wouldn't deign to respond (Or alternately that professors would respond because they didn't want the profession sullied by bias from the other side).  Neither is more compelling to me.  And honestly the claim we are supporting just says that the views are held only by a small minority.  Unless you have some reason to believe (Another poll, a literature review, a collection of cv's) that 6% grossly overrepresents the number of professors who would answer "yes" to the question "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" (which is not as strong as it first appears) then I suggest we just accept this and move on.  Do you have reason to believe that 6% would be a gross over-representation?  I'll reiterate my point from way above that the existence and results of the survey can't actually lend credence to a particular theory or hypothesis.  Just make a claim as to who in the academe may agree with a given theory. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already told you why I think 6% is a gross over-representation, but just like your statement that I was making an assertion without justification, you didn't catch it on the first read-through.
 * Two things, and then it's to bed for me.
 * Yes, you could construct a line of logic as you say, but it would not be consistent with what I've learned about about antiStratfordians. An informed theory is much closer to reality than an imagined intellectual exercise.
 * Also we're not arguing over 6%, we're arguing over 17%, which is a number that gives a false impression, since "possibly" could be interpreted in both directions, as in "possibly, but probably not," given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it either "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction." Tom Reedy (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The NYTimes is a reliable source for 1) the existence of the survey, 2) the methodology used to conduct the survey, 3) the results it produced, and in a very narrow context 4) the interpretation of the results. The reason we generally consider the NYTimes a reliable source is because they report the methodology used and the numbers produced so that the reader can make up their own mind about the conclusions drawn. That the NYTimes in general is a reliable source does not mean that every entertainment or cultural fluff piece they produce has scientific validity, it just means the NYTimes has editorial practices that gives us the ability to evaluate its claims. The survey itself, however, is not a reliable source for the article in question, or even the sentence in question. Tom has already pointed out the selection bias, whose impact you seem to be severely underestimating, and it only surveyed a narrow geographically limited part of the population (America is not the world). It is also not a reliable source for the scientific consensus because scientific consensus is not arrived at by simple majority vote; the survey does not measure what it is here purported to measure. What it in actual fact measures is the number of lecturers at American institutions that are willing to fill in and return an informal email poll about a decidedly fringe theory (that word is here to be construed a technical term, not a slight against those editors that find it convincing) from a publication that is part of the general category “the popular press”. The original sentence in the article, sourced to no less than 4 books published on university presses, of which at least one author is considered authoritative in the field, said that the theory is almost universally disregarded. The survey is being used to significantly dilute this statement to the point the phrasing has changed from “almost universally rejected” to “believed by 22%” (17% actually, but I'm using Protonk's number including the error margin to emphasize my point) . This survey does not support changing how we represent scientific consensus from ~0% to 22%. Period. --Xover (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced by arguments which seem to be based on the notion that because this survey produced a result that you find distasteful it should be disregarded. I don't think folks on this board are stating that the survey be used to source any claim beyond "only a small minority of academics responding to a survey by the nyt found the authorship controversy theories offered reasons to doubt the prevailing consensus" or words to that effect noting the survey and carefully delimiting the results. So I'm intrigued by the pushback from the 'mainstream' side of things. Maybe there is a disconnect between what your sources feel the academic consensus is and what academics report to pollsters. Again, that doesn't mean that the fringe folks become right because 6% of respondents in a poll felt there was reason to question the consensus. The notions of representation and validity are almost totally orthogonal. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think people are being POV here; the issue of sampling bias is clear on this survey. It actually looks like a very badly designed survey to be honest (done by someone who knows stats, but not sociological survey design). Imagine a Stratfordian seeing that long list of anti-Stratfordian books - will they feel like playing along, or will they think it's a wind up? Imagine someone who hadn't thought about it, and then is reminded of all the anti-Strafordian arguments by that list? It's a bit like being given a list of all the bad things done by George Bush and then being asked "How did you vote in the last election?" (and it's documented that people lie about previous voting choices, even unconsciously). By the way, your formulation "only a small minority of academics responding to a survey by the nyt found the authorship controversy theories offered reasons to doubt the prevailing consensus" is incorrect because no reasons are offered by respondents (the survey consists of closed questions except "what other anti-stratford works have you read"). Any interpretation of this data beyond reporting the numbers in relation to the precise question is OR. I know the survey's in the NYT, but it does look like a rotten piece of methodology.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "The habit and practice in literary criticism is not to rely on surveys or samples of literary critics," and dismiss the survey as not evidentiary in the field at hand. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still contend that selection bias has only been asserted, not established. Let's pretend for a minute that you guys are right, that the framing of the questions engendered a severe selection bias among respondents.  Among the 265 respondents, 16 (just rounding up) answered "yes" to question 15.  If every professor who rejected the survey would have answered no (the most extreme possible case for selection bias), then the reported percentage would be 2.5%  If we extend this to the "possibly" answers we get 7% (instead of 17%) holding some doubts.  Clearly these are less than what are reported by the nyt but they are also more than 0 (and the margins of error would decrease as we basically double the sample size).  That's if the selection bias is total--that all rejected surveys would otherwise have answered "no".  If they had sent out 1500 and gotten back 260 then I wouldn't take too much convincing, but a response rate of 41% makes me suspicious of claims of selection bias.  I should also point out here that I don't really have a dog in this fight.  I don't believe I've edited the articles under discussion and apart from holding the opinion that most of the authorship controversies are dubious I don't have a strong POV on the issues. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it isn't merely the framing of the question that we are talking about. I've tried to make my objections to it as clear as I can, but obviously I'm not getting through.
 * If every professor who rejected the survey was a "no" vote (and it's highly likely, given the reasons I have furnished), the results as they have been reported are double the correct percentage of "yes" respondents. And counting "possibly" as a positive vote is flat-out misleading, for the reasons I have given. What has not been taken into consideration is that the antiStratfordian editor of the NYT article and the antiStratfordian community at large see the 17% figure as an indication of progress for their public relations campaign (which is readily evident by reading their reactions to the poll on their various Web sites), so the perception you think the survey is conveying is in fact opposite from what they see. It's a camel-nose-in-the-tent issue for them on the way to academic respectability.
 * Also, if a poll is flawed to the extent this one is, it's hardly good practice to say, "Well, it shows something, so it's OK to use as a ballpark figure in a featured article," as you seem to be saying directly above ("Clearly these are less than what are reported by the nyt but they are also more than 0.")Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that you can explain the 41% response rate and still insist that every rejection indicated selection bias. And evidently my point was lost.  Even if we assumed an unreasonable selection bias, the percentage of 'yes' responses would drop from 6% to 2.5% (with the confidence in that estimate increasing).  If we make a more reasonable assumption and suggest that maybe all professors rejecting the survey were half as likely to say "yes" the result is 4.2% in total.  The point here isn't that ballpark is ok, the point is that once you start approaching 50% response rate, the numbers converge toward some stable values, especially if we don't assume anything radical about the missed responses.  I'm sorry that you see this poll as evidence of some change in attitudes, but that's not a sufficient reason to keep it out of the article. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words the fact that the poll is flawed (for more reasons than you are addressing) is no reason to keep it from being used as feature article reference, even though the universe polled does not reflect the universe that the sentence references, because the response rate from the universe polled is high enough that "the numbers converge toward some stable values, especially if we don't assume anything radical about the missed responses." Stability trumps accuracy, even if it raises the percentage of positive response by 140%-240%.
 * While I agree it would be good enough for the authorship article, and might even raise the average quality of references used there, I submit that it is not suitable for this particular article.
 * So how does the general consensus shake out about this? As far as I can tell, you are the only non-aligned editor on your side of the fence. Does the number of words written trump the proportion of editors, too? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about misleading! Tom - you might look at the comments above from Itsmejudith (talk) and Tim Vickers (talk), both non-aligned editors who are in agreement with Protonk(talk). You might also take note of Paul B (talk), a regular article editor of the Stratfordian persuasion who commented, "I think the survey is fundamentally flawed, but I am not opposed to mention of it. Or is there some reason that their comments don't count? Smatprt (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you continue to misunderstand my point. I'll try to be clear, because it is probably my fault.  First, I think the response rate on the poll moots your theory of selection bias.  Meaning that enough of the contacted parties responded (nearly half) to make it easier to believe a hypothesis that response was random over a hypothesis that response was non-random (especially when compared with average telephone and mail survey response rates, which are abysmal).  Furthermore, if we accept your theory that means that of the staunch anti-stratfordians that responded to the poll, >80% of them felt that no good reason existed to question the Stratfordian convention.  Even further, if we grant that point entirely, we still have to explain how selection bias matters if it won't shift the estimated results much.  Obviously if we were worried about pro Stratfordian selection bias the numbers become more disconcerting.  If 100% of the excluded contactees were anti-stratfordian then the resulting survey could, if 100% of the contactees responded, show as low as 60% for "no" on question 15.  Even then the answer: a majority of scholars said no to q. 15 is still technically correct.  Remember that we are assuming you are correct and that the survey is so badly flawed that selection bias makes determinate all possible responses which were left out.  Even so, the survey doesn't change (on the assumption of excluded pro-stratfordian respondents) much between 41% response rate and 100% response rate.  2.5% saying yes is the lowest possible bound for the survey results given the worst possible assumption.  Any less than 100% pro-stratfordian exclusion and we get closer to 6%.  This is just a function of the extant response rate.
 * I'll also repeat my primary claim: the poll isn't badly flawed. The methodology is clearly laid out.  The organization running and publishing the poll is reliable.  The sample size is reasonable.  I'm open to arguments as to how the poll might be flawed but I grow skeptical if those arguments appear to stem from disagreements with the conclusion.  And honestly what is so bad about the conclusion?  The poll states that a small minority of academics express doubts about the prevailing consensus.  It doesn't lend their claims any weight.  It doesn't speak to the truth value of the claims.  It doesn't speak to the distribution of responses among prominent and marginal academics.  It just offers some evidence that a margin exists.  Why is this an unsettling claim?  How is it contradicted by claims from central and prominent scholars that central and prominent scholarship doesn't lend credence to the authorship controversy?  It is still possible to claim that the bulk of support for the authorship controversy comes from non-academics and the popular press (which certainly would generate a proportion greater than 6% who have doubts about the consensus view).  It just doesn't seem threatening to me.  And it seems misleading to leave it out. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Stephen, in the heat of the moment I misspoke. We haven't heard anything from them since I posted my points, though. I honestly don't understand why Paul would go along with using a flawed survey. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Just report all the specific numbers, and let the reader decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To put this interminable discussion to bed, I propose we stipulate that that the survey is a reliable source; and then go back to the original discussion on the William Shakespeare talk page to hash out just exactly what it is a reliable source for. Once we've established that yes, we do indeed generally allow things published in the NYTimes as reliable (a test to determine whether or not a source can be used on Wikipedia at all; not a blanket stamp of approval to give it undue credence and weight), this noticeboard no longer is the right venue for discussion: everyone on here will start from the specific source and view the world from that perspective, whereas the editors of the article start from the complete opposite end (the article as a whole, the sum of Shakespeare research). For instance, it's becoming clear that, e.g., Protonk will never see what the problem with the NYTimes survey is, because that source is his frame of reference in this discussion (that's an explanation, not an accusation, by the way). For instance, that the sentence relevant to this discussion had a long-standing and hard-won consensus among the editors on the page, had stood through a long and contentious FAC process, and was sourced to no less than 4 books published on university presses (of which one's author is considered authorative in the field) hasn't even entered as points in the discussion: because the context, the framing, of the debate has been this NYTimes survey and whether or not it fills Wikipedia's general guidelines for acceptance (not what it can be used for, its relative merits to other sources, etc.). We're arguing this from the wrong perspective, using the wrong test, and not getting anywhere. Seriously, where else but the RS noticeboard would you find otherwise intelligent editors arguing earnestly, emphatically, and in good faith that an email poll by a popular newspaper trumps four books published on university presses? --Xover (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said this before, but it must have gone unnoticed, but the "four books" in question were not used to source the phrase in question. They were used to reference the second half of the sentence that states that Oxford is the most prevalent candidate. That is the part of the sentence that generated so much debate. And most of the contentiousness that preceded it was due to the fact that the mainstream editors wanted the topic completely censored from the article. Getting back to the four sources, at least one of these sources also refers to doubters as heretics or lunatics and other scholarly name-calling. The problem is, most of the strictly Stratfordian editors of the article page treat doubters the same way and push back to the point of unreasonableness when discussing anything having to do with the authorship issue. They completely poo-poo the notion and as a result, have done very little (if any) research into the matter and as a result are pretty uninformed. The same goes with the standard "university press" authors that are cited in the article. They no so little about the authorship issue that they make really obvious mistakes, that then get published due to the writers stature in the general Shakespeare field. I tend to agree with [User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] (talk) above - why not adjust the note to list the specific percentages and be done with it? Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also - as an example of the regular article editors unreasonableness, they have criticized the survey for "only" having a 48% response rate. As I understand it, in the world of surveys, a 48% response rate is to die for! When a survey is torn down with such obvious mistakes, how can a reasonable discussion be had? Smatprt (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're pounding on the other editors because you think we're unreasonable, but what we see is controversial material added to a featured status article without any discussion at all, which you have done several times. If you want to know why you've been accused of acting in bad faith, the perception of trying to sneak something in might be one place to start. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not sure how anyone could "sneak" something in to a high profile article with lots of watchdogs. That seems to be rather unfounded. Second, you are the one who has accused me of bad faith, which Xover, quite recently, completely disagreed with and has taken issue with you about. You also still seem to think that I added the note in question (which I did not). THAT is bad faith. I support keeping the note, but have not objected to your rewrite of it. THAT is good faith. The only other recent issue (over the collaboration article wording and the notes associated with it) WAS discussed, so I really don't understand why you are beating that old worn out drum.Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think you added this particular note. And yes, the other issues WERE discussed, but after you arbitrarily added material questioning the timeline of the writing of the plays and the chronology of the plays (the Cairncross affair).
 * And you';re mistaken about the purpose of the four scholarly references. If you would bother to check the references, Kathman, Love and Schoenbaum all say antiStratfordism is dismissed in academic circles; Kathman "universally," Love "Widely, but not universally," and Schoenbaum--well, you wouldn't like what he says about it so I'll just refer you to the book. As far as Holderness goes, I can't figure out why he's there; nothing in his book discusses authorship in the antiStratford vein. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake, but I looked at some (not all, I admit) of the pages referenced and they had to do with Oxford being the lead candidate. My mistake, but my statement about these authors still stands - they are not authorship researchers (since they dismiss the whole subject), with the exception of Kathman, whose "universally" can no longer be maintained by virtue of the both the survey (which you admit was answered by Professors with anti-strat leanings), and the ongoing petition [] that does, you must admit, include academics in many related and fields including, History, Theatre Arts, and yes indeedy - English Lit! You can poke fun of some of them, but certainly not all. And that basically makes the use of "universal" inappropriate. The current article line says "(small) minority". I hope we can all (at least) agree with that and stop this nonsense about "no serious scholar" and "universal" and "dismissed by academia" and other statements being made on these talk pages, which can no longer be supported (except by the most POV Stratfordians, of course: Wells resorts to name calling, labeling any doubter as "insane"). Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The response rate would be fine in a better written survey. I'm sure the numbers were properly processed. It's the questions that are bloody awful - or, if you like, the spin being put on the answers by editors here that is unjustified. (I really don't give a monkeys about the authorship question). "Just report all the specific numbers, and let the reader decide" doesn't resolve the issue. The point is that the question schedule is inherently biased, leading both to stratfordians not bothering to answer, and by mentioning only one side of a debate in the reading list it provides, positively encouraging a vote for anti-Stratfordism, and discouraging votes against. These are issues of basic survey design that undergraduates doing social research have to get under their belts. The "sampling error" has no connection to how good the survey is, only predict how likely it is that in a similar survey one would get the same answers to the question schedule. Reliability is not the same as validity, and there is no evidence to show that the question schedule accurately measures what it's trying to measure, and a few reasons for thinking that it doesn't.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to correct VsevolodKrolikov's statement concerning "only one side of a debate in the reading list it provides". This is incorrect. Both Irvin Matus (The Case for Shakespeare, [] and Scott McCrea (The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question) are staunch Stratfordian defenders. This somewhat negates the above comment, as well as this particular criticism of the survey, does it not? Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, but it doesn't completely negate his observation. A better survey would have had a clear statement to the effect that some people think William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and that other people, such as Oxford or Bacon, did. Then a simple question of whether they agree with the statement. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, you seriously don't think that college Shakespeare professors know that? I can see where you are coming from on much of this, but this I can't even imagine as being the case.Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think they would know about it, but I've talked to several who have not, or who only have the faintest idea of what it's about. Didn't you read the responses on the section asking if the respondents had read certain authorship authors? Not one topped 30%. That tells you something about how much they know about it. I know this might come as a shock, but I'd wager that not many biologists could tell you much about intelligent design nor would many astronomers know all the ins and outs of the UFO world. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, an assertion about response rates without mention of the relevant facts. If this survey was so terrible at getting Stratfordians to respond, why did 41% (not sure where 48% is coming from) respond?  And why, of the 41% responding, did 82% of the professors not repulsed by the wording choose to support the prevailing consensus?  Obviously sampling error isn't related to the quality of the survey and neither does survey quality improve monotonically with response rate (I don't think anyone has argued above that the margin of error should be offered as an explanation for the quality of the survey).  But that doesn't mean that I'm prepared to accept what seem to be tactical arguments made by proponents of the status quo that the survey is poorly designed...or (more strongly) that it is so poorly designed that we are forced to reject the results. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * People here are arguing a contradiction. If you believe that 82% of English professors in the US believe the Stratford view, then why does the reading list not reflect that? Protonk's argument is based on the idea that "the numbers don't look biased". In that case, why bother doing a survey at all, if you know what it should say already? I am arguing that the numbers simply cannot be trusted, because of the ordering and content of the questions. Prompting a respondent to think of arguments more for one side than the other, and not appearing balanced and neutral are two reasons for rejecting the data. Perhaps the real figure of anti-Stratfordians is higher. Perhaps Stratfordians got so angry that they emailed around their friends in other universities to get them to answer. I have no idea. It's that this survey as a tool of data collection is not very good, because it contains the classic mistake of trying to give people information about a product so that they can answer better, but in doing so, consciously or unconsciously influence the respondent one way or the other. Without wishing to compare this debate to the rather clearer cut one on evolution and ID: Imagine how an evolutionist would feel being sent a survey on evolution versus intelligent design, opens a survey to find a list of writers, over half of whom are IDers. Can you not see that it would strain their sense of co-operation with the survey company? From what I gather reading this thread, the division between the pro and anti Stratford people may be rather less settled, but the opinions are held just as passionately.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm less sure that the misunderstanding is due to my lack of clarity. Please, ask me for a one sentence summation of my view rather than just offering it.  My point is this: the survey design seems reasonable, the methodology clear and the source reliable (otherwise).  The results of the survey are what they are, but the response rate indicates that they would be relatively stable even if we made the unreasonable assumption that the survey elicited a complete section bias.  Relatively stable means that a "yes" answer to q 15 would go from 6% to 2.5% if all excluded respondents were inclined to answer "no" to q. 15 (which is the extreme selection bias posited by Tom).  What response rate does the survey hae to elicit in order to get this point across?  If the response rate was 75%, and the selection bias was as extreme as you suggested, the "yes" percentage would drop from 6% to 4% going from 75% response to 100% response.  And we have to come back and accept your "selection bias due to anger" theory to even get there.  All of this seems like unreasonable hurdles for a survey published in the preeminent news source for the english speaking world. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a "complete selection bias?" If there were such a thing, wouldn't 100% of the respondents have answered "yes?" Tom Reedy (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Complete selection bias would be saying that all rejected responses were due to the hypothesized selection bias, rather than only some being due to selection bias and others being due to another reason. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the survey design is reasonable? It contains a list of authors dominated by writers espousing one view, presented before the question about authorship is asked. It resembles a PR campaign survey dressed up as research - it's actually a trick used by marketers to produce positive results.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted (way way above) that the real problem w/ the survey is the first question, not the series between the first and the 15th. English PhDs are big boys and girls.  Parading a list of authors might influence decisions (or hint that there could be room for questions) but if you are teaching shakespeare in college, I should hope that you have your mind pretty set about these sorts of things.  And also we can't treat these questions as though this were a telephone poll, where the respondent might be browbeaten (as it were) into answered a certain way.  Also, the questions they asked are presented to you.  There is no language that indicates they are presenting some undue impression of legitimacy to the authorship critics.  It's simply "have you read works by the following" (with most of the answers no).  I have to jump through a lot of hoops to agree that the survey itself led people to refuse to answer it or answer in some way at variance with their true beliefs.  I'm made more hesitant to do so when it is plain that not very many refused to respond.  In making the statement that the survey design "seemed reasonable" I was making the implicit comparison to a totally self-selected survey (where the NYT offered a reader poll, for an example).  The sample was drawn randomly and the population the sample hopes to describe is relatively small. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On re-reading and digesting all the arguments, including my own, I seriously doubt that further discussion will yield any new ideas, since the participants are only responding to what they think their strengths are rather than cover each point. The discussion is about much more than the survey itself--whether that's right or not is beside the point at this stage. AntiStratfordism IS a PR campaign dressed up as research--or at least that's what the great majority of academics think about it--and I think the originator of the survey (Neiderkorn is an antiStratfordian who regularly proselytizes in his thinly-veiled manner), not the medium in which it appeared, is at the root of the distrust of the survey. While 6% (misleadingly plumped up to 17% by including "possibly") might seem small enough to justify the "small minority" statement, that number is in fact one that is represented as progress by the antiStratfordian movement. One such Web site uses the survey to say that "the decline in support for the traditional view of authorship within English departments is nothing short of precipitous" [].
 * I personally have talked to several university English professors--"big boys and girls"--who were dumbfounded that anyone seriously questions the authorship of Shakespeare. Above Smatprt tries to have it both ways when he states that most English professors are ignorant of the authorship topic yet simultaneously he "can't even imagine" that they wouldn't know the explicit topic of the survey, even though according to the survey it appears on the surface that most of them have read not one word about the subject.
 * FACT 1: The authorship "controversy" theorizes that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and that some other person did.
 * FACT 2: This survey chooses to not make that explicit, but instead couches it in weaselly terms: "the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespeare works," "question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author," and "authorship question."
 * FACT 3: For most English professors, the "Shakespeare authorship question" is the topic of determining exactly what Shakespeare wrote, such as Sir Brian Vickers' investigations into play collaborations and Don Foster's short-lived claim about Funeral Elegy.
 * QUESTION: Why didn't the survey come right out and state the premise and ask whether the respondents agreed with it? The only responses we've seen here are assumptions that those surveyed knew implicitly what wasn't stated explicitly. I agree that the percentage of those might not have been very high, but low would the percentage have to be not to impact a total of 16 yeses?
 * This is just one example of the problems that have been countered with "well, even though the survey is ill-designed, and even if selection bias is present, the numbers are still small enough to use it as a reliable source for the statement." In other words, as long as the survey conclusion supports the statement, it doesn't matter much how it was arrived at. Or so it seems to me.
 * Whether my objections are driven by my unhappiness with the results is irrelevant; my arguments are rooted in what exactly constitutes a reliable source for a featured article on Wikipedia. If slipshod sources are accepted, why would anybody object to the late-night comedian jokes about Wikipedia?
 * I think it is important to examine the references used in an encyclopedia article; they are not all equal. Why is it so necessary to include this reference, given all the objections to it, especially by the people to whose side it ostensibly supports, such as myself?
 * My prediction is that we will eventually be worn down and accept it and then have another contentious debate over how it's to be used. That's what happened when the article was being prepared for FA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that moving from complaining about discourse breaking down due to parties reciting the strengths of their argument works well if you follow it up with a series of all caps "FACTS". And I want to point something out that has been pissing me off.  "This is just one example of the problems that have been countered with "well, even though the survey is ill-designed, and even if selection bias is present, the numbers are still small enough to use it as a reliable source for the statement." In other words, as long as the survey conclusion supports the statement, it doesn't matter much how it was arrived at. Or so it seems to me."  When I say "even if" I mean that if I accept your dubious argument, then I still can justify the source because of XYZ.  It doesn't mean that I accept the argument.  For example, I don't buy your argument about selection bias at all, but even if I did, the impact of that selection bias on the outcome would be minimal.  That doesn't mean "I accept that there is selection bias, and that there is the worst possible selection bias and yet I still think we can use this source in an FA".  I actually don't think that selection bias plagued this survey.
 * And I'll come back to the problem. Is the fact that this survey hints at a less homogeneous academic body so threatening?  Is it so unbelievable that 6% of faculty teaching shakespeare would profess some doubts regarding q.15? Protonk (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not unbelievable to think that 6% of faculty teaching Shakespeare would profess some doubts; it is unbelievable that 6% of faculty teaching Shakespeare would think there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon. I may, of course, have misjudged the degradation in the quality of English majors these days, especially in a country where more people believe in angels than believe that evolution is true. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Also keep in mind (and I said this above) that the survey doesn't describe the distribution of respondents.  Maybe the 16 people responding also happen to be not very influential in the field or are known to be idiosyncratic.  They didn't offer breakdowns by tenure (and the standard errors would be large), but maybe the responses were clustered around younger faculty.  Who knows.  I think a nice place for this survey (or the article explaining it) in the wp article is a bookend following the scholarly sources noting the consensus.  All it says (note that the conflation of "yes" with "possibly" was not mine, I think it is dishonest to report 17% rather than 6%) is that a small minority of teaching academics disagreed w/ the consensus view in a survey.  It's not an earth shaking result. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I could probably recite the names of the 16. In any case, I'm sick to death of this and have a lot more things to do than mess with it anymore. I've been worn down and I'm ready to go along with Xover's suggestion and stipulate that the survey is a reliable source and start arguing about how to use it. My preference is a simple cite, not a note. That way we avoid the whole "6% vs. 17%" debate. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Now we're going to have a nice long chat about this over on William Shakespeare. Just because the source passes the RS test doesn't mean it passes notability, recentism, etc.; the existence of a poll does not ipso facto mean it should be discussed on Wikipedia. --Xover (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaker Bureau Bio
An editor has started an article in a user subpage here. Some of the material also appears in a Speakers Bureau Bio here. I've already provided the caution that the article must be written in the editor's own words, but I don't want to urge citing the source if it isn't reliable (Obviously, if not reliable, the included material must be sourced elsewhere. My tentative advice is here.)

Some arguments against accepting a Speakers Bureau bio as a reliable source:


 * WP:COI - the bureau has a vested interest in making the speaker sound as attractive as possible, and may not emphasize or even list negative aspects
 * WP:PEACOCK - speakers bureau's are notorious for use of superlative without supporting evidence

Some arguments for accepting a Speakers Bureau bio as a reliable source:
 * Speaker's bureaus want repeat business, so cannot cavalierly make false claims about speakers
 * Peacock terms are only a problem is directly quoted, if paraphrased in neutral language, not an issue.
 * Balance is the responsibility of the editor, and that does not mean every source used has to be balanced, only that the overall article is balanced

Intermediate possibility - perhaps a Speakers bureau bio is in the same category as a autobio - acceptable for certain facts, such as birthdate, address, family etc. but not as support for claims of being an expert in some subject area.

(I searched the archives for "speakers bureau" but didn't see that this subject has been discussed.)-- SPhilbrick  T  15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kambojas and related
Kambojas Through the Ages by Kirpal Singh Dardi is used as a source in 81 articles, mainly on Indian history, but including one on a 20th century hockey player. I could find no reference in any bookseller or library catalogue, but from discussion on Talk:Kambojas I now know it is a Punjabi-language book, title Kamboj Yugan de Aar-paar. I've asked the user who was responsible for all/most of the citations to supply the place of publication and publisher, but so far he hasn't. I also found out that the author is a civil engineer, or a retired one, rather than an academic historian. What do people think? Can it be used at all? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not English-language and not from an academic source, either. It might be full of nonsense or it might not: it doesn't really matter, as it's clearly inappropriate to use anyway. Should be removed ASAP. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll be a lot of work! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-seriously: couldn't we program some bot to do it for us? Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is it published by? It doesn't have to be in English, and the writer doesn't have to have a degree for their books to be an RS. If it's self published, that's another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The author of the book (THe Kambojas Through the Ages), Kirpal Singh Daradi, is very well conversant with the ancient Sansakritic and Inscriptional sources containing most of information on the Kambojas. Further, his book "Kamboj Yugan de Aar-Paar" (The Kambojas Through the Ages) is his second and very well-researched book on "Kamboj History", having been published after over 35 years of research and about 25 after his first research book on Kambojas "Eh Kamboj Lok" (These Kamboj People) had appeared in 1980. It is notable that most of the information on the Kambojas is found scattered in ancient Sanskrit sources and Kirpal Singh Daradi is fully aware of this. He has published his book in Punjabi since his intended audience are mostly north-west Panjabi People from Indian and Pakistan Punjab. It is absurd to say that all references from Kirpal Singh Dardi's Books on Wikipedia be deleted simply because he (Kirpal Singh Dardi) has been a Civil Engineer by Training/Profession or else that his book is in Punjabi not in English. Heck, has every research book to be in English? Then, what about the front ranking Indologists, like Dr J. C. Vidyalankara, most of whose extensive and highly-valuable researches have been written in Hindi? And what about Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi who was a reputed Mathematician and Statistician by profession/training but who otherwise has also written some of the best books and research articles on Ancient Indian History?

Some basic information on "The Kambojas Through The Ages".

Satbir Singh (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the work is reviewed in a major journal of Indian classicism or history, use it, if it isn't, downgrade it viciously. There's no ISBN on a book search. Satbir Singh's posted link indicates very strongly that the book is self published as there are only two hits on the Punjabi title, the other is an online forum review in English heavily in the invective style. WP:SELF applies.  I eagerly await the day we walk and drive over spans designed and built by historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Satbir, if you have the book, or have access to it in a library, can you just look in the inside page to see who the publisher is? Then we can look it up to see if it is a reliable/academic publisher. I've been searching high and low on the internet and am coming up with nothing. He has a 2009 book "Rivers and Canals of Punjab in Historical Perspective" which has an ISBN. A library catalogue in the USA has a book of Punjabi-language short stories from him (assuming this is the same person?). Amazon says that "Iha Kamboja Loka" was published by Shahira Udhama Singha Prakashana, but I find nothing on them at all in google, which is deeply worrying. If this was a mainstream publishing house, then why are no other books of theirs listed in Google. If this can't be resolved, then all text referenced to the (2005) book will have to come out. Please see our core policy WP:V for why we have to be able to trace sources of material in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wordpress.com interview as a source
Hi, I have been editing and improving this article for some time and currently I am using this interview with some of the band members as a source. Now I know as a blog Wordpress is usually not reliable but as this is a primary interview with the band I'm unsure whether or not to remove it. The blogger is named Nadine O'Regan, who is a journalist, and I'm fairly confident the article is not a fake interview. Considering that parts of the article may contain her bias I'm only using some of the quotes from the members. As such I'm wondering is it acceptable to use the interview just for the band quotes.

Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not an acceptable source, as per WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, --RavensFists (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the journalist could be considered an expert on music interviews, so assuming you're sure the article was in fact written by her, then yes it's citable as an expert SPS. Also consider using it as an external link which doesn't have as strict requirements.  I would go ahead and use it, assuming it's not to source anything derogatory or controversial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

www.catholic.org
I've seen this website cited on wikipedia already but I wasn't sure whether it is actually a reliable source and thought it might be considered biased. Munci (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not give any indication to show that it is anything other than a personal website (dispite the ".org" suffix)... the website gives no listing of editors or staff, it lists no office address, and there is nothing to show it represents the "official" views of the Church (no "stamp of approval" from any Diocese, or from the Vatican). So, no... I don't think it can be considered reliable by our rules.  Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to see at first, them being linked to halfway down the page rather than at the top like on most websites, but there are "About", "Contact Us" and "Writers & Contributors" sections. The contributors include a deacon so that maybe sorts the stamp of approval issue. I don't see anything in the way of the Vatican supporting it though. It seems to be (almost) exclusively American as well which makes me doubt it even more as an official Church website. But the list of contributors also includes Robert Spencer, who is already decided non-reliable so I think at the least, any articles cited to pages on the website written by Spencer should no longer use that as a citation. Munci (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a private, for-profit, website based out of Bakersfield, CA, as per here and here, and, so far as I can tell, the site doesn't list the names of anyone involved in its operation. My guess, on that basis, would be that it probably shouldn't be used as a source. Somehow, I rather doubt that it is the only possible source for material relevant to Catholicism out there, so I can't really see any reason for it being used, except, maybe, in rare cases, if it is the only place that reprints an article from some very low-run newspaper which can't be accessed otherwise or if for whatever reason one of the signed contributors to a given piece it runs is considered separately reliable. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not reliable source: A very expensive example of SELF publishing and a Vanity press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am just so surprised that even with their money woes resulting from the whole "touching boys" problem that the Catholic Church has not found it worthwhile to simply buy that domain name, and that they didnt think about that long ago and snatched it up over a decade ago before anyone else. Kinda a commonsense name they shouldve bought long ago.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm torn on this one. According to this May 2008 article in Bakersfield Now, there's some very serious problems with that site.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that has any bearing on the quality of what was written.  If we consider it self-published, besides looking for alternate sources, we could consider the merits of each article.  I'm assuming that articles written by priests would be considered expert SPS, and articles written by bishops could be considered a publication of their diocese. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"eNotes"
The Mezzanine is exclusively sourced to something called "eNotes", which looks at first sight like snippets from the forest-slaughtering Gale production Contemporary Literary Criticism with extra wobbly bits and GoogleAds for $cientology on the side. Is this really CLC (and if so, is the reproduction authorized) or is it merely something akin to a well-written wiki? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable, SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The source would be CLC, with a convenience link to eNotes, ( eNotes even provides a citation button to generate a cite to CLC ), so it wouldn't be self-published. And there seems to be some sort of editorial process to eNotes, so no, not selfpub.  What I would watch for is copyright.  But I would assume that a site like this would have obtained permission to reproduce the materials.  This isn't somebody's home fileserver.  Oh, and I didn't see any "wobbly bits" and my Google Ads were all about flour and baking supplies ( the author's name is Baker ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! news as a reliable source for military affaires
I just wanted to consulte after I had disagreement with one user on the list of operators in the article of Type 212 submarine. According to Yahoo's news Israel is now one of the operators of the U-212, Yahoo based its report on Jane's defense weekly, which considerd as highly credible source. Moreover, a report of one French news agency  quote Israeli military spokesman and again indicate specifically that Israel now operate the U 212. Please review the sources and eveluate their reliability.--Gilisa (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Refimprove: Source Janes from Janes. Supplement with Yahoo! News and Defense News, both of which are fit for purpose, but not the most appropriate method of sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That Yahoo News article is syndicated from Agence France-Presse, which is definitely RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cliojournal
[http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/ CLIO is a journal devoted to publishing research papers by students and teachers of History. ] -anyone can add articles. It's being used both as an external link and as a source/reference - eg here. I'd say use as a source only if the author has published in clearly reliable sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Anyone can add articles." If you mean that literally, then it is self-publication and non-RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's essentially a wiki and therefore shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia. I don't think we should use it even if the author has published elsewhere in reliable sources since they may involve peer review whereas this clearly does not.Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, thanks for the message in regard to Cliojournal and for referring me to the policy on external links. Clio is a wiki but it doesn't take contributions from anyone. I feel the articles I've linked to exhibit scholarly rigor and the link is a valuable addition to the entry concerned. That having been said, I accept the consensus expressed above. Regards Tommibg (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tommibg, I wouldn't consider 24 hours worth of opinions, especially on a Sunday, any kind of consensus. I hope we're not getting into a situation similar to like we've had for years with newspaper "blogs", where some editors are still uncertain of them just because of the format of the medium.  A wiki with editorial control could be an RS.  That said, the Byzantine Empire is a very large topic that's been covered in many thousands of sources.  It's unlikely that a wiki would be in the top hundred or so sources we'd have citations for in the article.  It could be different it this were a specialized, technical, or pop-culture topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I'd recommend both the FA criteria, and WP:MILMOS as the key style examples of history (MIlmos's sourcing is transcluded via History project's B-class). While something published on a wiki by an editorial group could match a peer-reviewed journal / edited collection published by an academic press, a quick look at the referenced examples indicate that they're well below the 4000 word or so minimum for original scholarly output in academic history.  Even if the publication in question has responsible editorial control, the papers being sourced from non-research students, and the length, indicate that "find better sources" is great advice here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Green: RS?
I would argue that the Daily Green and similar publications are not reliable sources but special interest publications known to distort the truth on various issues. Are such publications generally considered reliable sources in Wikipedia? This is a general question as I see this publication being used in a number of places (presently I'm looking at Garth Paltridge). Alex Harvey (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a magazine style publication with a named-meat editor who's qualified as a journalist. ie: It meets the minimal RS criteria.  How much do you normally trust specialty "lifestyle" magazines?  What better sources do you have.  Why are you editing articles out of lifestyle magazines instead of superior sources?  Have a think about those issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't think the sources are reliable, and I'm certainly not the editor who is using them. Specifically, an editor wishes to use this page here. I believe it's quite inappropriate to use this page but if Wikipedia deems the source "reliable" then there's not a lot I can do about it. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The piece is Opinion from a magazine/newspaper with a named editor being used in relation to a Living person. The source is quoteable, but the quotes have to be highly constrained, "In the opinion of Daily Green Magazine, a small online Hearst publication, "..." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A special-interest magazine can be RS. But there may be better sources available.  On the article talk page somebody found an archived copy of the organization in question's list of prominent members which provides the same information.  Once in a while, a good primary source is preferable to a sufficiently POV secondary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports-reference.com RS?
Is a legitimate reliable source for sports information? It seems to be popping up on a whole bunch of stubs lately and the site looks kind of junky to me, but I'm not a sports expert by far. Here is a sample diff (there are literally dozens of these recently added):   For a non-sports enthusiast like me this site looks like a spam site, and I just want a second opinion before I start removing the links in a large scale way. Thank you for your help! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know Baseball-reference.com has been deemed reliable, and it seems to be the same people. So it probably is reliable as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, where was baseball-reference.com deemed reliable? I can't seem to find the mention of it being reliable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked the person who told me that, but I don't think they've responded. It's mentioned in the archives a bunch, although I haven't read them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SR has passed a few FAC sepcific checks. Also see the info on the contributors. Some of them have been heads of some sports history orgs  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The parent company is behind several sports-specific sites that have been deemed reliable at FAC, including Pro Football Reference. A conversation on this site can be seen at Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap
At Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive2 there is debate about the infobox map for Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). The source is a wiki, but in a WP:POST story several months back, there was an article about how WP supports OpenStreetMaps as I recall. I believe this may be an exception because although it is an open wiki, the primary wiki contributors are extremely reliable companies that were discussed in the signpost article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the page actually need to show the building on a street map? I'm sure that anyone who wanted to get there could get directions. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps. Even though this is a wiki, it sounds like most of the content is being contributed by sources such as NASA and people who take the time to gather info from GPS systems. It seems that these maps are something that we are suppose to be trying to incorporate in WP articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're in uncharted territories. I support it's inclusion.  It's like our exceptions to the OR policy with regard to images.  To comply with the NFCC, we have to take what we can get.  And, that map looks like it was made using professional data, not someone on a bike. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

knowledgerush
Please see the beginning of the discussion of this website in External_links/Noticeboard. A wikipedia mirror cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. yes/no? - Altenmann >t 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources. See Reliable sources which is rather clear on this, "Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.". Fifelfoo (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. The actual issue raised is whether the job of hunting these quite numerous uses of mirrors may be automated. Of course, I can waste some of my time and delete about 100 refs to knowledgetruth, but how to bar them and the likes? This will give me some time to write something useful instead. - Altenmann >t 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks
Sorry if this question has been asked before. It probably has, but is Wikileaks considered a reliable source? Thank you. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Context please. Article and source.  Fifelfoo (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can probably hazard a guess without knowing the context: no. There is no real way to verify that documents leaked to wikileaks haven't been doctored or made from whole cloth.  Often, the usual way people find out that the documents are real is the subject of the documents (some company or person) sues wikileaks, asserting that the material is covered under trade secrets--meaning that they are willing to tell a court the material is true.  Also, when we have articles which mention wikileaks, they should only do so because some third party (e.g. a newspaper) mentions the leak.  In that case we would point to the newspaper for evidence of the leak.  We should almost never source material to a document on wikileaks unless the leak itself is the subject of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll mention the context, if it is still needed but the explanation provided really clears things up. I was always unsure of Wikileaks as a source because of its controversial nature. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be worth adding that material on Wikileaks is probably WP:Primary and may well also be WP:SPS. You need to find a secondary RS that comments on or uses the leak item.Martinlc (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say only if the leak itself was covered by another source; then the Wikileaks article would become citable as a primary source for that information. It may also be usable as an external link.  But I wouldn't quote Wikileaks the way I would quote a newspaper article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at our own article on Wikileaks, it appears that they now actually have an editorial board. I believe it's still more of an anthology of primary or SPS documents than a true secondary source.  But an editor-reviewed anthology would give some measure of notability to the reports, which means maybe they could be cited without being discussed by another source.  But we should consider that usage on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the context for this debate was for fraternity mottos, secret handshakes, and the like. ( I thought this was about something serious like the Pentagon Papers. )  I could go either way on this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is where the debate came from. However, those supposed "secrets" are not actually contained in the uploaded documents themselves. I already checked. Rather the information is on the description page and can be seen as conjecture and falls in the realm of OR because they are user submitted. Even if it is just a fraternity motto etc. I was unaware that wikileaks can be used as a reliable source and wanted to know for future reference for other articles. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not normally an RS, though there are exceptions as described above. It would be up to the editor who wants to use something from Wikileaks to show which document ( not a description page or edit history ) they want to cite and why it belongs in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the unsourced conference report a reliable source?
I am interested to know if  the  following  document  can be considered a reliable source. This is a text of a report on the Discussion Panel at the Annual Meeting of The Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America (PIASA), June 8, 2002 Georgetown University, Washington DC. It contains no references, so it is impossible to verify author's claims. According to google.scholar.com, the author, Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski has been cited 2  times, according to Tompson institute (ISI) he has been cited 0 times. Therefore, he is not a prominent historian.

My primary concern is that the above mentioned text contains statements like that:
 * "About four-fifths of all victims (In Soviet occupied Poland. -PS) were betrayed to the NKVD by local leftists mostly of  Jewish background."

thereby attempting to connect Jedwabne pogrom and Soviet repressions. This seems strange, because this directly contradicts to what reliable sources say (e.g., Joshua D. Zimmerman, Contested memories: Poles and Jews during the Holocaust and its aftermath, Part 804. Rutgers University Press, 2003, ISBN 0813531586, 9780813531588, on p. 67-68 directly states that such attempts are "historically false and morally untenable"). In connection to that, my question is whether the equal weight can be given to the unsourced report presented by non-notable historian and the book published by well-known university.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a wikipedia article about Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For researchers in science disciplines, 'quality' journals have been equated with those indexed by Thomson Scientific ISI (ISI), and particularly journals with high impact factors. Journal impact factors (JIF) are published by ISI each year and have gained the attention of research funding bodies, higher education institutions, and academics as a means to rank journals in a field. However, ISI indexes less than 50% of peer-reviewed journals published world-wide (2) and, of these, less than one third are humanities and social science journals. Quality Australian journals in the humanities and social sciences. Australian Academic & Research Libraries | June 01, 2008 | Haddow, Gaby
 * I'd take that as a strong indication your ISI search is not an indicator here.
 * The PIASA source doesn't indicate peer review status, assume non-peer reviewed. Academic standard in History is peer reviewed conference publications (academic practice is, in most history fields, to spurn conference publications and seek journal publications, edited collections, but most especially monographs).  By claiming historian status in his bio-line Pogonowski's statements are not-very reliable: he hasn't (in this source) uttered them in the standard form for his profession.  WP:MILMOS which sets the standard for the History project through the b-class criteria is very clear about there being a hierarchy of sources when dealing with history archives.  I feel it isn't reliable as its SELF (to my mind).  Even if it is reliable it shouldn't be used, because sources which do meet milmos are available.  If Pogonowski has published this in a milmos standard source find it, mention the dispute on the article page. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fifelfoo. I fully agree with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

pay up or shut up
Are subscription websites RS, the point has been rasied (sort of) here []? Why should a user be expected to fork out to check a source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no different from having to buy a book. Paul B (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Insufficient context to determine which journal article you're talking about as there are three or four mentioned in those discussions. Please specify.  RS is about publication and provenance, not accessibility or cost. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that a book can be borrowed from a libuary, a web site cannot, however as it seesms that RS is about publication and provenance, not accessibility or cost then there nis not issue.


 * Websites can sometimes be accessed from libraries which have subscriptions, but essentially the point is as stated: that the source is judged on its merits not its accessibility. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to see the article/source, but the basic idea is that sources behind a paywall are just as valid all else equal as sources which are free on the net. Protonk (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As my question about the payment (and I am not party to this particular argument) I am happy to close this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing for people to remember... information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by anyone... but this does not mean that the information is verifiable by everyone. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In really dubious cases, I would recommend to request a quote from the cited paid source to be delivered by the contributor. - Altenmann >t 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most if not all universities and college libraries (and I would imagine a fair number of public libraries as well) have subscriptions to JSTOR which should cover just about any journal publication Wikipedia would need for scientic and humanities based articles. There are probably similar things to JSTOR that many libraries have. Perhaps contacting your local college library is a start. Since this issue about paysites comes up so much (fourth time in a couple months I can think of) and Blueboar, Protonk, and I have to keep repeating ourselves that "verifiable does not mean verifiable by YOU, RIGHT NOW, THIS INSTANT, FOR FREE, FROM YOUR COMPUTER CHAIR" is there perhaps a place in policy that we can point to in the future when this matter comes up again (and it will). I hate quoting policy and those that do, but in this case it may be preferable to just throw a policy out and get it over with next time. If there isnt a section in policy that explicitly states it then we should perhaps think of adding a sentence that comes out and says it.Camelbinky (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an essay to work off, summarising at least this incident and a couple I've had with non-English sourcing issues: Reliable_sources/Cost. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice Fifelfoo! I think it definitely has the ability to be more than just an essay and be incorporated into an existing policy such as WP:V since it is more about the verifying of a source than the reliability of it. You may want to mention museums in your list of potential reliable sources that need payment for them and how a publicly accessed document or information may only exist at a reliable museum and yes that it may be 1,000 or more miles away and also have admission fees doesnt make it unusable in Wikipedia. I remember one thread regarding a naval museum in Texas is why I bring that up. Wikipedia, being a global effort, is of course going to every once in awhile use as a reference something that can only be seen in a limited geographical area. Our editors in the PRC have the problem of not being able to access information regarding the Tiananmen Square Massacre on Google or other search engines (or anywhere in that country for that matter), that doesnt make such information unreliable as far as they are concerned, just because they cant themselves check out the websites. I am sure there are similar websites based out of France that here in the US we cant access.Camelbinky (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated to clearly indicate: Time; Location; Cost as three separate reasons why not everyone can verify a reliable source. I'm not willing to take it forward in being incorporated into policy.  I've recently stuffed up some wiki-bureaucracy / procedural behaviour and don't feel confident with it at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have added a statement on "Access to sources" at WP:V that should cover this. Don't know if it will stick the way I wrote it, but the idea is there. Blueboar (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Charitable Foundation
Would a link to 2 different PDF's from the State of Mississippi Secretary of State Office be a valid secondary source for an article?

the PDF's prove the existence of the foundation and its function as a foundation, and a non-profit at that.

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/regenf/charities/charannrpt/2007%20report/j%20-%20registered%20charities%20in%20mississippi%20contact%20information%202007.pdf

Please help me with this I would like to keep the Wesley Charitable Foundation article from being deleted if possible


 * Those would be valid sources, but those would be primary sources not secondary sources. You'd want for example newspaper articles about the charity's activities. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You should look at the criteria for notability listed at WP:ORG. I am sure this Foundation does very good work, but that is not a reason to keep an article. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote worthy causes. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They're reliable sources in that they're published by the State, an external body, not the foundation in question. They just don't go to notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera
Is Al Jazeera a reliable source for 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt? A user has recently deleted material from this article arguing that Al Jazeera is not a RS.diff. --JRSP (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Al Jazeera is generally considered a reliable source. I also find the referenced article to be unsurprising and without any red flags. Good source. If you want to strengthen it further, try finding the AFP/Reuters/AP reports of the Carter interview - typically, these are taken over more or less one to one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a reliable source. The only thing that I could think of where it may be a questionable source is the internal politics of Qatar where it may be a reliable secondary source or it may be a primary source as it is state funded.  nableezy  - 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Al Jazeera is reliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, RS for uses in the diff. Please ref-improve by providing full citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a solid reliable source with a good reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Al-Jazeera has often been criticized for its lack of neutrality when it comes to Arab-related matters (being an Arab source, such criticism would surface whether or not it is justified), but here we are talking about a topic that bears no relation whatsoever with the Middle East, and Al-Jazeera being the Middle East's CNN, it is as reliable as any other major news source. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they did pay for and held a party for a released child killer. Not something you'd expect from a journalistic source that tries to uphold a semblance of neutrality. The problem with Venezuela's stories is the country's leadership is, much like al-Jazeera, what analysts call "pro-Mukawama". Putting this into consideration, I think they should be avoided where possible in this topic.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * al-Jazeera is a RS, regardless of what you think of their editorial stance on issues. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When a source issues a public mea culpa for a mistake, that is an indication of reliability, not unreliability. Unless we are in Bizarro World. Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what value there is in an apology that comes only after sanctions are handed down. In fact, that they actually funded a birthday party for a child killing terrorist is beyond repair, IMHO. You can't just shrug it off since the people behind this party are still working for them.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. But al-Jazeera is a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of that section are you referring to exactly?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Using US News and World Report as an academic authority.
The article Marietta College is currently edit-protected because of one IP asserting that the US News and World Report is the final authority in deciding whether the college can be classified as a liberal arts college. The IP in question has been traced to the University of Pennsylvania, and Marietta is in Ohio.

Although I do not doubt that the USNWR is highly regarded as a source, I believe that the categorization of universities and colleges (as stated in the infoboxes) should be done using exclusively academic sources, and so, the USNWR being a news source that sets its own criteria, it should not be regarded as the final authority. I still believe the USNWR "dissention" could be mentioned in the article itself, but the infobox is a different story. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of other source (the first shows that the University classifies itself as a "liberal arts college") Founded in 1835, Marietta College is a private, liberal arts college located in southeast Ohio, Marietta is the only liberal arts college in the nation offering a petroleum engineering degree. The actual rankings by USNWR should be attributed, but for classifications it should be fine, though it is not the "final authority". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not rely on any one source for classifying institutions of higher learning, particularly not one as maligned as USN&WR. As an accredited American institution, though, the premiere classifications are the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.  For what it's worth, CFAT classifies this institution as "Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields."  That may not be terribly useful, though, as the 2005 classifications abandoned the use of the term "liberal arts."  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a pre-2005 classification? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * U.S. News and World Report is still an RS, and is influential in its college rankings, though of course it should not be the only authority. I thought that the definition of a liberal arts college was that it didn't offer professional degrees, but if both U.S. News and the college itself say "liberal arts" then we have to go with the sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * USNWR does not qualify the school in question as liberal arts, the school still claims this despite offering many pre-professional degrees (so many that less than half the students receive a liberal arts degree). It should not be allowed to call itself liberal arts any longer. The USNWR standard of half of degrees granted being liberal arts to be called a liberal arts school follows the old Carnegie classification and is as good as any other. See Marietta College and the discussion there for further information on this. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that USNWR is in fact, for certain information and generally is a RS (though there will be matters in which it wont be reliable). As for saying if a college is liberal arts or not, the best that can be said is that it is that magazine's opinion. If a college wants to call itself something like a "liberal arts" college, which to my best knowledge isnt something defined legally in any state, then that's what it should be classified as, and if that classification is contradicted by someone's RS definition then that contradiction should be noted in the next sentence. Regarding the title of this thread "Using US News and World Report as an academic authority"- that magazine is, in my experience has never been acceptable as a source in any academic paper whether written by a freshman in one of the classes I TA or by a grad student in a published article. It is a reliable source however for Wikipedia, generally, and I'm a bit confused as to why someone in this thread has said its not and that it is generally "maligned". Some political groups have maligned it in the past for percieved "conservative" beliefs, and then for percieved "liberal" bias; the fact that it has been attacked in the past for biases from both sides shows its pretty mainstream/fair, though it still has a reputation for being on the conservative side (which I dont see too often anymore, though sometimes some writers do, though that's mostly in the opinion articles and not the news parts). I'm extremely liberal and I have a subscription.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If editors disagree with the college describing itself as "liberal arts", they can use attribution, as in "According to XYZ, it's a liberal arts college". Or if the professional degrees were added recently, it would only take a little more sourcing to get "was originally a liberal arts college".  Though I am a little confused why USNWR isn't allowed in academic papers at your school.  Do they have some sort of list of "good" and "bad" publications? Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would of course be up to the professor, but to my knowledge every professor I have ever had, first as an undergrad at the University at Albany (SUNY) and then now as a grad student at the University of Missouri-Columbia, none have ever allowed USN&WR as a source (and poli sci is my discipline) because it is considered "soft news", though not as soft as, say the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, it still has a reputation of not being a serious journalistic endevour on par with published books and poli sci specific peer-reviewed journals. Younger professors may have a different take, but whenever it has come up in my academic career I've always gotten a negative answer on using that source. Newspapers and magazines are generally frowned upon anyways for research papers, its nothing specific to that one mag as far as I know.Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is an anonymous op-ed in a smallish newspaper a reliable source for a BLP?
There is a dispute over the reliability of the Ottawa Citizen, specifically this anonymous op-ed. The article in question is Marc Garlasco. My contention is that since this op-ed breathlessly repeats blogger's accusations, such as Garlasco (a published expert on WWII German anti-aircraft forces) chose as his online nom de plume "FlaK88" not based upon the most feared weapon of the European theater, the 88mm FlaK anti-aircraft gun but, rather, because "88" is some sort of alphabetic substitution cypher invented by skinheads to signify "heil Hitler" ("h" being the 8th letter in the alphabet) the source has displayed no attempt at fact checking and lacks the proper editorial oversight expected of a RS. That whole well is poisoned and the anonymous op-ed is no longer a reliable source for any other claim therein and should not be used in a WP:BLP. Reverts abound despite discussion on the talk page, so any extra eyes would be appreciated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unreliable as used. due to Editorials not being reliable sources of fact, but sources of Opinion (as Ottawa Citizen classifies its Editorial section). Ottawa Citizen would stand behind any editorial it publishes, the problem is that the editorial is making factual claims, and the article is currently quoting these, "The Ottawa Citizen, in its editorial Not-so-secret motives,[23] stated "Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state. Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious, but no matter -- among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero."." The following statement of fact, "Scholars and other researchers...malicious" is a statement of fact which the Editorial cannot be trusted as an RS for.  Similarly "among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero" is a statement of fact for which the Editorial cannot be trusted.  that "Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state." is an opinion which the Editorial is reliable for, if correctly attributed and characterised, such as, "The Ottawa Citizen believes, "Garlasco...state."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But as for that opinion, anonymous op-eds typically do not make for significant opinions, and so wouldn't be appropriate in any case. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, any newspaper editorial not published with a Named Meat is necessarily the opinion of the Newspaper / Chief Editor. Doesn't make it notable though, as you point out. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. What Dlabtot said below; I didn't catch the correction you made from "anonymous op-ed". Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it is an editorial, not an "anonymous" op-ed. Second, opinion pieces are fine for referencing someone's opinion, unacceptable for citing alleged facts. Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo, thanks for the great work on RSN. But, could you not bold the beginning of your statements.  It makes them seem more official than how the comments here really are.  Again, keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Good point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the fact that the entity that owns the Citizen, Canwest, has questionable editorial practices be germane to the discussion? L0b0t (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the Citizen itself has been accused of bias, . L0b0t (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Systemic pro or anti topic bias by an author (in this case the Editorial Policy which covers Editorials) would go to notability of the opinion. It'd also go to reliability of facts stated in opinions, but editorials shouldn't be used to cite facts anyway.  So all that's left is the opinion itself.  Enforced opinion from above doesn't make it any less an opinion.  Why you'd want to cite a newspaper's opinion about someone is beyond me though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that editorials cannot be used for facts. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.  I have a feeling we could find an editorial, and a fact, that it's fine to cite it for.  Not talking about this one specifically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is totally misleading. The smallish newspaper is the capital of Canada's Ottawa Citizen, and the op-ed in question is the main editorial published by the editorial board of the paper. The actual fact is that a group of POV-pushers dislike, for agenda purposes, what the paper had to say about the subject of the article - hence this misleading thread. I would invite editors of all stripes to come to the Marc Garlasco page and see for yourself. It is convenient to use praising & gushing from such notable sources as Der Spiegel but a major Canadian newspaper that publishes a main editorial that counters their POV? Not allowed! Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it was used at Marc Garlasco was to claim the Editorial supported facts such as, "among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero". An Editorial cannot substantiate facts, no matter how big a newspaper, as the editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper's editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can make such a blanket statement. That statement sounds controversial, though, so you may be correct in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ottawa Citizen is a reliable source for news however please note WP guidelines for reliable sources: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers.  So it should not be used.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But the edit in question - read it here - is asserting an opinion (basically "The Ottowa Citizen editorial called Garlasco anti-Israel") not a fact ("Garlasco is anti-Israel"). I don't see a problem from a RS perspective, though there might be one from an undue weight perspective. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be other issues, but that source is reliable for that statement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this belongs at WP:BLP/N. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to have a reason to believe that the opinion of the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen is important enough to include in the article. Kinda seems like a lot of fuss but a high bar has to be set for broad statements like that (especially when they are so loaded). Protonk (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm an involved editor and as such I'm more interested in the opinions of uninvolved editors. I tend to agree with Nableezy that this belongs at BLP/N but since it's here I'll comment. I think the key issue here that has been mentioned in various ways by several editors (and is misunderstood/ignored by advocates of this information) is that the source is making a number of factual claims that are unsubstantiated. In fact they don't even come close to complying with WP:V let alone WP:BLP requirements. The factual claim for example that 'Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious' in relation to official Human Rights Watch reports co-researched/co-authored by Garlasco and edited by HRW's directors is simply nonsense. It's impossible to tell since no evidence is presented but I assume this statement refers to cases like a political scientist in NGO Monitor expressing a personal unsubstantiated opinion about PD/VT/MT fuzing options in 155mm M825A1 shells that runs contrary to an opinion expressed by HRW's military experts. It relates to one sentence in a 70+ page report which is consistent with similar reports by others Human Rights groups and does not amount to 'Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious'. Let's be clear about the proposed edit. It includes 3 pieces of information.
 * Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state.
 * Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious
 * among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero.


 * Editorials and op-ed collumns are not the same as new reporting. They are statements of opinion and not statements of fact.  We can include them in our articles as long as we attribute...  As in "According to the The Ottowa Citizen, Garlasco is a hero among anti-Israel activists" etc.  Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, and I think that's what's being done here. IronDuke  21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The editorial is a reliable source. This is a major newspaper in Canada, well-respected, and the piece is not an anonymous op-ed, but the newspaper's own editorial, which will have been agreed by its editor-in-chief and/or editorial board. Use in-text attribution to make clear what the source is. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still an opinion piece. That is what editorials are. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't find the fact/opinion distinction useful as a rule. The point is that this is an editorial in a major newspaper, so there's really no way we can say it's not an RS. Like anything, where in doubt, use in-text attribution, as you suggest. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently there is wording somewhere saying don't use editorials for facts, although I imagine what was meant was don't use opinions in editorials as facts. For instance, using this source to back up a summary of "The United States and the other great powers that resumed negotiations with Iran this week" would be fine, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In this instance how would you tell what is a fact "Stork is a hero to the anti-Isralie lobby", and an opinion "Stork is a hero to the anti-Isralie lobby" without other RS backing up the contention? this seems to me the nissue with Opp-edds by their nature they are opinion pieces, even when reporting facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * using this source to back up a summary of "The United States and the other great powers that resumed negotiations with Iran this week"? No. We use the best available sources and there are countless better sources to back that up than an editorial. I really can't imagine a situation where we would want to cite an opinion piece or editorial to verify a fact. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But in then instance we are discusing the only source provided is an opp-edd piece. Now should we try to look for better sources, reject the opp-edd based facts, accept them them as facts or just make it clear that this is only an opinion and not a fact?. Now it would seem to be the later is the case, but would need carefull wording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Our real question has been whether it is appropriate to include this op-ed which is making unverifiable claims in a BLP. The source is reliable for its opinion. Is the opinion of the editorial board, which is making unverifiable claims, appropriate for a BLP?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The number 88 has many meanings. In CB radio slang, 88's means "love and kisses".  88 could mean a piano player or maybe a billiards player.  It's a lucky number in Chinese culture, and I've been to Chinese shops with "88" in their name.  I don't think the alleged skinhead usage is even particularly common, and isn't what most people think of when they hear the number 88.  Sounds like just a case of people seeing what they want to see.  The op-ed may technically meet WP:V, but as it contains unprovable insinuations, I don't believe it meets WP:BLP.  Much of that undue weight would have to be cut down for that article to meet BLP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So the quote is verifiable for the opinion of the editorial board but may be WP:UNDUE for a BLP. How would be fix the issue? Remove the claim, find an op-ed with a differing opinion, or seek input at WP:BLP/N, etc?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's undue weight for a BLP, and it should be removed. We aren't writing a book-length biography, and there's already too much space taken up by this brouhaha about collecting WWII artifacts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources - WorldNetDaily
Hi,

On the talk page of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and seem like that in the article itself very soon, few editors suggested that this site [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112001 ] which relies on this payment website is a reliable source to use in support of the assertion that the MI6 checkedand approved Jewish roots for the Iranian president (in fact it's claimed that the MI6 tracked his roots down to 3000 years ago).Your evaluation is needed.--Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * wnd.com is edited in chief by a professional journalist, Joe Kovacs (the line editor)'s biographical snippet on his book site claims he's a professional editor and journalist. (His book reveals amazing Bible secrets like Underwear didn't disintegrate despite 40 years of heavy use.  Whatever your taste regarding their politics, they meet a professional criteria to publish, a presumption in favour of them.  I'd want to see circulation figures and / or media reviews of their newspaper (discussing the quality of the journalism, not the quality of their ideology) to trust them as a credible source.  They seem dangerously close to being the right wing equivalent of a Trotskyite party newspaper: Trotskyite papers can be RS, but the presumption would have to be against them until you can point to evaluations of the quality of the journalism.  Obviously the claim they're being used for is an exceptionally controversial one (and of little journalistic importance if you ask me), so I'd want to see circulation figures and appreciations of their journalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fifelfoo! The alleged involvment of MI6 in this matter seems like a fairy tale to me (and like one which need special verification before being added as a fact to any article). I can't see reliability for this assertions, also, few major newspapers (like the Guardian) already cited well known experts (and not concealed sources) which refute the sugesstions of Jewish background for Ahmadinejad.--Gilisa (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you use UNDUE then if dealing with it (until an appreciation of the journalistic quality of wnd is available). Even after that, UNDUE implies strongly Grauniad and other papers with a firmer journalistic (if not typographic) reputation should be used to dismiss the claims as not widely respected. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gilisa that this source - wnd.com worldnetdaily - should be banned as a reliable source in Wikipedia since it is right wing and publishes dubious facts. However, a simple Google search reveals that it is already considered a reliable source for many articles. How can it be a reliable source when commenting on some things e.g. Iraq Study Group Report, Los Angeles County, California, Glenn Beck, West Bank, 2006 Lebanon War, Live Prayer, Blood libel, Hezbollah foreign relations, The Obama Nation, Foreign relations of Syria, Religulous, and 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing?. It is ridiculous to assert that WorldNetDaily can be considered a reliable expert source on the West Bank, the 2006 Lebananon War, Hezbollah, and Syria, and yet somehow, magically, should not be considered a reliable source for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Josh Keen (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read them, but there's lots of discussion on the site in the archives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for disputed and possibly defamatory (though I wouldn't consider it defamatory, I believe that the subject would) information about a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, not for biographical details. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WND has come up several times. As far as I can remember, it has never been found a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The WorldDailyNet article in question was written by one Joseph Farah, a known birther and conspiracy theorist. Just as he wouldn't be a very good source for Obama's birthplace, he's hardly a reliable source for the exceptional claim that MI6 was involved in this somehow. All Hallow&#39;s (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WND has come up before, to mixed reviews. For those that aren't familiar with it, it's in the U.S., paleoconservative, pro-Israel, and has an Evangelical Christian point of view.  And for some reason they really don't like Obama.  I wouldn't ban citing them completely, but I would treat them more like a political advocacy group ( as I would the ACLU, SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc ) than a newspaper.  Which means there will be some caveats about citing them for a BLP, especially for extraordinary claims.  The "G2 bulletin" section would be treated the same, like a staff blog in a newspaper website.
 * Sometimes they do cover things that the mainstream media misses. They may be OK for facts that come from public records, but I wouldn't use their analysis or their reporting of unverifiable claims (i.e. what MI-6 is up to).
 * WND would be usable in articles about conspiracy theories if their views are notable in that field (i.e. Obama's birthplace), but not in the article about Obama himself. And it should be cited with qualifiers and attribution, i.e. "The conservative news source WorldNet Daily said X about Obama". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So short answer, leave it out for this particular article. There are other sources that weigh in on these claims.  But I do find it odd that currently in the bio, there is no mention of the debate over his ancestry, which has been in the news for weeks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In an interesting coincidence, I'm wathing Rachel Maddow on MSNBC right now, and she just gave a long list of bogus statements by WND and said it isn't a reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect her to see eye-to-eye with WND. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit
Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit is a German television documentary made by Esther Schapira. In it, she questions whether Muhammad al-Durrah, a twelve year old Palestinian boy from the Gaza Strip, was actually shot by Israeli soldiers in 2000, or if the incident was a hoax, staged by the Palestinians. The original video that she concludes is staged was broadcast by Charles Enderlin of France 2, and can be viewed here (original broadcast in French). Her film can be viewed on YouTube (only available in German - part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).

My stance is that it's the video equivalent of an op-ed, and should be treated as such - cited as Schapira's opinion, directly cited for relevant quotes taken from interviews, but not used as a source for facts. In reviewing previous noticeboard cases, I felt there was some consensus around that stance for similar documentaries. Others (such as ChrisO) feel that it shouldn't be used as a source at all, per WP:UNDUE, since it's the investigation of the fringe conspiracy theory that the boy's death was faked. Still others (such as Jaakobou, IronDuke, and SlimVirgin) feel that it's an invaluable source of information, and should be treated like any other reliable source because other reliable sources discuss it.

How should we treat this source? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you're correct in your outlined treatment above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The documentary on its own is unreliable and should not be used as a source. However the story was written about in the New York Times which mentions the documentary. If you want to mention the documentary I would use the NYT article as a reliable source.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, this question is about the inclusion of material from the documentary, not just mention of it. Cheers. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes: Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe - The theory that the report was staged (to various degrees) was reported on by many reliable news outlets and has gained some consensus among a number of them (e.g. no 9. James Fallows - "It now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world." ).
 * RS - Schapira has made two well researched documentary news-pieces about the al-Durrah incident, and spoke personally with everyone from the boy's parents and the Palestinian doctors to the Israeli soldiers and the external investigators. She's done this for the German broadcaster ARD - which is considered a reliable source.
 * Opinion vs. content - The source is not used to say "the video was staged". It is used, however, for some basic facts that are mentioned in her research. For example, a statement that 'about 20 photographers gathered at the Netzarim Junction to film the clashes between protesters and a military outpost' is used in the article with her 2nd documentary as citation. This info is not contested by any other sources. I do agree that when it comes to opinion or even to material where other RSs clash, then it should be attributed.

I'm a bit surprised to see this here. Of course this is a good source, much better than out of date or hastily written newspaper articles in what we usually call RS's. We would, of course, be sure to make it clear that the material we're using from the doc is from the doc, and not present it as unvarnished fact. But it's still an important part of the reportage/scholarship surrounding the case. If you don't think docs are significant sources of info, ask Randall Dale Adams his opinion. IronDuke 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Esther Shapira's two documentaries are now part of the story. From what I can tell, she seems to be a respected journalist and not someone who has worked only on this. Articles about her documentaries have appeared in multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, as has the hoax theory in general (which is, no doubt, why she made the documentaries). It's therefore a reliable source within the meaning of V for information about its own contents, and for the hoax theory in general, though any references to it should be attributed in text. With a story like this, it's actually a good idea to attribute all material in text, unless it's about some aspect of it that no one disputes.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide greater publicity for theories than they have received in the mainstream media and academic sources. A documentary that presents an unorthodox view of an event is unrealiable. While hastily written news stories may later be found to be false, professional journalists rely on the best information available and have professional standards in news reporting. Reliable newspapers provide retractions when their stories are found to be false. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but this is a mainstream media source. IronDuke  16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the "mainstreamness" of the media source that is at issue, it's whether the material belongs in Wikipedia in the first place. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are strongly insistent that views held by tiny minorities do not belong in articles, especially if they implicate living people, as is the case in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "mainstreamness" seemed to be an issue for TFD. But to your point: I disagree with the notion that the view that something very odd happened on the day in question (possibly even a hoax) is held only by a "tiny minority." It is, to be sure, not the majority view, but a significant (and increasing) number of scholars, journalists, and analysts are entertaining this notion -- not necessarily in agreement with it, but engaging it. I think attempting to censor out legit sources amounts to an endorsement of the majority view, which we shouldn't be doing in any article, BLP or no. IronDuke  01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've imported material about Esther Schapira from the German Wikipedia and added it to her article. I didn't realize that she's the politics and society editor at the German public television network, the Hessischer Rundfunk. I had assumed these were independent documentaries broadcast by them, but if they were actually produced by the network, as now seems to be the case, they definitely count as reliable sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't make unverified assumptions. If she is an editor at Hessicher Rundfunk (which is just a regional TV station, btw, not a national network) that doesn't automatically mean that a documentary in which she appears was commissioned by HR. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Shameless bump. Hoping to get some additional input on this (especially from third parties not involved in the dispute). ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, this documentary is a reliable source. However, it should not be the only source on an issue where what happened is disputed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment—it seems that this is a fine source: it is mainstream, because it was produced and broadcast on a mainstream network, and shares a view that, while controversial, is not fringe in any way and has been advanced by a number of notable individuals who are not extremists. It is also reliable, based on Schapira's other work, indicating that she has done serious research. I cannot find any strong argument against this source. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A handful of adherents worldwide makes the conspiracy theory non-fringe? I've seen documentaries investigating whether aliens built the pyramids, that were broadcast on a mainstream network - would that too be a reliable source? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 06:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, not counting myself and the other editors involved in the initial dispute, it would appear we have two editors in favor of considering it a reliable source (one with the caveat that it not be the only source for disputed statements), one who favors treating it like an op-ed, and one who opposes using it as a source period. Would appreciate the input of additional editors so that we can try to achieve consensus on this issue. Thanks! ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 06:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Schapira's first film on the subject can be viewed in English here. Enjoy. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's unpack this a bit. The concern is not simply WP:RS but WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The "documentary" in question promotes a conspiracy theory that a French TV station and an Arab cameraman are involved in a nine-year conspiracy to fake the death of a boy in 2000. The specific angle being promoted in the "documentary" is that the boy was somehow substituted for another boy of remarkably similar appearance who was killed at an unreported time previously, but whose death has somehow never been reported by any other source. The "documentary" is literally the only source, as far as any of us have been able to discover, for this particular conspiracy theory. Its use as a source raises several issues:


 * Is it a reliable source? It may have been broadcast by a reputable outlet (ARD in Germany) but it has been sharply criticised by the German media. Its specific claims have not been cited or repeated elsewhere, as far as I'm aware. This sets it apart from other documentaries broadcast by reliable outlets which have conspiracy theories which are reported elsewhere. For instance, the 2001 Fox documentary promoting Moon landing conspiracy theories simply repeats claims made elsewhere. This particular documentary actually promotes new conspiracy theories originating with this individual journalist.


 * Is it a fringe source? Undoubtedly. It promotes claims that appear to be unique to that source. The underlying conspiracy theory it promotes (that the journalist committed fraud) is one which has been promoted by far-right activists, but the specific angle it promotes (the dead boy's supposed substitution with an equally dead doppelganger) isn't reflected in any other source that I know of. As WP:UNDUE says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."


 * Is it compliant with WP:BLP? Its use raises all kinds of BLP problems. It involves extremely serious accusations against living people - accusing a journalist of faking a report is about the most serious accusation you can make against a journalist. The journalist has sued his detractors for defamation; the case is ongoing, but the detractors are trying to use the media to smear the journalist. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for promoting the defamation of living people. WP:BLP is clear that "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." -- ChrisO (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The above statements about the documentary are incorrect. ChrisO has been promoting his own "we know for a fact" conclusions, sans reliable secondary sources, while promoting drama on the talk page. At one point he suggested an Israeli doctor was lying, that Schapira is a hack, that Charles Enderlin make an honest error, and that James Fallows is unreliable as well. An example of where he's incorrect, is the suggestion that the movie accuses Enderlin of faking his report. While there is a report on the court case and an interview with the person who made the accusation, the documentarist does no such thing and gives Enderlin a well balanced chance for rebuttal.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago I provided German translation for a part of the footage. To follow up here, it's worth stating that reliability and undue weight are separate concepts. Although I am barely familiar with this dispute or with the producer's professional reputation, if she is generally a respectable documentary filmmaker and/or journalist who works with normal media outlets and gets serious attention in major newspapers, then reliability is not at issue. The questions become how much weight to give this work and whether it is an acceptable source for uncontroversial facts. For uncontroversial data this would be an acceptable but not an optimal source. Regarding the weight accorded to the filmmaker's interpretation, that would depend upon whether the viewpoint expressed is a minority view (in which some weight is merited but not a lot) or a fringe view (in which no weight is needed). People who understand the subject better than I would have to determine that, but it appears that this query has been posted to the wrong noticeboard. There's a fringe theories noticeboard which may be better suited. Durova 322 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the difficulties is that most of the coverage of the case is in the French press, and coverage of the documentary, French and German, which we don't have easy access to, and when we do find them, there are translation issues. With a predominantly English-language issue, editors who keep up with current affairs often instinctively know of an issue whether it's a majority view, significant minority, or tiny minority. In this case, we're scrambling in the dark to a large extent, because we have no easy overview of the coverage. In addition, the early converage, shortly after it happened, differs significantly from the later, even though the earlier views still prevail in terms of numbers of articles. So determining what violates UNDUE is not easy in this case. My own view is that the article should be written almost chronologically: the incident as first reported; the incident as later reported by A; as later reported by B etc, so that we have a sense of a set of evolving theories, rather than making any particular theory overly prominent. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. A respectable documentary filmmaker, who produced a documentary that was aired on a mainstream German TV station is a reliable source. Other issues, such as due weight, can be discussed on the article's talk page. Millmoss (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best to treat documentaries as similar to op. ed. pieces or "feature stories", since they usually are interpretive, rather than plain descriptive, and unlike straight reporting, often present arguments/evidence in support of an overarching thesis, which necessarily introduces a point-of-view. So while, news documentaries (eg, the Frontline series) are "reliable" sources in general, we should, as George proposed, cite them with attribution. The issue of due-weight is best discussed on the article talk page, since it involves examining the content of all the sources in context, which this board is ill-equipped to handle. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction you are making between Frontline documentaries and the documentary in question. Frontline documentaries often promote a certain view point. if they are reliable sources, so is this one. Millmoss (talk)


 * I don't know if it should be treated as an op.ed., but it definitely doesn't need to outweigh all the other sources here. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, op-ed are typically pure commentary, so I think "feature stories" (eg. the ones in NYT Sunday Magazine) are a better match, since they contain a mix of original reporting and analysis, and are written from a point-of-view (not meant as a pejorative). That is the reason I suggest that it should be used with attribution, as is anyways reasonable when addressing controversial or disputed "facts" or opinions. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Something akin to a magazine feature, perhaps? Reputable documentaries often have the tone and feel of cover stories for magazines that run in-depth pieces.  Such as Harper's Magazine, perhaps.  Durova  322 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly; other examples include similar stories in Vanity Fair, Rolling Stones etc. We don't have any written guideline on such writing, but that is no real justification for trying to impose the constrictive reliable-unreliable or fact-opinion dichotomies on these. We should also keep in mind that these documentaries/feature stories are published only if there is some novelty to the claims or interpretation, and that's another reason to use attribution and not present their claims in wikipedia's voice. By the way, my comment applies only to reputable news documentaries (like say the Frontline series) on controversial or current topics, and not to all documentaries. Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very good way of putting it. I would support using it in this manner, explicitly attributed when cited. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's only her and a handful of adherents, I'd use it with extreme caution, minimising the claims. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "only her and a handful of adherents". Read above, and see the list here:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah/sources. Millmoss (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is not used for stating her analysis as if it were fact (i.e. to say "the video was staged"). It is used, however, for some basic facts that are mentioned in her research. For example, a statement that 'about 20 photographers gathered at the Netzarim Junction to film the clashes between protesters and a military outpost' is used in the article with her 2nd documentary as citation. This info is not contested by any other sources or contested in general.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fox TV broadcast a documentary in 2001 alleging that there was a conspiracy to fake the Moon landings. Would this be a reliable source for an article about the Moon landings?


 * The UK's Channel 4 broadcast a documentary in 2007 alleging that there is a conspiracy to fake climate change science. Would this be a reliable source for an article about climate change?


 * This documentary alleges that there was a conspiracy to fake the death of Muhammad ah-Durrah. Why anyone consider a conspiracy theory source to be reputable? Do you think Britannica, for example, would quote a conspiracy theorist on issues of fact?


 * I have to say that I'm sceptical of your own ability to assess sources, considering that you've been arguing that Arab sources should be discounted because you believe Arabs have a cultural disposition to lie. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are repeatedly engaging in the logical fallacy of begging the question. Millmoss (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that anyone is asserting reliability purely upon a mainstream station's broadcast. The filmmaker's reputation and serious discussion in respected secondary sources are also factors.  Taken together, those elements distinguish serious documentaries from infotainment.  Would you agree?  Durova  322 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What "serious discussion in respected secondary sources" are you referring to? A Factiva search finds only a handful of articles in the German media either trailing the documentary or criticising it for conspiracy theorising. There's no indication that I'm aware of that the documentary has been broadcast outside Germany or that its claims have been supported by any other mainstream source, though it has of course been praised to the skies by the same right-wing bloggers who have been pushing this conspiracy theory from the start. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should have been clearer. That refers to the filmmaker's reputation as discussed in reliable secondary sources rather than discussion about this particular documentary.  SlimVirgin provides a relevant link to The New York Times.  This isn't an area where I'm familiar with all the specifics so please excuse if this is mistaken.  Durova  322 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone able to determine more concretely the relationship between Schapira and the broadcaster? (I see that she is an employee of a [regional?] network above, but it isn't clear from that where the documentary was originally shown). If she was employed as a producer for a major German network, and the documentary was broadcast under the aegis of news or similar programming, then the question is more accurately whether the network is considered a reliable source or not. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm told the network that broadcast the documentary was ARD, which according to our article is Germany's "primary television network" and a combination of its regional public broadcasting agencies. Serious content produced by ARD should be seen as coming from a reliable source (which is not to say everything shown on ARD, or any network, is either mainstream or ideal as the basis of a claim). The question remains though whether this particular documentary can be considered "produced by" ARD. Any thoughts? <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the credits of the film. It's not clear, unfortunately, that the film was actually "produced by" ARD. It's attributed to Schapira herself and a person called Hafner.


 * The first documentary doesn't seem to have any credits at the end. The second documentary, as you point out, is attributed to Esther Schapira and Georg Hafner. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 06:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Daily Telegraph
In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. This article from the BBC - The UK's 'other paper of record' - asserts that the Daily Telegraph is a reputable paper, but in the Talk page it has been referred to as a "tabloid", a "low quality source", a "lone paper", a "very doubtful publication" which publishes "fringe theories", "British-flavored tabloid speculation" and "provacative", "ridiculous assertions". Any comments? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one of the UK's most reputable newspapers and a prime example of a reliable news source. Maintain a distinction between news items on the one hand and signed/unsigned opinion pieces on the other. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm that the Telegraph is one of the UK's most reliable sources. I would disagree about the distinction between news and opinion, and especially between signed and unsigned. The unsigned editorials are the voice of the newspaper's editorial board. Add in-text attribution when in doubt, always a good idea anyway for contentious issues. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Along with the Times, the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Independent, it is one of the UK's most respected newspapers. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular case is fast-evolving so be aware that we do not necessarily have to cover every twist and turn. Even reputable papers slip up occasionally, and since this particular Telegraph report is contested, either leave it out or ensure that both sides are properly covered. How best to do that goes beyond the scope of this board. You can consult the BLP noticeboard for further advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I looked at the biography in question, and saw somebody remove a quote on the basis of Per talk page and wikipedia reliable sources: don't add fringe tehories in this paragraphe or in any of the makor ones.  And I was very surprised to find that the quote being removed wasn't from WND, but from the Telegraph.  We never deemed the Telegraph a fringe source.  I'd strongly suggest we look at the article in question and see how they're actually taking our advice. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

LA times reliable source?
A user claims that I can not use the LA times as an RS. At issue is an interview with a woman who says she was full blooded Cherokee and born on the Cherokee reservation. But this woman's face is iconic, and the other editor claims she doesn't look Cherokee to him. Is this user's opinion enough to invalidate front page news at the LA times? T34CH (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The LA Times is a RS. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The LA Times is RS, one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So what are you saying, anything printed in the LA times is reliable even if there is no basis for the claim given? To say she is "full-blooded" means she is absolutely pure Cherokee.  Look at the pictures yourself.  How can the LA Times be a reliable source for a claim about her genetics when no genetic testing was performed?  If the LA Times quotes a conspiracy theorist who thinks X crazy thing, is X crazy thing now verified by a reliable source?
 * At most we can say "she claimed to be full-blooded Cherokee." It's a quote of what she said, not a verified fact.  Fixentries (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a mainstream reliable source. I don't know the specifics of the case however, and if there is serious doubt about the LA Times's accuracy on a particular point, the WP:REDFLAG criteria should be reviewed. From what it looks like in this case though, this is unnecessary because it's only disputed by the opinion of one editor without evidence to back up the claims. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What evidence could there be? She's dead now, nobody ever did any genetic testing on her.  There is no evidence either way other than her saying she was.  She is not qualified to make a claim that she is "full-blooded" (which means pure), neither is the writer of the newspaper article.  Fixentries (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources are not just "Reliable" or "not reliable", sources are never always one or the other. Im getting sick and tired of repeating that, its clear in the policies and guidelines that this is what they say. Concerning the LA Times itself in particular, maybe its just because I'm an east coaster but I had no idea that it was "one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the country", I read the Washington Post, NY Post, NY Times, and Wall Street Journal (plus more local Albany area newspapers), have never met anyone who reads the LA Times and never knew it was a major one on par with Boston, Washington, NY, or Chicago newspapers; so I learned something new I guess, and I'm sure many others working on articles dont realize that the LA Times is so well-known (at least I guess on the West Coast). Just because the LA Times is generally reliable that doesnt mean it is always a reliable source in all instances regarding specific information they put forth. The context must be taken into consideration and whether or not in the specific case put forth they got the information right (they make mistakes and sometimes their POV may show, if any). Questions here need to be looked at in-depth regarding the specifics and not given cookie-cutter responses of "RS" or "not reliable"Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To give more information, then, I think it is clear that the LA Times did it's research here and is reliable. The dispute is from one, OR pushing, editor. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What research do you believe the LA Times did to verify that the woman is a "full-blooded Cherokee"? They appear to just have quoted her saying that.  I think it is clear you haven't considered this issue at all and/or are POV-pushing yourself.  I'm not trying to insert OR.  I'm challenging the source and the claim.  Fixentries (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't do that here on wikipedia. If you want a challenge to this claim to stand, you'll need to get a paper on that (what the LA times does) published by another RS. In most circumstances, the LA Times is going to be reliable, and to challenge that takes other RS's, not your say-so. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What research do you believe the LA Times did to verify that the woman is a "full-blooded Cherokee"? Fixentries (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. We do verifiability, not truth.  If the LA times says so, then we should say so.  There might be reasons to not use them, but because she doesn't look like a Cherokee ain't one, in fact it's totally irrelevant. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see misconceptions about WP:RS on both sides of the argument here, so I'd like to help clarify a few points. Firstly, I'll acknowledge that I don't have access to this news article, so I'm going to take it on faith that the LA times writer merely reported that the article's subject claims to be full-blooded Cherokee. Anyway, the most important thing in these sorts of debates over the reliability of newspapers has to look at the claim in the correct context. When a newspaper reports that some or another fact has been claimed by someone, that in no way is an endorsement of the validity of that fact. If the paper only reports that the person claims to be full-blooded, and the newspaper makes no effort to back up or express support for the claim, then the newspaper cannot be used to source that she is a full-blooded Cherokee, because that's not what the newspaper says. It can, however, be used to source the claim. Additionally, original research is fine for determining the reliability of a source. Although we are restricted from publishing our own research on an article, that research can form the basis of consensus with regard to which sources are used. We're also free to use discretion in disregarding a source when it has made an obvious mistake, if there is consensus to do so. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely and utterly agree with Someguy1221's points. The sentence in the article should probably clarify that this is the opinion of the woman herself (with or without stating in the article that it was reported in the LA Times, but the reference section will show that anyways) instead of making a blanket statement asserting that this woman is in fact "full-blooded Cherokee", which of course none of us are "full-blooded" anything except for HUMAN, or do we have a verified family tree (backed by paternity tests) showing this woman's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother hadnt had an affair and resulting love-child with an Iroquois or Athapascan? The truth is relevant to what we put in an article, we dont put false (or dubious, or in this case questionable and extraordinary) information in our articles even if it is reported in a reliable source. A claim such as someone being "full-blooded" anything falls under the category of "extraordinary claim", which even by a RS merits it being disclosed that this is the opinion of the reference and not necessarily standard fact. If Blueboar is reading this I would like to hear his opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many reliable sources that she was a Cherokee, born on a reservation to parents who were both Cherokees, which is pretty clearly the meaning of "full blooded" in this context. There is nothing disputing it, and nothing extraordinary about the claim in light of the photo; it's not as if she were clearly african-american in the photo. "Full blooded" as an imprecise word may not be the best, practically no one is full blooded anything, as pointed out above. The LA Times is clearly reliable enough for what it says, (don't have access either.)John Z (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the dictionary if you aren't sure what "full-blooded" means - it's a very explicit and strong term. It's definitely not clear what full-blooded means in this article.  It is just as if it were clearly African-American in the photo - she's clearly partly or perhaps mostly Caucasian.  Look at pictures of people who are undoubtedly Native Americans if you're confused about this.  Here we have a source that 1) we know didn't verify the claim in any authoritative or reliable way 2) makes what we all know is an impossible claim, even without reducing it to absurdity 3) and obviously disagrees with the available photograph.  At what point do we say hey, this newspaper had no way of establishing the fact and gee, it doesn't match with what we can see.  What would you say if this appeared to be a picture of an African-American?  Fixentries (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, to all three points. She doesn't look "clearly partly or perhaps mostly Caucasian" to me.  Looks perfectly reasonable, not at all impossible, that she is mainly of Cherokee ancestry, and that is what all reliable sources indicate.  If she did appear to be African - American, something much easier to see and less disputable, then it is perfectly OK to use OR to keep stuff out of the article, to not use or weaken a RS statement as much as we can.  She was stressed and probably not well nourished when the photo was taken, this can make a large difference in appearance, and the photographer was going for an everywoman effect.John Z (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Native Americans are mongoloids or asiatic. See the pictures below.  There is no question the woman in the picture is not a vaguely pure mongoloid.  It is just as if the picture were of a black african.  I guess if this isn't obvious to the average editor then it's hard to question the source on those grounds... Fixentries (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)How controversial or impossible is the statement "full blooded Cherokee". If we look to reliable sources to answer this (like the LA Times), and not our opinions, it appears to not be that crazy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I understand the LA Times clarifies its statement by saying that she says she's full-blooded Cherokee, it does not just say "she's full-blooded Cherokee". The fact that they clarify it means we should as well, otherwise we're adding context that the LA Times does not. If there are other sources then provide them, all I've seen talked about is the LA Times which in the context of deciding who is "full blooded" or their ethnic background the LA Times and any newspaper is not a RS on that topic, this isnt something they would routinely investigate and verify, they are taking a person's word at it. Newspapers dont do the background and research many on Wikipedia seem to think they do, we shouldnt continue this naive belief that if they publish it that it must be fact, if news organizations were as perfect as we portray then Dan Rather would have his job and the NY Times (an even MORE respected and well-known reliable source than the LA Times) wouldnt have gotten caught in that scandal regarding a writer not being in the places he claimed when writing (along with other stories with factual errors).Camelbinky (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A quote of the article would be nice. That said, we're not here to say "I think LA Times article isn't well reasearched" without proof from another reliable source.  That opens a door that cannot be closed.  "I don't think that New York Times article about Israel/Palestine is well researched."  "OK, then lets not use it."  Doesn't work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you the same: what would you say if this appeared to be a photo of a black african? Fixentries (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would do what I'm supposed to. Find verifiable, reliable sources and use those, not what I interpret about a picture. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Peregrine, its absurd to think that we need a reliable source to dismiss another source and in the absence of another source we cant dismiss it. We make judgement calls all the time, that's the purpose of this noticeboard. What is wrong with simply stating that "she refered to herself as full blooded cherokee"? That way we are more accurately portraying what the source says. By saying the LA Times is not a reliable source to specifically cite as stating whether or not a person is of a certain ethnic group is not the same as saying "I think the LA Times isn't well researched" as you put it. As stated in our policies- a source must be reliable in the context in which it is being used to cite a statement, a generally reliable source may not be considered reliable for statements in which it is not an authority on. Science magazines cant be used to state the beliefs of the Catholic Church and vice-versa even though on articles about those topics they may otherwise be reliable.Camelbinky (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there are several sources now. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For your reference Florence and a clear Cherokee  (looks like an indigenous mexican more or less). Also, this may be losing track of the fact that the articles are only reporting her own self-reported ethnic identity. There's no problem with saying that she's Cherokee - the problem is the "full-blooded" claim and stating it as bald fact. -- sorry this was mine Fixentries (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing photos in this way is OR. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and the post is not signed. Anyways, are you telling me the editors on the article cant find a better RS for the claim and have to resort to this LA Times article? Nobody ever wrote a book on the lady, a journal article, anything that doesnt clarify its statement by saying its something she says? If this LA Times article is the best out there then give up, its not a reliable source for using as a source claiming for fact she was full-blooded Cherokee. It can only be used to state what the actual LA Times article says, that is all, you can not use it to state it as fact if the LA Times does not portray it as undisputed fact, and by stating it was her statement they arent. Tell me why you have such a problem with simply having the article simply state what the source says. It seems like some are trying to defend the misguided belief that if something is an RS it is RS always and therefore sacrosanct, like to give in would mean the LA Times would never be allowed as an RS ever. Policy is clear and I'm not going to repeat myself again, it must be reliable on the particular topic and context, it doesnt matter if it is generally perceived as reliable!!!!! That is fact, if you dont like the policy bring it up at the policy talk page or Village Pump (policy). This LA Times article is not a reliable authoritative source regarding the ethnicity of individuals, that is a fact, therefore it is not automatically given that it is RS. I dont know how you can argue that the LA Times is an authority on the ethnic backgrounds of individuals, but that's pretty much what you need to prove to prove your case. Otherwise find a new source, there's no other discussion needed. Camelbinky (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * @CamelBinky: Attributing the statement is a reasonable thing to do. Not that big of a deal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So why are we arguing? LOL. Ok, I've made my points, its up to the article's editors to decide. I'm through, I think Peregrine and I agree and that's all that matters to me, because I know that if Peregrine agrees with me then I must be on the right side.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must add this update- a second source has been added to the article to "verify" the statement- however I would like to point out to that editor that the new citation may not be acceptable, it is a mediawiki powered site, which means it too is edited by individuals in the same manner as Wikipedia by users/editors in the same manner as we use here. I dont know off the top of my head whether all wikis are banned and if it is ever ok to use a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki since it is explicitly stated that you can not use Wikimedia Foundation websites as a source. I defer to Peregrine's decisions if he wants to get into that whole area, it is too late at night for me to research this.Camelbinky (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a link to the wiki, it's not a totally closed matter, but in almost all cases, a wiki is not reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the woman's grandson's website claiming that she was full blooded Cherokee. How can I use this source, given that it looks like the website is no longer active? T34CH (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update


 * BTW, the LA times does not qualify the statement as "she claims" or anything: "The full-blooded Cherokee Indian said, "She didn't ask my name.""  T34CH (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's yet another source:
 * The author of that piece has a PhD in Sociology, so I'm assuming he knows how to do field research. Not sure if anything will please Fixentries (because she doesn't look "mongoloid" enough???!!!), but let me know when someone can unlock the article so I can put this new source in.  T34CH (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we use the most explicit source you've already provided, as I detail below? Fixentries (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, as detailed above. Also, I know you have a problem with sociologists, but that needs to remain a personal issue.  T34CH (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't want to use the most explicit source you provided yourself? Why did you offer it?  If you don't want it anymore, I'm offering it as a counter-citation to your wording.  Fixentries (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was a mediawiki site at the time. But if you want to suggest it after it was spoken against above, and after there are at least three other clearly RS citations stating something different, you can keep flogging the horse all day.  Have fun.  T34CH (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, you can have the article. If you're happy with the misleading phrasing, enjoy it.  I hope it confuses very many people.  Fixentries (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The third citation you offered gives the following explanation: "Both of her parents claimed Cherokee blood rights to the land making her a full blooded Native American of the Cherokee Nation". This logic does not make for a claim that she is a "full-blooded" (dictionary says it means "pure") Native American. Could we possibly change the wording to something more like this source? Fixentries (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixentries, everybody, please remember in context: this was 1936. Not sure anybody except maybe the Nazis had a concept of "genetic purity". Heck, with the current genetic assays available, nobody on this Earth is able to claim to be "pure" anything. This was another time, when people could indeed be called full-blooded without the need for a genetic assay (and is there anyone who can tell from a genetic assay who is and who isn't Cherokee?)--Ramdrake (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, you might find our article on Eugenics to be enlightening reading. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Eugenics wasn't about being a genetically pure something or other. The idea was basically to try to eliminate deleterious genes from the gene pool (and got carried way, way too far). In any case, my point remains: nobody in 1936 had heard of genetic assays, so obviously "full-blooded" had to be based on some other criteria.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have misunderstood the nature of eugenics, then - I thought it was intimately tied to ideas of racial purity. None of this has to do with the question of sourcing, of course, but you may find this Google book search for "genetic purity" in books published before 1936 to be interesting. And, yes, many of those books are dealing with humans, not plants or livestock. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Eugenics is about culling undesirable features and promoting good ones (though it was connected with racial theory). The term "full-blooded" dates from 1774 though and clearly implies that she has no white ancestry.  So basically these guys are pushing for the article to read in a way they know is misleading.  Big surprise.  I don't see any way for truth to prevail in this case, as apparently wikipedians are unconcerned with truth and don't mind spreading what they know to be lies.  Fixentries (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one unreliable source ambiguously stating something that could be interpreted the way you are suggesting. There are 3 reliable sources claiming unambiguously that she is full-blooded.  I really don't see a problem here, other than your continued assumption of bad faith and insistence that your OR trumps everything else.  T34CH (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you have sources that state an obvious lie. Great work.  I'm sure everyone who reads that article and thinks natives look like caucasians will thank you.  Enjoy. Fixentries (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cherokees have had contact with Europeans since the sixteenth century. Since they had no written language during most of that time, doubts about mixed descent are probably unanswerable.  The concept behind WP:RS does not depend upon absolute accuracy, but rather on the source's overall reputation for fact checking.  Yes, the Los Angeles Times is on par with the leading newspaper in any other major US metropolis; it is a paper of record.  At Wikipedia the editorial standard is verifiability, not truth.  Occasionally that generates slightly odd results, so if an editor wishes to rebut a point which no reliable source substantiates there are plenty of reliable small presses whose editors vet submissions.  After first publication elsewhere, Wikipedians may consider including the information in articles.  Durova  322 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fix, if there isn't another RS that contradicts the LA Times, the best you can do is attribution if you have issues with the source. Something like "According to an L.A. Times article" or "In an interview with the L.A. Times".  But be careful of belaboring the definition of what "full-blooded" means.  It might be a tribal definition rather than a genetic definition.  I would also recommend the San Luis Obispo New Times article that T34CH provided over the L.A. Times because it goes into more detail about ancestry.  You may simply want to word the quote as "both her parents claimed blood rights" while avoiding the problematic term "full-blooded". Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be OK with this if it was something that only came up once. But there are tons of sources calling her Cherokee, including a book and art exhibit which used the main image as an important example of "white America" mistakenly projecting its self-perception onto iconographic images.  Further more, the '78 interview with Mrs Thompson, the 2002 interview with her family, and her grandson's website all use the term "full-blooded" in a non-hedged manner... and the 2002 interview uses both "full-blooded" and "parents claimed blood rights," suggesting that both are important distinctions (again, that journalist was no hack).   Delving too far into what exactly the term means turns the article into a coatrack (after all, who in the world is full blooded... besides a Brahmin friend of mine who complains that her family inbred so much over the past 2000 years to keep their line "pure" that she's falling apart at age 34).  T34CH (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yowzers, this thread has gotten long! Just attribute the thing, and take any further conversation to the article's talk page.  Fixentries, this is how we do things.  We don't care that much about personal opinions and observations.  There are probably lots of wrong statements in Wikipedia that come from reliable sources (3 million articles, after all), and we don't care.  It's just how we roll, because there is no alternative. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * T34CH, it might be best to use the New Times source in a section about her early life, and let the readers come to their own conclusions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)