Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 53

Questions about several professional wrestling sources
I nominated a Featured Article candidate, but I ran into problems with several of the sources being questioned. I was wondering if I could get some feedback on them here.
 * Wrestling Title Histories - this was considered a potential problem because this site lists it as the only book by this publisher. I believe that it should be considered reliable. In support of this belief, industry expert John Molinaro (a regular columnist for the wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer, which is considered one of the best reliable sources for wrestling articles) calls it an "essential resource" and the "authoritative book on the history of wrestling titles" . The research methodology of Gary Will, one of the authors, is also discussed (here).
 * WrestleCrap - the specific page is here. I used this ("Timothy Well and Steven Dunn are proof positive that bow ties and thongs do not match") as a reference for the statement "They wore bow ties in addition to wrestling singlets with thongs over top. This led wrestling author RD Reynolds to state that the team was "proof positive that bow ties and thongs do not match"." I believe that WrestleCrap should be accepted as a reliable source, as the site is run by RD Reynolds, who is accepted as an industry expert and has published several wrestling-related books (Wrestlecrap:The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling, The Death of WCW, and The Wrestlecrap Book of Lists, all published by ECW Press).
 * The History of WWE (Main page). My belief that this should be accepted as a reliable source comes from two main reasons: (1) The website's feedback, as seen here shows that it has received positive reviews from many industry experts, including wrestlers and wrestling journalists (book, magazine, and website); several of these authors, whose work is considered a reliable source due to the publications for which they write, refer to The History of WWE as a valuable resource, and (2) Per Verifiability: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Graham Cawthon's work is considered so accurate that it is included as a feature in both WrestleView and Wrestling Observer Newsletter/Figure Four Weekly, both of which are accepted as reliable sources for wrestling articles.
 * Solie's Title Histories I do not believe that this should be accepted as a reliable source in general, but I was wondering if it would be considered reliable to support a statement such as "The Solie's Title Histories website reports that the title was vacated after an inconclusive rematch on September 9; the Southern Rockers regained the belts one week later,[Reference] although this information is not supported by Royal Duncan and Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories book.[Other reference]".

Thanks in advance for any clarification I can get here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking your points in turn (and at face value):


 * Wrestling Title Histories appears to be a quotable source (that is, one that can usually be considered to be reliable). The ISBN look-up site that is referenced does not, in any way, pretend to list every single book that has been published, and there's nothing about it that appears to me to be a determiner of whether a given title is unreliable.


 * WrestleCrap appears to be a reliable source for the information it is being used to verify, and so should be an acceptable reference.


 * You don't say what you are using The History of WWE to reference. If it is one or two small facts, then that ought to be reasonable. I wouldn't expect a website source such as that to be used to reference a large portion of an article though (still less a featured article) - as better sources ought to be available.


 * Solie's Title Histories ought to be a reliable source for the information that you wish to use it as a reference for. However, if it is generally considered not to be a largely reliable source, I would question why you would want to have the statement in the article. I wouldn't expect a featured article to contain the sentence "An unreliable source says X, but two reliable sources say this is wrong". Hibbertson (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Springer (orca)
Hi everyone,

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-2010 Puerto Peñasco coup d’état attempt
This article is poorly sourced... it relies on Facebook entries that reference the Wikipedia article. At User_talk:Ariconte you will find my previous attempt to get extra eyes on the article (see the talk page and User_talk:Hermosillo123 also). I tagged it with notability twice and other editors deleted the tags. It looks like a local political issue - but I am not sure, in particular see the most recent addition. Request more experienced intervention. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even convinced from this article that the government against which this coup was allegedly attempted even exists. One of the members of the governing council of La Jolla de Cortés is described as a woman known only as "TEH". And the most promising-looking sources, articles from El Imparcial, are completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. One of them is about the murder rate in Nogales, a city more than 100 miles away from Puerto Peñasco, and another is a gossip item about Mariah Carey. I'm going to try to get this article deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.org/news/
A discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga that http://firefox.org/news/ is not a reliable source because of its open submission policies. This is in particular referencing reviews for various works of fiction. I bring this here as there are a number of other articles outside of WP:ANIME's scope that are also using Firefox News as a source for reviews and opinions. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not reliable: no editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat disappointed in the lack of comments on this subject, despite the extent that the website is used on Wikipedia. I had notified the comics, film, and TV Wikiprojects, but the discussion is still too thin. I guess I should just start tagging links with rs?. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question... is this another case where parts of the site are reliable and other parts are not? (ie do we need to distinguish between the parts that are user contributions, and the parts that are under editorial controle?  Is there a way to do so?) Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks to be entirely user generated content with no "vetting" process over the contributors. It is essentially a glorified blog under the guise of a "news" website. (P.S. I've has a couple of rs? tags reverted under the claim that opinions don't need to be from reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New York Times news articles not RS?
At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes one editor states "Newspapers articles are not of a sufficiently high quality for this article, please see WP:MILMOS which covers History project articles. Secondly, please see WP:SYN as your paragraph is a perfect example of SYNTHetic reasoning. The grounds for this article's current editorial direction arose in discussion on Talk:, not at AFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)". The examples which were given were all news articles from the New York Times. Is he correct that the NYT is not a reliable source for statements on the topic of people being killed, and the trials of some charged with mass killings as covered in the New York Times? He also stated it was SYN to list 8 references on the Talk page - which is amazing as only direct quotes from each article followed the bracketed URLs. As for the assertion of "editorial direction" - the claim appears to be unsubstantiated entirely . Many thanks. Collect (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a reasonably reliable source. A peer-reviewed publication in a history journal would be more reliable, as would a book by a relevant historian printed by a University press. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)NYT is generally good, but it's true that many of those who edit history articles consistently demand use of academic history texts only. It might depend on dates, as one would expect a story of a massacre to be broken first in the quality press and only later to be written up by historians. The historians would dig deeper and use a wider range of primary sources. If the NYT got details wrong in their initial reports then that would not affect their standing. One would expect the details to be corrected later. Haven't looked at the related article yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a small part of an ongoing claim that "no RS sources exist" in order to claim the AfD should have been closed as "delete." I trust, moreover, that SYN is not even close to an issue on the Talk page? Collect (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the WP:NOR/N board, where issues of synthesis are discussed. That said, I haven't looked at the particulars here, but it's easy to construct a synthesis from newspaper articles, or other reliable sources; that's how it's usually done. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um -- I listed 8 sources on the Talk page, and make no comment other than actual quotes from each (to identify what is in each). Impossible to get SYN that way . And rather hard to claim OR when the person presents not a single word not precisely found in the source as a quote. Collect (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this not the WP:NOR/N noticeboard. That said, simply listing material can be a synthesis, if the intent is to advance a specific thesis. Quotations gives more detail on how this is sometimes done. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it not clear that this was a simple list of sources placed on the Talk page for the article? Seems rather impossible for how a list presented as such can be OR .  Especially since they were all found in simple searches on the New York Times to begin with. Collect (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect: you could next time provide a specific link, such as WP:RS/N on the Talk page of the article as a courtesy, possibly also notifying my Talk page as I'm the "one editor" and its an expected courtesy :). As an involved editor: I assert that The NYT is unreliable for Mass killings under Communist regimes as the NYT does not meet the standards of WP:MILMOS, and, that MKUCR is covered as a history project, and, that newspapers do not meet the required standards of reliability in editorial or writing process of academic publication and that this is a fundamentally academic topic.  To the editor who suggested WP:NOR/N, thanks for the suggestion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created WP:NOR/N to discuss article SYNTH issues with uninvolved editor experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

www.codoh.com and www.jdl.org - reliable sources for WP:BLP?
On the article David Cole (revisionist), I've removed links to www.codoh.com and www.jdl.org as unreliable sources in general, much less for a WP:BLP. However, another editor has restored them, arguing "Sources not otherwise usable for BLP can be used if the document that actual statements of people or organizations from their their own words." In my view, regardless of whether or not a source alleges it is quoting someone, if it is not reliable, it's not reliable, and cannot be used. This seems trivially obvious to me, but I'd like other views. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither the jdl nor codoh is not a reliable source for anything. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your statement can be accurate. The BLP apparently is about a holocaust denier. Just as reliable statements can be made about astrology and astrologers, sources which are not reliable for some purposes can be fine for others. "Astrologer A says foo" may be realiably sourced from material which has no value at predicting the future or past. However, that doesn't mean you can site people who just make up stuff about astrology. A site controlled by the subject may be reliable about his own statments. IF he has achieved notability, it is likely that unreliable statements have been noted by others. Even  astrology often appears in newspapers as horoscopes for example. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The codoh site, however, is not Cole's. The only place where I think it could possibly be used would be on an article about CODOH itself, and even then, only for non-controversial information. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been informed my statement is unclear. Both the codoh and jdl are extremists (to the extreme). Neither is a reliable source for anything but themselves. Since the CODOH is unrelated to anything but the CODOH or Bradley Smith, it should not be used as a source for anything but those two entities. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

reliable sourcing and use of author's work
G'day all - I've begun work in wiki-fying and generally tidying up etc. an article about chinese immigration to sydney, written by one Dr. Shirley Fitzgerald, and released under an appropriate 'CC' license - Dr. F is also the author of what I consider to be a reliable source 'Red Tape Gold Scissors: the Story of Sydney's Chinese, 2nd edition, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2008' (it's ref.d in the article, though I've failed to date to grab a copy).

User:Orderinchaos mentioned here that there's some question over the use of the author's source in the article - hence I'm bringing the issue here for a bit of advice on the general principle (whether or not an author's words when used under an appropriate license can be considered 'reliable' in terms of sourcing) - and indeed on the specific use at the linked article. My feeling is that it's the credentials of the author and the ability of the reader to verify cited information which is important, so this source is wholly appropriate - it's also wonderful to try and engage and promote academia in some small way in the free culture movement - a likely fringe benefit in my view :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please supply more details about which sources in the article have been questioned, and what these sources are used to demonstrate? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who creates the citation is really irrelevant. So, I don't really see what you are asking about. I assume that you have digested Reliable sources, Citing sources and Verifiability, or you wouldn't be here. Most essays are not written in encyclopedic form, so simply reusing them doesn't work well. Also, in looking at the article draft, it is not well-rounded, possibly from relying upon a single source and its sources. Please see my additional comments on its talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the talk page comments, Bejnar - re : fifelfoo - the basic question is 'can we use 'Red Tape Gold Scissors: the Story of Sydney's Chinese, 2nd edition, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2008' as a reliable source' - the interesting bit is that it's the author's own words (in part) we'd be sourcing to the author, because they've been released under a free license. Is that any clearer? Hope so! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After reviewing Halstead's website, I had unanswered concerns. I have made direct contact with Halstead Press by email regarding their publication process in relation to Red Tape Gold Scissors.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * your thoughts on the principle involved would be interesting too :-) - I believe that it can be workable to use such a ref. if the material meets sourcing criteria generally speaking..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely. I'm not concerned in using a RS "Foo" to support material taken from an appropriately licensed piece of content rewritten to Wikipedia standards, where the appropriately licensed piece of content was also written by Foo.  My concerns relate solely to a more general reliability question regarding the press / work in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly! There are no authors of Wikipedia articles. I suspect that most of what the essayist wrote will need to be rewritten. Regardless, it is not an interesting question, since the book in question needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The mere fact that he cited his book in the essay that formed the basis for your rewrite of the information is irrelevant. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I privately contacted the publisher. By email they assured me: The book was published as the second edition of a previously commercially successful book, and published on a commercial basis due to the first edition's success.  No inducement was made by the author for the book: commercial considerations held.  The author, when writing the book, was employed as the official historian of the City of Sydney.  =>  Reliable Source.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The essence of the problem is that the claims being made rely on the second edition (not widely available) of a (somewhat more widely available) book which makes claims which are literally novel and groundbreaking in Australia (and broadly speaking considered "fringe" within the historical academic sphere), and given that the person is a historian and not an anthropologist, and given that the theory has no coverage whatsoever in academic sources, then by using the author's own book to substantiate the author's own words, we basically end up with an APOV instead of a NPOV (and one very, very removed from the mainstream, at that.)
 * In essence, I'm saying a reliable source is such only for claims which it has the authority to make. When it is advancing a novel theory and that theory is not widely accepted in the academic literature, then more mainstream sources with appropriate academic gravitas should be sought. Orderinchaos 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a WEIGHT/FRINGE issue. Or, you could use [{WP:MILMOS#SOURCES]] to make the argument that the absence of an academic press on this monograph means that it is not of the standard expected for history articles making unusual claims regarding voyages to Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Drzzinfo
Hello,

drzz.info is a pro-israeli blog and newscenter. I would like to know if the following pages can be used:


 * http://www.drzz.info/article-exclusif-david-littman-honore-par-le-mossad-39576124.html
 * http://www.drzz.info/article-23534939.html

which document the awarding of David Littman, at the highest level, by the Mossad. The articles contain photos and a video of the event, and the event itself seems not documented elsewhere because of the "secrecy" surrounding such awardings; note that some Mossad top-executives are masked in some photos. Being a blog, drzz.info is containing pro-israeli bias but this is not the point here. I don't want to use it as a source on the israel/palestine conflict in general, only to document the prize reception, and the info is valid.

Thanks

TwoHorned (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant person is David Littman (historian). I would say not reliable, not because of bias, but because you say it is a blog. I'm not sure what "newscenter" means. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a pro-israeli blog. I wouldn't use it for general articles on the ME, but only for documenting the award. The fact is right, but I'm unable to source it more scholarly, just because it's not. But the award is real, and puts Littman into "perspective". TwoHorned (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Itsmejudith. A blog is not an RS for this type of information. If the fact that he received the award is not reported in any "proper" publication, then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Incidentally, the current lead sentence of the article is the funniest thing I have read today. --FormerIP (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue
The data retrieved by the above website is heavily used in language related articles regarding the number of speakers of different languages as a FACT. However this data seems heavily and totally fabricated. There are internationally recognized organizations such as the UN which should be relied upon on such matters not a website with this description on its article: A Christian linguistic service organization, which studies lesser-known languages, primarily to provide the speakers with Bibles in their native language.

It is in no way a reliable source! I demand the ban of use of this website's data on language related articles.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. The data retrieved by this website, specially about Persian language is ridiculous.--PHoBiA (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that it's Christian makes it neither reliable nor unreliable. It appears to be fairly widely cited or referred to on Google Books. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unreliable because its reports are fabricated. Compare it to official figures of the UN and governments of several countries. But the fact that, it is a religious website, makes it 100% unreliable for scientific reliability. It has to biased based on religious beliefs, as it is obvious by the data it provides! And there are so many organizations that are widely cited all over the Internet. Does it make them reliable? I think we are not here to count how many times something has been cited. Also don't forget that religion is in the opposite side of science. These guys still believe that God has created the whole universe in 6 days! :) --Professional Assassin (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that its estimates regarding language speakers are based on any religious beliefs. Ethnologue appears to be widely recognized as an authority in this matter. It would qualify as a reasonably reliable source for this information. Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, Ethnologue is so recognized in the field that they were awarded the ISO contract for language codes. --Bejnar (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember this coming up before but can't find it in the archives. My recollection is that Ethnologue is not considered perfect but acceptable unless other sources indicate that it is in error. If there are completely different estimates then those should be presented alongside Ethnologue. UN figures should take precedence. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While there are official statistics by governments and also the UN, why rely upon Ethnologue for such crucial data, which Ethnologue has very strong motives to fabricate?--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * religion==bias? : Is this for real? Your only basis for "fabricated" is descrepancy with some official sources? Certainly both may be worth citing if they are prominent and disagree but I don't see basis for concluding one has more merit without more details on methodologies. Sure, they have a bias but consider the example I used before, commercial chip vendors handing out data books or related educational literature with their own logo and products featured. Bible translation has driven a lot of relevant language work and probably much of it is good by scholarly standards. I know nothing about this source or the topic under discussion but I can't see "religion==bad" as a reasonable criterion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the Ethnologue website has changed it's statistics in a radical manner between 15th and 16th edition and the main editor, Mr. Ray Gordon , could not locate the original source of editions as it is written in his e mails : . Same problem is mentioned by Conrad Hurd about the editions of 1996 to the 2000 and 2004 editions .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, again, if they don't have a documented methodology then you could argue about merit but why are they cited by others? If they are cited elsewhere you probably don't want to ignore them but there is no reason to take their numbers as gospel expecially if alts exist. I just don't think that you can say catagorically an expression or religious affiliation means that source is unworthy in some aspect. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am no longer willing to continue this discussion. It is better to be closed now and users continue to use the mentioned website as a source. Reasons are withheld. :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear programming unpublished dissertations and an on-line manuscript
Unpublished dissertations and a manuscript are given unusual prominence by an editor (or editors with very similar IP addresses). The editor has not replied to questions or objections, but has stated that "Warning: Editing war: References to Bruni, Jalaluddin and Nguyen are repeatedly removed and WILL repeatedly be put back in again". Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On a topic this well known, you'd think there would be plenty of published and open source stuff. Theses can be good sources of literature review and may be helpful but you'd probably need some reason to single one out as the primary source for an article. You could probably go to goog books or citeseer and find some better full text published works. Esoteric or speculative ideas related to the topic may not be notable or worth significant mention in such a broad topic ( lots of reliable textbooks). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While this may not be the most desirable source, searching at the University of Houston shows the thesis is available and the PhD was granted, so this is a reliable source, and is considered published since anyone who visits the University of Houston can get a copy. I would be surprised if it wasn't also available through University Microfilms International. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest not turning this into a directory of related theses? Or is that even a bad thing? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you know some other alternative source which is published in an (peer-reviewed) academic journal, that source should be prefeered - but until such a reference is found I think the PhD thesis reference should be kept. (For that case the thesis can be kept as an alternative link as well, especially if the thesis was published before the article). Ulner (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I do not have access to the theses, I can't judge whether it is really necessary to cite all three of them. This does not seem to be a controversial topic, so I would think one citation to a reliable source would do, if it was comprehensive enough. That said, I have not done an linear programming in a long time, and I was rather pragmatic about it; I didn't care too much about the theory. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick responses.
 * I agree that Wikipeidia should list good textbooks and monographs (Dantzig, Dantzig & Thapa, Padberg, Wright, etc.) rather than unpublished manuscripts and "write only" dissertations.
 * It's objectionable to include one-person's manuscript work (and its 2-3 unpublished predecessors) when there are so many serious publications around that are not discussed. Somebody around 1990 did a count on interior-point articles and found 3000 publications. The article doesn't discuss criss-cross algorithms of Wang and Terlaky, or von Neumann's algorithm!
 * The manuscript is unpublished and is far below the level of a good dissertation---for example, it is very hard to see what the original contribution is, because much of it is a paraphrase of standard results; the computational problems shown are trivial and there are no problems from standard test sets. Yet this manuscript is given a prominent link in the middle of the article---it's listed in the right margin!
 * Wikipedia dissuades editors from questioning conflicts of interest or self promotion, because "outing" is objectionable of course. How does one raise the question of self-promotion in a civil Wikipedia way, especially when this editor seems not to respond to queriesat least from me? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not about the conflict, its about the article. You ought to be able to argue this from an article quality standpoint without much regard for COI. Maybe the editor is familiar with this work or this author for whatever reason, maybe it is the first work he found on goog filling blanks no one else bothered to fill. Who knows. If you a better source then contribute it. In the mean time, in the absence of anything better, what's wrong with leaving it and just moving it into a smaller spot until or unless it is removed for relevance?


 * At least in my neck of the woods and discipline being awarded, held in library, and abstracted / filmed doesn't count as "academically published". But it does count as "Wikipedia published" or "available for consultation and not subject to ongoing revisions".  Reliable source per the recent thesis changes as the thesis meets the criteria of available for consultation and awarded. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, unless some fields have formal exceptions, most journals do consider  PhD theses as   citable. In some fields in the humanities, important work can often remain in this form for many years. But this isn't one of the topics--in most fields of science, if the work is of even moderately acceptable quality, it gets published. It shouldn't be seen as a question of whether the source is a RS; it is not as R an S as a fully published work, and better sources should be found.   DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the issue is what are you trying to prove with a citation? AFAIK, most theses relate to several papers published during the study time and presumably these represent the work product of the original part. The thesis however may have a good literature review that makes sense for an encyclopedia. Now, if I had an automated script to format all the citations in the thesis into wiki format, then it wouldn't be a big deal but a literature review in a field without other review articles could have a lot of appeal. If there are online textbooks, that would be fine. Personally I would like to cite online lecture notes and stuff as I have found these to be very good ( see for example MIT OCW http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm ) but they don't include citations and many aren't long lived. So, certainly introductory and review material could be part of an encyclopedia but I'm not sure I would just start removing useful things like theses without a better quality replacement. And, sure, sometimes I'll just plop in the first reliable thing that comes up on google where a cite is needed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Discussion of the repeated citation Jalludin Abdullah's thesis now occur at the Noticeboard on Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Holland
hi, Tom Holland, a writer who usually writes fiction etc, whether he be considered reliable or not when quoted for size of persian and greek armies at Battle of Thermopylae ? His estimates is the controversial 200,000 persian army. While almost all other academic scholars estimates between 60,000-100,000 some as low as 20,000. any thoughts ? His book is ''Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. New York: Doubleday''. ISBN 0385513119.''

While another one is of Osprey Publishers Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300 By Nic Fields. which says 60,000-70,000 persian army.
 * For estimates of size which is reliable ?

regards الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More detail is given on this subject here. Hammond is not a source I think should be too heavily relied on, but his summary that modern academic opinion is that the forces at the Battle of Thermopylae were around 250,000 is useful. He's not perfect, but he does the summary well: "Most historians, forced to make an estimate, would put the army under Xerxes' command closer to 250,000. See for instance Cook (1983) who settles for 300,000 for Xerxes' land forces; Hammond (1988) who goes for 242,000; Green who opts for 210,000 and Lazenby (1993) who havers between 210,000 and 360,000, before finally plumping for 90,000. In short...we will never know." (Holland, p237 & p394). Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubleday doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MILMOS. Use better sources.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for info on the longest-running Passion play in the U.S.
I'm looking for non-self-published sources for the assertion in the Passion play article and Union City, New Jersey article that the Passion play performed in that city's Park Performing Arts Center is the longest-running in the U.S., since right now the only source I have for that is the Center itself. Can you tell me if the following are reliable:

New World Encyclopedia At first I thought that this article was a mirror of Wikipedia, but upon examination, I see that it's not only distinct from WP's article, but that at the bottom of that site's main page, it says that it is "Written by online collaboration with certified experts." Is this a reliable source with editorial control, or is it just another wiki?

This source at Knoxville Tours (html) (pdf) Nightscream (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"New World Encyclopedia"

- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Project_Vision


 * I would consider this a reliable, but tertiary, source.--otherlleft 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the second source? Nightscream (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics Dictionary
The Skeptic's Dictionary has been cited on the Global Consciousness Project. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a collection of cross-referenced skeptical essays by Robert Todd Carroll. Carroll states that the book is not meant to present a balanced view - see Skeptics Dictionary. In the introduction to his website Carroll states "My beliefs are clearly that of a hardened skeptic." and "The hardened skeptic doesn’t need much more in the way of evidence or argument to be convinced that any given occult claim is probably based on error or fraud." I'm concerned that the use of this as a source will affect the neutrality of the article. I'd be grateful for views Gonefishingforgood (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Skeptic's Dictionary is a strongly reliable source for criticisms of occult / religious and pseudo-scientific topics by skeptics. If used for the purpose of demonstrating those criticisms it is certainly a reliable source.  In the case of the Global Consciousness Project we have a clear example of a skeptical criticism of a pseudo-scientific topic.  Considering that the GCP is very unimportant to the scientific community and has attracted little attention one way or the other your motivation to delete this source seems mostly to insert a pro-GCP bias into the article by silencing criticism of it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to what Gffg is asking. The article is supposed to have a Neutral point of view but sources of criticism used within the article don't have to be unbiased.  Also, Carroll speaks of "probably" in the quote above, which would belie total bias, and a preponderance of evidence and argument that occult claims are usually based on error or fraud is pretty much inarguable (a bias in favor of reality)... it might be helpful to see Fringe theories on "Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims" and "Notability versus acceptance."  This doesn't seem to be an issue of RS? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I think there is a tendency to conflate prominence with merit or "what the audience should think" ( in short, POV pushing for a good cause). And indeed, reliability and prominence can be quite subjective. With some, a conception of science is treated almost as a religion in contradiction to scientific method but in any case innovation often comes from questioning that which is too obvious ( right or wrong ) to question. In this case, having only passing familiarity, I'd ask sceptics if cuckoo clocks can communicate in any meaningful way? Of course, if you put two of them on the same wall you may observe they synchronize- my point of course is that small things can produce observable effects and things like a "global brain wave" can't be dismissed. That doesn't mean that every time you hav deja vu it is due to brainwave syncrhonization with a cosmic event source. So, my point here is just not to militantly ignore notable efforts that have prominence in some community, even if you are convinced they will go the way of astrology. Maybe they will, hard to know, but we want to document things that didn't work out too if they meet criteria. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the views by different skeptics currently expressed in the article is notable (relevant for an encyclopedia), and should be included. When a certain viewpoint is described, a reference to an opinion piece is acceptable in my opinion or a reference to some permanent notable webpage. For this case there is no need to have a reference to a reliable source. Furthermore, I agree with Simonm223 that deleting this source is in effect silencing criticism of GCP. Ulner (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally I'm not arguing against inclusion of any sources but the quote above does sound like the author is a bit prejudiced based on his own experience. The source needn't be reliable for more than his own opinion if stated as such, "perennial skeptic joe thinks this is stupid[]" but certainly he doesn't seem to be a reliable source for affirmatively debunking something. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize him as a "bit prejudiced" "perennial skeptic" who "doesn't seem to be reliable source for affirmatively debunking something." Carroll's positions are likely pretty typical of the scientific community generally, not just the skeptical community. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An attitude is not an affirmative proof- there is nothing wrong with being sceptical and questioning methods and results, just that again it is an attitude and you can't argue it to prove anything. I guess in that case, you could just say something like " many people think this is garbage[m-n]" Certainly attitudes help reflect the overall situation of human understanding on a given topic and need to be included but they aren't data and you don't change fact with a vote. So, I guess again the issue if leading with data if you are concerned with merit and if you want to use this one source as a spokemen for people in white coats everywhere I guess there could be some issues with how you determine that. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether using it affects neutrality depends on the context in which it is used. If you want to define a pseudoscientific idea as a matter of fact, particularly points within it that are subject to dispute, relying on a neutral source or the statements of the leading purveyors of that idea (perhaps even a combination of the two) might be better. If, on the other hand, you want to define objections to that idea by the scientific community, then Carroll's dictionary would probably be a good source, at least as one example. In the same vein, so would the books of Michael Shermer, Robert L. Park or James Randi. Nightscream (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Muncie Free Press
Content that sites the Muncie Free Press is being taken down from John Annarumma due to Omarcheeseboro opinion that the Muncie Free Press http://www.munciefreepress.com is not credible. Rigga101 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Muncie Free Press does not appear to be a reliable source. Its content does not indicate that it is a mainstream professional news site; rather, it appears to be a site that accepts amateur journalism and press releases. For example, John Annarumma is a minor-party candidate from Congress in Florida. He has no connection to Muncie, Indiana other than the fact that the Muncie Free Press happened to accept an article that was basically a press release from his party. That was not an independent source, and even if it was considered desirable to cite a press release from the party, it would be better to cite it directly from the party's web site than to cite it to this not-particularly-reliable-looking web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies as a source for Juan Ponce de León y Loayza
See Talk:Juan Ponce de León y Loayza where the IP basiclly says I'm on a soapbox. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically? She used those exact words!  And, for the record, Menzies is a RS for one topic only: what Menzies thinks.  He is not a reliable historian by any definition of the word. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Menzies' books are extremely unacceptable sources for pretty much anything, except to explain what Menzies claims. The whole dispute is a little absurd.  ClovisPt (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna Rated R single
Hello, can I have some quick input/opinions about the sourcing of the following bit from Rated R:
 * The second worldwide single (third in the U.S.) will be "Rude Boy". It will be released in the U.K. and to U.S. radio on February 8, 2009.

Thank you, Amalthea  10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

netdial.caribe.net
Hello. I would like a third part opinion about the use of this webpage as a source for the article on María Luisa Arcelay.

I'm worried because, for what I can tell, that is just a webpage belonging to some user called "josebru" in the web-hosting service netdial.caribe.net. Thanks, --Damiens .rf 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Damiens. The site in question appears to be just a personal web page that does not even include its author's name. So I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is not reliable. Note that it is probably (broken) school website for the Maria Luisa Arcelay School, based on this. See the web archive version. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. giveing medication thats causes alot health problem and may be permanent
Please any doctor can help me or advice call me at (removed for privacy) or email me at (removed for privacy)

Sincerely

Bonnie Whatley
 * Wikipedia is not a good place to get medical advice. If you need medical help, contact a real live doctor (as opposed to some unidentifiable person on this web site) or go to an emergency room. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International a reliable sources?
I dot know if it was brought into attention previously (please indicate if so), but is Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases  By Inc Icon Group International can be considered as reliable source; especially then it is used to reference same WP articles, which are by default primary source of  Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases passages for instance -. Thanks for the answer, M.K. (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it ever would be, certainly not when Wikipedia is the source of its content. I see it's used in a few articles (at least) presently: Ugrasrava Sauti, Illyrian warfare, Music of Minnesota.  Places where it is discussed (negatively):


 * Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi


 * Edit_filter/Requested


 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37


 * Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Article_Cleanup Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not, Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases is not a reliable source. It is a mere compilation without any fact checking. Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases is not related to the products of Merriam-Webster.  A number of firms use "Webster" in their titles in an attempt to gain credibility. --Bejnar (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They also take quotes from wikipedia articles, making it a self-reference source, and making no checks for the validity of the quotes. So, no, don't use it ever. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications and insights. M.K. (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Daijiworld Media
Is Daijiworld Media http://www.daijiworld.com/ reliable for news and other article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.40.201 (talk • contribs) iI m sorry sir for wasting ur time. I didnt know a discussion had already taken place. I am here for the first time. there are absolutely no issues. The site is extremely professional, accurate, reliable and well known in the media. some newspaper articles found from the Daijiworld Media article which i expanded.       . 122.169.31.146 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was deemed reliable in past discussions here at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 36, although in the latter discussion nobody ever got around to explaining what the actual dispute over its notability was. Could you please indicate where the dispute over its notability is taking place? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it can be treated like a local newspaper. Good for news about the Mangalore area and Konaki community, probably also for interviews and film/book/TV reviews. Anything beyond that we would have to consider on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with somebody bringing up a source for discussion again if there are actual questions about its reliability. Why did the original poster ask whether Daijiworld was reliable? Did somebody say it wasn't reliable? If so, who said it, where did they say it, and what reasons did they give? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Official site
Hi there. At Jacquie O'Sullivan, a user (and some IPs) has been adding a site and claiming that it's the official site; other users don't think it is. On the talk page, there has been some discussion on the issue.

How do we determine whether an official website is an official website? Some sort of communication from the site via OTRS to us, but what would they need to say. I realise that this isn't necessarily the best place for this question, but it's the best I could think of at short notice. Ged UK  15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need the external links noticeboard. For what it's worth, it doesn't look like a pop star's official website to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd not heard of that board. It doesn't to me either, but I've seen rubbish official sites before. Ged  UK  21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1st issue
I have searched the archives and cannot find anything relevant to this issue: There is a major trade publication Dynamic Chiropractic which has a circulation of at least 60,000, and goes to virtually every DC known to exist on the planet. It is CINAHL listed, and is NOT owned by a DC. The publication is part of a larger group of specialty trade publications and has been around a rather long time. It is certainly "independent" in every way, except that of course, it depends on the profession to read it, and advertisers to support it. They do not publish just anything that comes their way, and they are known (by me personally) to truly check facts, before they print stuff (to some extent anyway). I am NOT talking about press releases, but actual articles their staff published as "news", being used to establish "notability". Their are editors who have disputed that this is sufficient to establish it, claiming that we need to show third party sources, not just trade publications. BUT, pursuant to WP:ANYBIO, criterion 2, it should be sufficient thus to show that the individual, e.g. Tom Hyde has made a sufficient contribution to his/her own field that s/he has left an indelible impression in that profession's history. No? So how correctly to lift that notability flag from a man whose name is known and respected by virtually every DC in the world? Д-р СДжП,ДС 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a free publication. While it may be in an index of health care publications, there is no evidence of independence between coverage and subjects. Indeed, one of the articles that is supposed to demonstrate the notability of the individual mentioned above was written by him! This publication&mdash;while quite possibly very useful to insiders&mdash;doesn't appear to have an editorial policy that brings it into the realm of RS and appears to have significant POV issues. Bongo  matic  22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dynamic Chiropractic has been published since 1983 (Library of Congress records) with 26 issues per year, and is the number one trade magazine for Chiropractors. It has a circulation of 60,000 in the United States, with a slightly different edition having a circulation of 6,000 in Canada. It is reliable enough for the New York Law Journal, as well as the Journal of the American Dietetic Association to cite it as a reference. While it is not a peer-reviewed journal, previous discussions at Talk:Chiropractic have reached the consensus that it *IS* a reliable source, and as such it is used as a reference 4 times in that article. Are you next going to argue that Chiropractic & Osteopathy or JCCA are not reliable because they are free publications? DigitalC (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using a blatant argument from authority to refute specific claims of the non-reliability of the source. The age and frequency of a publication do not demonstrate reliability. Indexing in the LoC doesn't indicate reliability. "Reliable enough for the New York Law Journal" doesn't give sufficient information about what it relied upon to demonstrate reliability and same with JADA. Likewise the consensus at Chiropractic&mdash;a nonrepresentative sampling of Wikipedia editors.
 * As you point out, the fact that it's free doesn't prove the the publication is not reliable, either, but it, along with facts of its editorial policy&mdash;such as having individuals write articles about themselves&mdash;is relevant to people considering the source's reliability. Bongo  matic  23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a reliable source in some contexts and not in others. I don't see a problem with a publication having someone write an article about themselves; presumably they apply editorial standards and don't invite just anyone to do so.  However, that article would not be a reliable source for self-serving statements about the person.  A different article in the same publication might be. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

NO, Bongo appears to argue everywhere that anything Chiropractic per se cannot be reliable, and shouldn't be used to determine reliability, or notability. Just see practically every article I have written, in which he challenges notability and argues against anything positive for chiropractic at all. I posted this here to resolve this once and for all. But the idea that Dynamic Chiropractic is less reliable than similarly listed and accepted publications is per se an unreliable POV.Д-р СДжП,ДС  23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd issue
There is another issue regarding this publication and others, upon which I would appreciate a consensus. There is an ongoing tiff about the reliability of a certain individual, and his ramblings, and the forces whose arguments are bolstered by this person are only too happy to use WIKI's rules to protect him, but: Court documents have very clearly proven that this person is quite unreliable, and not even trustworthy, or "credible" to quote a couple of Judges. My issue is this- I have been stopped from using such court documents when reprinted in an otherwise legitimate and  already adjudged "reliable" trade publication, because they are not directly from the source. It is certainly convenient that the Court systems involved, require one to subscribe to and pay page by page for reprints. Thus his sycophants use this claiming that I cannot use a subscription service to prove what is legally public information??? Any idea? Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That information, if used at all, would have to come from a non-libelous source and be applied in the right, extremely specific and limited, situation, IOW only to discuss the one court case and that specific situation. It doesn't apply anywhere else. We don't use that information here at Wikipedia because it's irrelevant to any our content. We also don't do that here because it is always taken (directly or indirectly) from a libelous source and applied, as you are doing, in situations that are unrelated to that case and situation. This has been tried by numerous others and been discussed intensively and thoroughly. If you really insist on continually engaging in character assassination here, the door is that way. You haven't even got the story right because your sources are flawed. The use of that information has been discussed to death already. I suggest you read the archives. The discussions of this information are very clear there.


 * The reliability of the person in question has been dealt with extensively here and here. Mainstream sources consider him reliable, while fringe/alternative medicine/chiropractic sources hate him. That itself says alot about his credibility and about their's. You need to make up your mind on which side you wish to stand. You claim that the POV of many of your colleagues is (source you noted here), and yet you defend them and attack this author who criticizes them for their arcane views. He's on your side, and yet you attack him! That's odd. You should be siding with him, since he's your biggest friend. He's the one who attacks arcane chiropractic and recommends science based, reform, chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you twist my words; (and to be honest, you are very good at that!). I never said, that "many" of my colleagues. I said a "small, vocal minority, of my colleagues". This is vastly different, and indicative of the kind of slant you have been putting on Chiropractic related articles in general. Moreover, you also draw conclusions in which YOU are pointing YOUR finger at a specific individual. I was pretty careful not to do that; just asked about a principle, not a person.

I did read the archives YOU brought up. (And we are talking about the individual YOU pointed to, only as ONE example of the principal I raised). As you demanded this, I came to the following conclusions:
 * The leader of that whole "discussion" seems to me (just my opinion) to have been one individual appearing under two different login names, who also has, apparently in outside sources,  been outed as a sycophant of the subject. Thus that person himself has a problem with POV, and should probably have recused himself from the argument on a COI basis. There was another who openly (in his User talk page) supports  the defendant accused of slander (against the whole Chiropractic profession) one Simon Singh against the BCA, on the thin grounds that a profession should not be allowed to defend itself against open slander using the legal system. HOW THEN?? (That basis would have allowed the AMA to continue its campaign against Chiropractic). So he too, has a POV slant that should have been admitted, for any such group to come to a fair conclusion, i.e. on fact, not bias. So, the two of them not three as it appeared, apparently calculatedly and cleverly dominated the whole discussion process.
 * The subject's self-published BIO which has been determined in, as I understand it, more than one Court, to not be credible; and the number of MEDICAL publications which have used his diatribes are the sole basis of the group discussion finding him overall to be a RPOV. And, even with that apparently (superficially) sterling basis, still only on a "case-by-case basis" (so the group, despite being lead down a garden path, still saw though this enough to have had reservations?).
 * No one took into account (because no one brought it up) that the AMA was under a permanent injunction Wilk v AMA  to cease this kind of constant slander of Chiropractic. And thus there was a proven HISTORY of these publications doing EXACTLY this. (and it looks like Singh simply exported that behavior to Britain.  So, consequent to Wilk, there may have been those who thus disgruntled, would have been motivated "under-the-table" to keep the (now illegal) process going?  Thus, I should think that the fact that IF even one Judge found in one of this hailstorm of what I understand were failed slander suits, as I recall, in this one in California, that
 * a: the individual possibly had financial ties to the AMA, (and, I understand there was an admission to that under oath) and
 * b: that he "was profiting from his testimony in these cases, and was thus motivated to keep filing them", should alone put the whole RPOV issue back on the table. But we can;t show the public record Court documents to prove this, because they are pay-per-page???

But, no, the argument was that since the journals which are published by the very agencies convicted in Wilk of this conspiracy against Chiropractic, still use this guy as a reference, this makes HIM more credible. I would argue quite the obverse, i.e., that doing so, simply makes THEM less so, and perhaps in violation of Judge Getzendanner's injunction. I think that people with objective knowledge of the facts, should be consulted to truly elucidate whether this a fair result emanated from that whole brouhaha of a "Discussion". I personally do not think so.

Most of all, in this answer, you conveniently fail to address the key question I asked, which is how to use legitimate Court documents if the Courts require that one pay-per-page for them, even though they are public records, when conclusions are being drawn like that one you cited, which cried out for the appearance of those documents??? Can we use them if they are bought and re-published (perhaps with an affidavit that they are true and exact copies)in an otherwise normally acceptable RPOV journal???Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the only information we had about an author was in court documents, we might use those to help decide whether the author was a reliable source (without using the court documents themselves as a citation in the article). However, BullRangifer says that mainstream sources consider him reliable; if that's so, we have to go with that and not overturn it with OR.  If the author is accepted by mainstream sources and hated by alternative sources, then the author's statements should be given plenty of weight, but not reported as if they are universally accepted fact if they're contradicted by reliable alternative sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to comment on one issue raised by Drsjpdc and to clear up his misunderstanding. It is the one about the decision by Judge Getzendanner. While she recognized and wrote that the AMA was justified in their beliefs that chiropractic was an "unscientific cult", she also found that the AMA used too harsh methods to curtail the unscientific effects of the profession. The case was filed for "restraint of trade", and she found them guilty on that point ALONE. Drsjpdc keeps mentioning "slander", but that wasn't an issue, and continued opposition to the currently existing unscientific and unethical aspects of the profession is not slander and are not covered by that decision, but are covered by the generous free speech laws which also allow chiropractors to continue their long history of slanderous attacks on medical science, medical physicians, the medical profession, vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery, etc. It's cultish behavior and it is still alive and well.


 * No, criticism isn't slander and it isn't covered by her decision. I've heard this specious argument before and it doesn't hold water. If it were true, then chiropractic would be the only profession protected from criticism, an obviously absurd situation. Justified criticism of the "fraud, abuse and quackery, which are more rampant in our profession than in other healthcare professions" isn't illegal or a restraint of trade. You should welcome it, rather than try to whitewash it from Wikipedia. It is well-sourced in this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is village voice a reliable source?
An editor with apparent conflict of interest has deleted important biographical details from the article John Rosatti regarding his criminal record due to "unreliable source". The source that was cited is this article "The Wiseguy and the Wetlands" by William Bastone, The Village Voice, June 2nd 1998. I believe this qualifies as a reliable source. Any feedbacks ?

If the true details about the person are to be hidden, does the subject of article even qualify as notable? This article currently contains nothing but self promotion.

I believe Administrator intervention is required. Marokwitz (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly The Village Voice is a reliable source in general. There could of course be some reason this specific article has been discredited. Barnabypage (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article needs to explain what its subject is notable for. Someone can't be notable just for running a company that itself is not notable. You could take advice at WikiProject Business as to whether the company is notable, then if it is, start an article on the company and redirect this article to it. I doubt if the VV material, if it was only published there and so long ago, indicates notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found other sources including the Palm Beach Post and the Philadelphia Daily News which support the information in the Village Voice. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Two sources are needed, but being published in 1998 in no way disqualifies its use, or makes it any less than an article published this week. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Village Voice is reliable. Where does the "two sources" rule originate? If there is a reason to believe that in this case the Voice reported something inaccurately that should itself be sourced and resolved by the editors on the talk page. patsw (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Village Voice has a degree of reliability. It's probably one of the most reliable free alternative weekly newspapers. On the other hand, it wouldn't be considered as reliable as a large circulation, non-free, daily newspaper. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with patsw and Jayjg. MastCell Talk 20:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also being discussed at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Additional sources which support the VV are:
 * Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When the criminal history of a subject comes into question, never default to newspapers. Default to police documents.  This should be policy.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When the criminal history of a subject comes into question, never default to newspapers. Default to police documents.  This should be policy.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Metalunderground.com
Would metalunderground be considered a reliable source? I personally see the website as similar to blabbermouth.net (widely considered a reliable source), as it has an Alexa rank of 66,146 (slightly above blabbermouth's homepage's rank of 66,986).  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 15:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's a fan-made site. It can't be reliable.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you say it is fan made? To clarify what I meant, "fan" can mean enthusiast of any hobby, thus music reviewers (for sites like allmusic) can be considered "fans" in one way or another.  And how is it any less reliable than blabbermouth.net?  As for the issue at hand, I found a better site (MTV UK), but I still think metalunderground is reliable.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not relevant what the word "fan" means. Allmusic and Blabbermouth, which also received numerous positive feedbacks from other reliable sources, are sites that are maintained by professional music journalists with editorial oversight. Metalundergound is a bunch of semi-random kids with laptops in their bedrooms. See WP:Reliable sources - there is a lot of information about what "reliability" exactly means.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
Hi! I observed Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907 - There are users who are saying that some sources from Aviation Week and The New York Times are not reliable to use in this article, while another user is saying that Aviation Week and The New York Times are reliable sources to use to interpret findings in a primary source. This concerns a featured article. Would someone mind looking at this? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're both reliable sources. I don't understand how anyone could possibly claim otherwise. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of Aviation Week article is Richard Pedicini, who wrote the article referenced NTSB, Cenipa at Odds over Midair Accident Report. Joe Sharkey, that runs a blog in pilots defense, describes him as “my correspondent in Sao Paulo” and this is how Globo describes Pedicini “The American Richard Pedicini [...] was on Friday (8) to the headquarters of the Superintendent of the Federal Police of São Paulo, [...], to assist pilots Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino. He attended the Federal Police in a suit, tie and panama hat and a mustache similar to Santos Dumont. "What better time to do a tribute to Santos Dumont?" he suggested. Do we need Santos Dumont spirit to analyze, summarize and interpret CENIPA/NTSB reports? And New York Times is where Joe Sharkey publishes his articles, and is being suited for his blog. Sdruvss (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody answers to my arguments? Sdruvss (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with KillerChihuahua. Aviation Week and The New York Times are both reliable sources. It remains however, how the sources are being used to interpret the findings in the primary source. This reliability question cannot be considered alone in contest but only with the primary source finding. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 16:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahuas comments are out of place and make no sense. The question was, in this particular article are the references provided suitable as reliable sources for the topic. The answer that the two publications in question are reliable sources, full stop, fails to answer the question or even to address any of the underlying arguments.

With regards to any source it is not considered to be reliable for everything. Every source is evaluated for it's suitability for specific articles. Some sources are suitable for use in some articles and not others. This is not a matter that can be addressed by a blanket statement that this source is always reliable for everything, for that is simply not true.

It may not be Wikipedias job to examine evidence, but it is certainly Wikipedias job to investigate the sources it calls reliable. Otherwise there is no basis whatsoever for calling them reliable at all. And where a source is shown to differ form the primary sources it references then it is not a reliable source for that subject.

In this case there is serious doubt about the validity of the two sources in question for the purpose they have been used. Doubts which are not addressed by the false statement that they are both reliable for all uses. It is a shame that an honest appeal for assistance in mediating this matter should be met in such an offhand manner. Weakopedia (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish to include some more arguments. One of editors (who also has admin role) is obstructing to include in final report section other reliable sources with the reason: "The New York Times and Aviation Week tell us the CENIPA and NTSB reports are in conflict with each other. Are you aware of any secondary source, in any language, from any country, which tells us NTSB and CENIPA are not in conflict with each other? If so, please provide that source". All recognized reliable sources don't mention agreement neither disagreement of NTSB with CENIPA; they don't discuss this "conflict". When we request the editor to include other sources to summarize CENIPA final report (I don't try because I know it will be reverted), we are told that we are trying to make original research. The editor answer to the request:  "No, not OK. The starting point has to be the basic presentation of the section. We have two highly reliable secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports, which are primary sources, are in conflict with each other, so we need to present them as such. In other words, the logical presentation is CENIPA, NTSB and then the analysis of their conflicting conclusions". This way we can't summarize CENIPA findings using other reliable sources. I don't defend that AW and NYT be obstructed, but it is not a sound argument to obstruct others because they don't say what some reporters of these sources said. We can even keep them. In Gol 1907 talk pages I analyze point to point the sources used in final report section. X X Sdruvss 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: WP reliable source says "Widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it". No other Brazilian newspaper, which are very close to the accident, use the expression "dissenting report" (sic) or mention the "conflict" (sic). X X Sdruvss 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason that still eludes me, this one article has adopted a twisted interpretation of what constitutes WP:secondary sources. A primary source would be a pilot's or controller's testimony, a cockpit voice recorder's recording, or a twisted piece of metal. A detailled analysis of any of these things is secondary. The final report as approved by the board of investigation is a mix of secondary analysis and tertiary coverage of facts. Yet this article is treating the final report as if it were primary and needed Aviation Week to validate it as an RS. It's nonsensical. LeadSongDog come howl  18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LSD, if an accident investigation report has a separate 'probable cause' statement, which is a succinct prioritized list of the accident cause(s), we do include that quotation in its entirety in Wikipedia accident articles, because in being self-contained it precludes the possibility of original research by Wikipedia editors selectively highlighting some causes to the exclusion of others. In fact, in this specific accident article, we do include the NTSB's probable cause statement, since it is reproduced on Wikipedia in its entirety. The problem we have is with the CENIPA report, which (unlike most modern accident reports) does not have a probable cause statement. It does include a 'Conclusions' section, but that section is divided into subsections, and each subsection goes into different possible contributory causes in some significant detail and verbiage, without any distillation or prioritization. Since this case is highly contentious and involves living persons, and there is ongoing criminal and civil litigation about the various causes and liabilities, we need to be extremely careful before using any information selectively, esp. from within a list of official causes which are not distilled or prioritized. The top level issue in this accident is that we have two reports, from two accident invesigation agencies, which high quality secondary sources &mdash; The New York Times and Aviation Week &mdash; have characterized as 'dissenting' or 'sparring' with each other. We therefore need to tread very carefully, and rely on high quality secondary sources to summarize, compare and contrast these reports, to avoid a WP:BLP violation. Crum375 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Crum is criticizing how CENIPA report was done. Only AW, whose author worked for the company that the crew was trained and recently was invited by Embraer to visit its plant, and a freelancer journalist of NYT, that lives in Brazil, are able to summarize CENIPA report. This article, for instance, is not enough. X X Sdruvss 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the NTSB supplement differs. That's why the supplement exists, and why the interested nations are entitled and expected to participate in major investigations. They bring different perspectives, are subject to different legally regulated environments, have access to different background information, and even write for different audiences. We hardly need the NYT or AW to tell us that. The NTSB are not there just so they can say "Ditto" at the end of the lead investigator's report, they have a duty to supplement and improve on it wherever they can. But in no way does the need for an external source to analyze the differences impeach the reliability of either the final report or the NTSB's annexed commentary — they are both at least secondary sources. LeadSongDog come howl  15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LSD, I fully agree with you that both NTSB and CENIPA are highly reliable sources. The only question is presentation and distillation. The NTSB is easy, because it provides us a self-contained bite-size summary: the 'probable cause' statement. The CENIPA report only has a long 'Conclusion' section, divided into subsections, in which there is essay-style discussion of many possible contributory causes, not prioritized or summarized in any concise way. When you couple that with the fact that CENIPA and NTSB are (per reliable sources) in conflict with each other, we need sources which compare, contrast and summarize the two reports for us, to avoid WP:OR. This is how the 'Final reports' section in the article is structured: it presents the CENIPA report (with top level description, to avoid BLP issues of 'selective' highlighting), the NTSB report (quoting the probable cause statement), and the conflicting conclusions, relying on high quality secondary sources which compare and contrast the reports for us. Crum375 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why this high reliable source, for instance, Estadao article can't be quoted for summarizing causes pointed by CENIPA? It clearly points 9 causes, and AW neither NYT compare conclusions. They just say that they disagree. X X Sdruvss 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why the WP article needs to compare and contrast the reports. It's certainly not OR to say the reports differ in their treatment of probable cause. Say so, link to both, and stop - you're done. No need to spell out the differences. What's hard about that? LeadSongDog come howl  21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have high quality secondary sources, like the NYT and Aviation Week telling us the two reports are "sparring" and "dissenting", it would be a disservice to our readers to leave them hanging, telling them in effect, "You want to know how and why the two reports are conflicting? read the sources yourselves!". Our mission on WP is to summarize and explain (neutrally) what reliable sources have said about an issue, not to provide a dry list of references. Crum375 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why this high reliable source (Estadao article) can't be quoted for summarizing causes pointed by CENIPA? It clearly points 9 causes. Which of these 9 causes raises BLP issues? X X Sdruvss 01:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NYT reference (Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision) is an article signed by Andrew Downie and Matthew L. Wald. Andrew Downie is a Scotch freelancer journalist that wrote this article from Sao Paulo reading Brazilian news. He writes about any issue that happens in Brazil. He writes about carnival, soccer, and wines until politics, economy, and business. He lived first in Mexico, where he became a journalist. Sent to Haiti by the Reuters news agency, worked with Larry Rohter. [reference]. Rohter published an known article in New York Times titled "Brazilian Leader's Tippling Becomes National Concern", insinuating the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a drinking problem that affected his presidency. The article's only quoted source for Lula's alcoholism was Leonel Brizola, a sworn political enemy of Mr. da Silva. The article caused consternation in the Brazilian press. Rohter's visa was temporarily revoked (and quickly reinstated) by Brazil's government, an event which overshadowed much criticism of Rohter's reporting. [reference]. Joe Sharkey is also a columnist for the New York Times. NYT is the single one and only source saying "dissenting report". As Crum well said, "on WP we need better sources than some reporter copying things from a press conference". X X Sdruvss 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see more information in A possible comprimise. X X Sdruvss 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can a POV Source be presented as NPOV if a neutral person quotes it?
Does a publication which itself could be regarded as neutral but in which the relevant information is merely a quote from a third party source (which isn't neutral) qualify as a neutral source?

For example on the Falun Gong page a lot accusations against Falun Gong are sourced with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-Tong-84

The article costs 30 Euros or something so i can't look it up, but in the free preface of that source it already clearly states that the source of the relevant accusations is the Chinese Communist Party. Mentioning the Communist Party's point of view is certainly important but shouldn't it also be presented as coming from the Communist Party (clearly a POV source) instead of disguising it as a NPOV source? --Hoerth (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is fine to discuss what non-neutral sources have to say on a topic... as long as we do so in a neutral tone. Attribute the POV to those who hold it, present any opposing view points (attributing those view points as well), don't state or imply that any POV is right or wrong. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, there is no such thing as an "NPOV source". All sources are assumed to have some POV, and the concept of NPOV on Wikipedia refers to our own efforts as editors to summarize the existing views about a topic, as published by verifiable and reliable sources, in a way which fairly reflects their relative prevalence. Crum375 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * China Quarterly is listed as peer reviewed by Ulrich's. The article is available at JSTOR for those lucky enough to have access.  Reading the Abstract, the author evaluated both regime and falun gong sources.  The article was peer reviewed.  It is a Highest Quality reliable source (in terms of FAC / MILMOS criteria).  The source is excellent and reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Fifelfoo: you don't understand... i am not questioning the reliability of the source itself... merely the fact that this source isn't the source for the accusations it is used as a reference for - those accusations merely get quoted there and the source already says that the actual source of the accusations is the Communist Party, so shouldn't the Communist Party be named as a source? That's all i am saying... --Hoerth (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotes inside another source should not be used: locate the original. If the original is PRIMARY, as it probably would be here, you should be using the article's author's opinion on or judgement of the source, "Foo finds that the CCP's claims that "Bar" are credible."  If Foo is utterly credible (Peer reviewed Journal, yes), and considers the claims to be correct, then the claims can be paraphrased and simply attributed to Foo, as Foo is the guarantor that the claims are true.  If its disputed amongst many credible academic sources, then attribute, Foo finds X; Bar finds Y. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can quote the NPOV source, but you have to attribute the original material as POV. This happens quite a bit.  Suppose you have a report from BBC Monitoring that translates an obscure government-run newspaper in Africa, for which you couldnt get the original.  You would attribute the opinions expressed to the African newspaper, not to the BBC. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Veromi.net
I've been trying to determine the true birthdate of actor Martin Landau. Some sources list 1928, others 1931, some even go as far as 1934. One source I use to help me find people is http://www.veromi.net which is a people finding source that utilizes utility records, employment, relatives, etc. to find people. I have found it to be scarily accurate.

Would Veromi be considered WP:RS?? Thanks for any opinions. --Manway (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does the website get its information on births from, and how can you be sure that you are looking at the info for the right Martin Landau (rather than a namesake)? If you can answer those questions, then the answer to your original question would be clear. Hibbertson (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The information is gathered from municipal sources, such as utility bills, and the like. I know it's the same Martin Landau because it shows him as having been married to Barbara Bain. So I'd say it's reliable. Thanks. --Manway (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Without any information about its editorial oversight, I'd say it's impossible to evaluate how reliable it is. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It lists her as a possible relative (not that they are married), that hardley sounds to me like they are even confident of their facts. Also I find it odd that they do not list mr Landau as an actor (but working for something called THE ABRADAU CORPORATION). He also lives in west hollywood, which does not seem to be on this list for this Mr Lanadu (but does appear for another Mr Landau). This seems to be very poor.Slatersteven (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. We generally don't cite people-finder services for information on BLPs.  He's famous enough that his year of birth should be covered in multiple secondary sources.  Just cite the most reliable ones.  If even the top tier of available sources disagree then cite both versions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Apollo Movie Guide
My question regards THIS review by Cheryl DeWolfe for Apollo Movie Guide. With Ms. DeWolfe also reviewing for Rotten Tomatoes, it would seem she has the genre-expertise to be accepted as reliable for a review of films. Further, and related, accepted experts of the Online Film Critics Society write for Apollo Movie Guide, and the guide is itself quoted by reliable sources such as The Evening Standard and The Times. Does usage by other accepted reliable sources and tend to confirm a Cheryl DeWolfe review in Apollo Movie Guide as reliable enough for Wikipedia to be used as a film review for King Cobra (film)?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apollo Movie Guide does not have a reputation as a fact-checker, so I suppose that it would depend upon what purpose you were using them. If it is for opinion, then so long as it is marked (indicated) as opinion, it would be fine. If it is for a fact, I would look for a better source, if one is available. --Bejnar (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have marked it as opinion in the above-mentioned article. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. For example, Their about link 404s indicating a clear lack of editorial oversight and responsibility. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Apollo Movie Guide has no inherent notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, your "404" error gave me a concern... so I found the correct link to their "about" page... but it was not useful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My question is about the expertise of the author Cheryl DeWolfe to write on the subject, not about where she offers it. If for some strange reason Roger Ebert had something at Apollo, I believe we'd accept due to the author and not the website. Conversely, I don't think anyone would even question it if the Cheryl DeWolfe review was on Rotten Tomatoes. So... how about the author herself as expert enough in this instance... as yes, it is the reviewer's opinion, and not proffered as a fact?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Reliability inheres in the publication, not the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. The cloud has lifted. If Roger Ebert had something at Apollo Movie Guide, his review would never be RS as it is only opinion and on a non-RS site. An opinion, even if offered by an expert in the genre, never itself qualifies as a reliable source, as it is simply an opinion.. the "source" is the media carrying the opinion, not the opinion itself nor the author. My bad in bringing this here, as I should not have confused the source with author. They are not the same. So as User:Bejnar comments above, an opinion must be attributed as the reviewer's own opinion and not that of the source where it is offered. Where then might I pose the question as to this reviewer's expertise in offering her opinion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FRINGE related perhaps? The standing of the author would go to the WEIGHT in the article, so WEIGHT related might be good.  Of course, the Apollo published opinion shouldn't be used: its not reliable.  The problem with source versus author is most clearly seen in Academics who avoid publishing academically, and use popular presses to offer ideas that would not survive peer review. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Time for homework about WEIGHT. I do note that DeWolfe having over 120 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes tends to show a decent standing as a reviewer there at least. Thanks for the assist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to reliability, both the source and the publisher are factors. An expert in a field may be considered to have a degree of reliability, even when self-published - though even then one should avoid using the material except for non-controversial statements. That said, editorial oversight is the more important factor. An otherwise non-notable staff writer, writing for The New York Times or Washington Post, is presumed to be a reasonably reliable source, because those newspapers have good editorial oversight. In this case, DeWolfe does not appear to be a recognized expert in the field, nor does the Apollo Movie Guide appear to have strong editorial oversight. Therefore, the reviews would not be considered reliable sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick Google News Archive and Google Books search shows "Apollo Movie Guide" or "Apollo Guide" (near "movie" or "film") referenced for fact a good number of times, and it's been publishing reviews since 1998. I'd say if it's good enough for newspaper movie reviews to cite, it's good enough for Wikipedia.  It may be published by a small business, Apollo Communications Ltd, and it may use freelance writers, but it may technically meet the requirements for a published source.
 * While the material from the review added depth to our article, these were pretty uncontroversial claims, and don't require multiply-redundant sourcing. We don't have to get wrapped up in academic standards over a movie about giant snakes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ethiopian review
I have noticed there were a few editors trying to add this from Ethiopian Review as a reliable source to include the PM of Ethiopa in the List of heads of state and government by net worth‎ article which the majority of editors (me included) have a consensus on the talk page that it is not a reliable source, Can someone make it official (so to speak) that it is definatly not a reliable source? The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you may explain why it is unreliable, it would help. Ethiopian Review seems a respectable source, at a glance. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In Talk:List of heads of state and government by net worth‎ here and the 2 sections below it, it gives the consensus reached by the editors and gives the reasons there as to why it may not be used as a reliable source The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Talking of "consensus" on such page is pretty stretched, since it's basically a 2-vs-1 argument (you and Xanderliptak vs. Enawga). The Enawga guy sure isn't always very collaborative, but this is tangential to the reliability of the source. That said, I hope someone expert in Ethiopian matters can help you. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to google books, it seems ER is widely cited as a source by scholars. This makes the case of Enawga stronger. Source may be biased, and perhaps the information quoted should be indicated as cautional, but I would be careful to dismiss it as a RS. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the ER is not a RS because the head of the ER was charged by the Ethiopian government does not seem valid to me. It is perfectly possible for a news media to be RS even under such circumstances, however I do not know enough about Ethiopian politics to deem whether that is true in this case. It is difficult to find any information on the methods and agenda of ER on its website, so it is not easy to assess how the news-articles are made. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the best thing is to check the books abovelinked, if possible. If ER is good enough for scholar studies, is good enough for us, too. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two Ethiopian Reviews. One was a news journal from the 1940's that went under at some point in that decade I believe, while the other was this web blog begun under the same moniker in the 1990's or 2000's.  The latter is not the successor of the former, rather it chose the old name to invoke the memory of the historic journal.  One of the issues that I have with the site is that it refers to this edit war on List of heads of state and government by net worth.  First, the site makes the claim that Meles has $1.2 billion, then Enawga added the information to the Wikipedia page and then Ethiopian Review cites the Wikipedia article as proof its information was valid.  The blog effectively cited itself as evidence that its figure was true, a circular argument.  Also, this article on the site made me wary of Ethiopian Review <http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/11785>.  It claims that those editors who wish to take the information off the article are "Adwa Mafia (a clique within the ruling Woyanne junta that is mostly composed of close family members and friends of Meles", which is rather a ridiculous claim upon itself, and which had no evidence provided for such an outrageous accusation.  Then again, perhaps I am, as the site claims, a Mafioso. ;-)   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough comment! Yes, the tone of the article may be suspicious. However, there must be a third ER, then, because in the gbooks linked above I see references to ER dated 1992,1993,1995: too old for a blog, way later than the 1940's. What is it? -- Cycl o pia talk  18:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I am not sure. The early 90's is really too early for many websites.  So there must have been another published journal before the blog version up today to have sources from early in that decade.  The blog does not keep normal copyright information, only citing the current year rather than the date range that should be listed.  I never even knew there was this blog version until this argument started on the Wikipedia article, I only ever heard of the 1940's version. The original incarnation is revered much like John Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln are in the United States.  I would not be surprised that there were several dozens of news journals, editorials, political entities and so forth that used the same name or something similar over the last 60 years to invoke some of the original passion.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting development. It's possible that the early-90s version could have converted to a blog format; many newsletters and "zines" went that route.  I'd suggest checking those cites for publisher/city and ISSN or OCLC numbers, checking those out on Worldcat, and possibly checking if they had staff writers in common.  It likely some librarian out there has already teased apart the difference between these publications, and your findings could be added to our article on Ethiopian Review. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GradeSaver
Most of Wikipedia's film articles contain a plot summary of some kind; when used properly, a short summary can place the real-world production information in an appropriate context. Usually, these sections go uncited—more accurately, they tend to lack inline citations, as the plot of a film can almost always be verified from the primary source: the film itself. I'm OK with that, as long as the plot section adheres to WP:PSTS—only making "descriptive claims, the accuracy of which [are] verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" and not "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". However, if a good secondary source presents itself, I'd obviously prefer to use that. Few ever detail enough of the story to be useful, but I have found a source for the plot section of the article I'm currently working on, American Beauty (film). The potential source can be found here (full text online here), and is from GradeServer, which claims to be a collection of study guides written and edited by Harvard students. A casual trawl bears this out, and the site claims editorial oversight in its statement that it accepts "only the very best" of the papers submitted to it. GradeServer appears to be used already in several articles, though none that I can see that are featured-quality, and a search of the RS/N archives throws up no hits, so I thought I'd throw the question out to the floor. At the very least, would it be useful as a convenience link to lend support to the summary constructed by watching the primary source? All the best, Steve  T • C 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was initially worried it would be a Essay mill, but it doesn't appear to be that exactly and it does get given as a further reading reference in some books that would presumably know better than to list it if it was like An Invitation to Political Thought edited by Joseph Fornieri and Kenneth L. Deutsch and published by Cengage Learning. Maybe since it is only lending support to easily verifiable descriptive claims it might be OK in a pinch, but using it should not be mistaken to be understood as accepting it as an entirely reliable source; for anything more than that I'd say definitely not.  Then again, it is listed on a number of high school and college sites as both a source of plagiarism by students, and a site which is not acceptable to use as a source for papers even when acknowledged (it gets classed with Wikipedia, actually and it does even copy content from wikipedia e.g. http://www.gradesaver.com/rebecca/wikipedia/plagiarism-allegations/ ).  So in terms of raising Wikipedia's credibility or its own ambitions to become a RS (if it has those), it would be undesirable, and it might be embarrassing to proliferate links to that site beyond what has been done already.  It doesn't really meet the standard of an RS.  The plot summary there is considerably longer than it would be desirable to have here.  It doesn't appear the author of the plot summary is given, and the editorial oversight sounds to be writing-quality oriented rather than having any expertise in film studies specifically.  And while the staff is allegedly composed of Harvard Students, it does carry the notice "Not affiliated with Harvard College."  There must be other more reliable sources that are as readily available, particularly for so popular a film.  Reviews by film critics usually offer some degree of plot summary, but as more general references maybe Allmovie might help, or perhaps filmreference.com. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was leaning "probably not", but I think you're right that it might not do for credibility's sake to cite as a source something that is discussed outside Wikipedia in the same disparaging terms as Wikipedia sometimes is. Thanks for the detailed response; I'm sure I'll be able to find something else. Steve  T • C 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say its probably pretty excellent for settling disputes about "how much primary-source plot summary can I use". I wouldn't worry too much about whether educators allow their students to cite the source; above the 6th grade level teachers frown on citing encylopedias and other tertiary sources in general.  Remember, we're striving to become the best source of information, not to gain admission to the professor's smoking club. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

www.cubanuestra.nu
The opinions of hispanophones are welcome to determine the reliability of this website and in particular this article for use on these articles Salomon Isacovici and Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer). According to this post, it provides an alternate viewpoint to that by other articles/books currently quoted in the article. --Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read through it, and I don't think it is an appropriate source. Cuba Nuestra seems to be a website of Cuban people living in Sweden. There is nothing in the website or this particular article to indicate that it is reliable for information about an academic authorship dispute. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That was my thought too. If others have comments, I would welcome them, however. --Slp1 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can Sify be considered reliable for movie reviews, news?
Can Sify be considered reliable for movie reviews, news? Examples

Sify is a reputed company.


 * This comes down to determining who wrote the review. A review by an employee of Sifi would be reliable. User contributed reviews would not be. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would consider the second one, however I would try to find the review on moviebuzz instead since that is where the cite is. On the other, since it is not noted who did the review, it is not reliable.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thankyou for your reply, arcangel. But moviebuzz is not an independent organization. It is a part of Sify. I have no idea who that person is. or it may be a group of Sify professionals. What matters is Fact checking by Sify. In case something is not published or checked by Sify, they clearly mention a note saying, "The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com." like

members.tripod.com/~blueflower
Hello. I would like a third part opinion about the use of "http://members.tripod.com/~blueflower/Negroni1.htm" this webpage as a source for the article on Héctor Andrés Negroni.

I'm worried because, for what I can tell, that is just a webpage someone on the family tree of the article's subject made about his family members, in the free web-hosting service members.tripod.com.

I've raised this question (together with other sourcing problems) on the article's talk page, but that apparently went unnoticed.

Thanks, --Damiens .rf 17:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a page on a free webhost that can be used by anyone to create a website. Although it may well be genuine, it cannot really be termed reliable.  Anybody could have posted that content and there's no way of checking its provenance. --TS 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the source and tagged (along with another, similar one)... asking for a more reliable one. The information is not at all contentious, so there is no rush to verify. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, how is removing a semi-reliable source and leaving the facts completely uncited better? I'd suggest leaving the questioned source in, but with a refimprove tag.  You can also check who links to that site and see if anyplace vouches for its authenticity; if it came from the family, it may be a reliable primary source.  Another alternative may be to lessen the article's reliance on it, and just make it an external link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I left the material in the article per WP:PRESERVE... I, personally, do not know enough about the topic to challenge the accuracy of the informatin being presented, so it would be inappropriate for me to remove it. The fact that the sources were unreliable allowed me to remove them, but as far as I know there may be other, reliable sources for the information.  Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be treated the same way as any WP:SPS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that this isn't in any way reliable. We've no idea about its provenance, nor that it was self-published.  --TS 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a source that can be included, because this falls under WP:BLP. We do know that it is self published, as Tripod invites folks to "create your own website for free" on its home page. For BLP issues, it is better to remove unsourced information rather than include poorly sourced information.--otherlleft 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that there is reason to remove the material, then do so... just because I felt it was inappropriate for me to do so, does not mean you can't. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

nhluniforms.com
I believe this website [nhlunforms.com] to be reliable, since the uniforms are common knowledge. Would this site be enough for a reference or should I back it up with another? I am doing this for a FA nomination of the old Ottawa Senators (original). Alaney2k (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, nhlunforms.com is not a particularly reliable site. Among other things it gets its "Season facts" from Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Asking Jimbo his birthdate
A discussion at the Talk:Jimmy_Wales raises the question of reliable sources for a subject's birth. I don't believe asking the subject makes sense when sources differ, but what if the subject did produce a birth certificate?
 * Um..why we cant ask someone (especially Jimbo) what his/her birthday is and trust them? Ok, now we've taken RS waaaay too seriously.Camelbinky (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because even notable people sometimes lie about their ages? Don't let the identity of the individual make a difference to you (it certainly doesn't to me, and I think you'd find it doesn't to him, either) - I'm just asking what kinds of reliable sources can be used to determine someone's age.  Asking people things isn't considered reliable in any context, so far as I understand.--otherlleft 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is particularly true about models and musicians, I have found. Their publicity agents will lie about their age in order to make them seem to be younger than they actually are.  I have no comment on Jimbo Wales specifically, but we should not be asking people directly what their age is and then publishing it on Wikipedia, generally speaking.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is actually a good example why the topic can't necessarily be trusted about this, see all the confusion found at Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. Amalthea  16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So Wales can not write in Wikipedia what his birthdate is, but has to tell the news media who will write it down somewhere so that someone else can write what his birthdate is? This operates under the assumption that the news media verifies birthdates.  Let us say they do, for Argument‘s sake, all of the time.  How do we know that Jim Wales was born Jim Wales though?  If he is really John Doe, but looked up and memorized some guy's information, used that name and birthdate, then a birth certificate really does not verify anything.  So a DNA test is required.  However, what if his parents are part of the scheme, and his parents dropped the Doe name and took up the Wales name to further this plot?  A DNA test is useless then.  How far back must one go to verify with absolute certainty?  Sure, a subject lies sometimes, but to deny someone as an expert on himself seems odd.  If you can not quote the subject himself for his birthdate, then how could you quote him for his opinions and other details unless it is verified through such rigor as well?  Either reliable source is to be used with reasonable discretion or it will be taken to an extreme in which nothing can be absolutely known.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Xanderliptak, any information that is generally accepted as a fact may be introduced into an article. If you read the thread Amalthea posted you'll see that this is not the case here - his family claims the date is not the one on the birth certificate, there are numerous contradictions, and so on.  Step back and ignore who the subject of the article is and apply the reliable sources policy and then let us know if it's really ridiculous.  If there wasn't confusion introduced by the subject this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.--otherlleft 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then just write all that in there and leave it at that. It's OK to write that he claims his birthdate it something other than what his parents claim.  We don't need to figure out who is right, we can just report what has been said. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are discrepancies. So note what the certificate says, and note what the family says.  Record keepers can make mistakes, so citing paperwork as absolute fact operates under the mistaken assumption that bureaucrats are infallible.


 * My mother was born on a naval base in Japan on July 14, which means had my grandparents been back home here in Illinois, my mother's birthday would have been July 13. What if a subject and his family marked the date that was accurate to their hometown's local time zone, regardless what a birth certificate says when they were traveling?  Then again, parents would likely be more fascinated with their new born child than paperwork, and may not have noticed a slight error in the paperwork.  What if the family simply never bothered with the bureaucratic process to change the date being it was so miniscule a thing?


 * Whatever the reason, a person should be a reliable source unto himself unless it is known or there is reason to believe he is misleading with the information he gives. You can find records that contradict other recorded accounts more often than would be liked, so there is no reason to use one reliable source over another reasonable one because the accounts do not validate each other.  Use both, at least until one is found to be unreliable.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Likelike Dolls Magazine
This was originally submitted to the Reborn doll article. I trimmed it down a bit. But now I am unsure if it can be considered a reliable source at all. Their "About Us" page can be found here: and they describe how they handle submissions here:. Any opinions? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Newspapers and magazines are generally considered RS, and shouldn't be any problem for an article about dolls. This seems to be an actual print magazine, while it will obviously have a point of view towards doll collectors, it should be fine.  I'd suggest a very trimmed-down version of the wording, something like "people have the dolls for reasons ranging from A to B to /therapy for Alzheimer's patients/(cite) to C," and so on.  The article doesn't need to dwell too much on the fact that there were special issues about reasons given for doll collecting, a simple citation will do. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, that was pretty much exactly what I was leaning towards. The reason I asked was that I don't have experience in dealing with these types of niche hobby magazines. The editors are hobbyists and appear knowledgeable in their field, but with no other publishing experience, and from what I can find, no backing from any larger publisher. But I guess as long as I only use the magazine as a source about the hobby itself it should be ok? Siawase (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of reliable secondary sources based on alleged inadequacies in primary research
There is a debate ongoing at Talk:Sinn Féin about numerous secondary sources which say that the current party known as Sinn Féin was formed following a split in the original party in 1970. (I'll list the sources below.)

One editor (Scolaire) is arguing that the sources should not be used because "a reliable source in relation to a particular fact can only be accepted if it is clear that the author had reasonable grounds for stating the fact, which means that he or she had access to primary documents.

I, on the other hand, say that it is not the role of Wikipedia to reject what secondary sources say because some of us believe the primary research engaged in by the author is inadequate. Rather, if we are not happy with what the secondary sources say, we ought to find other secondary sources which disagree.

I'd be interested in some views on this interpretation of policy.

For information, these are the sources in question:


 * Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press
 * Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd
 * Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd
 * Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books
 * S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press
 * Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan
 * Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd
 * W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd
 * CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
 * BBC Fact Files
 * Agnes Maillot (2007), New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century, Taylor & Francis
 * Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman (2007), Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press
 * Jonathan Tonge (2006), Northern Ireland, Polity, pp.132-133
 * Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White (2000), Self, Identity, and Social Movements, University of Minnesota Press
 * John Plowright (2006), The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, Routledge
 * Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan

Mooretwin (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Often you do find editors who jump to merit based decisions to save the reader from confusion or deception. However, a prominent opinion is likely to be one that the reader will encounter and it seems in line with wikipedia and reader objectives to present all prominent POV's which means citing many sources that may be of questionable intellectual or moral value to us. So then the question is just how you cite them and make sure they are reliable for the claim made. At this point, you end up with a merit diecussion unless you write everything as "he said but she said etc ". At that point, you are probably back to the article talk page. So, even a source based on fantasy, if it describes a prominent view on a relevant issue, probably gets mentioned somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested an edit which I believe will give Mooretwin's sources due weight: "Many authors say that a new party, which they refer to as 'Provisional Sinn Féin', was founded by the Caretaker Executive at this time [1970]. ". Would you consider this a fair enough use of the quoted sources? Scolaire (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it said that "Most neutral commentators{insert ref} say that the party known today as Sinn Féin, was founded in 1970 by the 'caretaker exective' of a breakaway faction associated with the Provisional IRA, whereupon it became widely known as 'Provisional' Sinn Fein", then we might have a version that is verifiable. --Red King (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss re-wording. The question is whether my proposal constitutes reasonable use of RS or not.  Scolaire (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous reliable secondary sources have been presented which Mooretwin seems to be ignoring, this is not an issue for this page none of the sources provided by both sides in this content dispute are disputed as unreliable. BigDunc  19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not what the Reliable sources/Noticeboard is for at all. This is not an issue on weather a source is reliable or not but a simple case of forum shopping. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Domer48 is right, this is not the place to be discussing content, so Scolaire's, RedKing's and BigDunc's contributions here aren't relevant. The question being asked is about Scolaire's own policy re. reliable sources, i.e. he wishes to reject secondary sources because - in his opinion - he is not satisfied with the primary material upon which secondary sources are based. So far, Nerdseeksblonde is saying that all secondary sources ought to be taken into account, and therefore Scolaire's attempt to rule out those with which he doesn't agree based apparently on his own personal assessment of their research methods is not in compliance with policy. Other views welcome. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Scolaire has made a documented attempt to rule in those sources, in line with Nerdseeksblonde's comment that such a source "probably gets mentioned somewhere". Please can we keep the infighting at Talk:Sinn Féin? The chances of us getting another neutral response are falling with each attempt at point-scoring.  Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nerdseekslonde made no comment about any particular sources, so there is no basis for you to imply that his reference to sources that may be of questionable intellectual or moral value referred to those sources with which you wish to disagree. He was talking in general terms. It's curious that you don't apply the same standards to the sources with which you do agree! Mooretwin (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all the uninvolved editors who gave views on this question. It's been overwhelming. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Aircraft in fiction has multiple issues with sourcing
This article, aside from other problems, relies very heavily on some questionable sources. If this were one or two sources, I'd just remove them and handle it. But this article cites 50 "sources" and I think that at least 29 of them don't pass RS. So I wanted to get some other opinions before I removed them. One of the primary sources is Counter-x.net. Another that I find questionable is TFU.info. The article also uses imdb.com for a reference about aircraft types. IIRC, imdb can be used for things like credits, but not for trivia, as this is user added info. Other questionable ones are mastercollector.com, cliffbee.com , gamespot.com, a tripod.com site , cobraislandtoys.com , robot-japan.com , toyarchive.com , vimeo.com , Ben's World of Transformers and concordesst.com. He also uses other Wikipedia article as references. Does anyone find ANY of these pass WP:RS? I'm also not terribly comfortable with Hasbro.com being used as the source for their own products. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Referencing other Wikipedia articles is definately a no-no, as far as reliable sources go. The others you mentioned (aside from Hasbro) don't appear to pass in my point of view.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it is a website, concordesst.com, does appear to do some fact checking. It would not be my preference for a source, but I wouldn't call it inherently unreliable.  Its forum does provide for feedback on its site. Some of the toy sites might be reliable, just as a person's own resume might be reliable, about facts about their own toys.  It depends upon how they are used.  --Bejnar (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we don't allow one to use their own resume as a source, I'm not sure that example bolsters their credibility a lot. Lol. I'm ok with leaving Hasbro, as they are a large, established company with no motive to lie about a toy they stopped making. That's why I mentioned it totally seperate frome the other list. I'm not as comforrtable with concordesst.com though. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe one more opinion? Could use the help. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For such details as what aircraft a toy or game piece is modeled after, I would accept any well-recognized hobbyist source as well as any game or toy producer's site. There probably are some cases of controversy, but I would guess that for those in this sort of subject the hobbyist/producer sources are more likely to be correct than most published books, unless theauthor is a recognized expert.   DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC).
 * The problem is, these don't appear to be well-recognized hobbyist sites. Like I said, the manufacturer site would fly (no pun intended). Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies
Would this article published in this journal by this man Volkmar Weiss be considered a reliable source for this article Programme for International Student Assessment?

As an addendum, alerted by an edit war, I am now concerned that this article has been the target of POV editing related to the whole race-intelligence issue. If any editors felt like helping disentangle the issue I would be grateful.--Slp1 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The item being supported is that the PISA is an IQ test. The source reads, "In 2002, after the publication of “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002) and the preliminary reports of PISA 2000, Weiss became aware that PISA tests can be understood as IQ tests (Weiss, 2002) and that the transformation of PISA scores into IQ results in very similar numbers (Weiss, 2005, 2006)." (74).    The journal (The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies) is listed as refereed by Ulrich's.  The source is therefore reliable as used. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your quote only increases my concerns, unfortunately (!); it seems to me that this whole area (including the journal) is a walled garden of very controversial, highly disputed publications about race and intelligence. See our article about the “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” book cited by Weiss above. But you are right that as currently used the citation only cites that some people think that PISA scores may be measuring IQ, for which Weiss may be adequate. There was some suggestion on the talkpage that the two sources covered more of the material in that paragraph. I'm still quite uncomfortable as a source for unattributed facts given the reputation of the author and the publication. I'd be glad to hear the opinions of others. --Slp1 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Its hard to find people willing to attack the foundations of walled gardens, in part, because much academic practice is walled gardens containing wonders cultivated faithfully, where the walls are formed by accidental mutual interest. Better to determine if the other sources support the point more adequately or more specifically on topic, and indicate.  Or phrase the opinion, "Foo and Bar of the controversial and much attacked Baz school believe..."  Or if you've got attacks on the faithfulness of the Journal or its community of practice, to note these and remove it as FRINGE if the attacks are sufficiently substantive or go to methodological honesty.  Reliability does not protect us from unpalatability, unfortunately.  Check to see if there aren't any other standards of reliability for sources covering the point?  Fifelfoo (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to decide right now whether or not it counts as an academic source. What I see is a problem with pulling out one sentence that seems to support "PISA is an IQ test". If you read the whole article, you can see that the author knows that PISA is a test of school achievement. He is saying that: even though it is not an IQ test the results are similar to those that are obtained from IQ tests, so for practical purposes it can be treated as an IQ test. If he were an econometrician, he might call it a "proxy" for IQ. He is not trying to present what PISA is, so OECD should remain our source for that. There is a large body of academic literature that draws on PISA data, published in journals of comparative education and journals of economics of education. It would be useful if the article made reference to that literature. This article is on the margins of that academic literature and editors will have to decide whether under WP:WEIGHT it needs to be mentioned at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brain & Mind "magazine"
I'd like comment on the "online magazine" Brain & Mind http://www.cerebromente.org.br/. The articles carry little or no sourcing, and where sources are listed they are in bibliography form and it's impossible to tell what statements come from which sources. Some articles are simply copied from elsewhere (e.g. ). There is no evidence of peer-review or other quality controls.

Several Wikipedia articles are largely copy-pasted from Brain & Mind (e.g. compare EEG_topography and ). This was apparently done by the author of the articles, Renato Sabbatini, who was an "editor" of Brain & Mind and wrote most of its material. The "editor-in-chief" of Brain & Mind turns out to be Sabbatini's wife, Silvia Helena Cardoso. It was "a publication of e*pub" (see bottom of http://www.cerebromente.org.br/) and in his self-written Wikipeida bio Sabbatini says he "created and acted as technical director to the first Brazilian project of scientific electronic publishing, the e*pub Group." Elsewhere in his bio Sabbatini describes Brain & Mind as a "website."

Sixteen "issues" (online only) were posted between 1997 and 2002 and though the lights are still on at http://www.cerebromente.org.br/ nothing has been added since. Although the "magazine" has been completely defunct for eight years, Sabbatini continues to describe himself in his bio as "associate editor of the section on the history of neuroscience in the Brain & Mind magazine...," and this is consistent with his longstanding habit of using Wikipedia to inflate his image as a scientific "pioneer" and to promote his commercial ventures (e.g. ). I believe everything on the Brain & Mind website should be considered self-published and unreliable. Any comment?

(In the past Sabbatini has tred to use his credentials to strongarm other editors into accepting his violation of guidelines and policies, which is why I'm asking for comment from others before going to work on the existing material based on Brain & Mind.)

Upsala (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick initial point: EEG topography includes "reproduced with permission". I believe something official needs to be on the talk page to verify a claim like that. I do not know the details, but see WP:DCM. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is pure copyvio, we will need something formal, nothing on the talk page will do. You've linked to the appropriate guidance needed to get permission. Meanwhile I'll see if the whole article needs blanking or if we can just remove anything copied or closely paraphrased. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put a copyvio speedy tag on it although I could have deleted it myself, and a note on Sabbatini's web page. He seems to have a problem with copyvio images. If you want to start a new article I'd suggest a subpage in your user space. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys are focusing on the copyvio problem, and yes it's serious. But I'm more worried that, if articles are deleted for that, Sabbatini will recreate them by just paraphrasing his Brain & Mind material to avoid the copyvio problem. That's what I want to prevent, because I believe Brain & Mind is not reliable, and that's why I'd like you to look at the Brain & Mind reliability question specifically. Upsala (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are of course correct. There's a journal by that name but the references I found to that are obviously not to the website, but a possible cause of confusion. I would say no, although individual cases might be made for individual articles if they are written by people who are reliable sources, ie published in peer reviewed journals, etc. Reliability is not the default, and I can't find the evidence to call it a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ulrich's does not list the publication. It is not academic, nor peer reviewed in a meaningful sense because of editorial board SELF.  Not an RS: avoidance of available academic publication channels; SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. Upsala (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

David Littman_(historian)
Can I report content regarding David Littman_(historian) from this citation ? Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that there is an AfD nomination for the article in question here: Articles_for_deletion/David_Littman_(historian).
 * My view is that this is an RS for purely factual claims about Littman. However, because it comes from the website of an organisation of which he is an active member, it is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate his notability.
 * I also think it would be advisable to find collateral sources if possible, because there is a clear NPOV issue otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that mean that in your view it is a RS for purely factual claims about Littman? Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Not for anything that might be a matter of opinion or which is contradicted by another source, although as far as I can see this is not an issue at present. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing there is contradicted by another source, more or less its the only source for all the content. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I am involved, other opinions would be welcome, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. WUPJ Newsletter Issue #372 – 10 December 2009 / 23 Kislev 5770 is not a reliable source for an award received by its spokesperson, "David G. Littman, the World Union’s spokesman to UN bodies in Geneva" due to SELF.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Similarly, the other contents of the document are SELF (and read in the mode of self-aggrandisement).  If its sufficiently significant, then it'll be written up in an RS eventually.  Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although it might not make much of a difference to the principle, the main claim here is that he was involved in something called Operation Mural (see the source for details), rather than that he won an award.
 * Does anyone else have an opinion? It would be really good to get a clear, no quibbling answer on this. --FormerIP (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear to me, none of the content there is reliable source for information about littman. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to say that Fifelfoo was being unclear, just that if a few more editors comment then we would be able to either confidently make the amendments or confidently know that there is no way we can do that. Also it is likelt to be relevant in the AfD, so even if the amendments can't be made, at least it can be reported that this has not been determined an RS without people then saying "but only one person commented". --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To Fifelfoo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources says self-published sources can be used in articles about the subject - which this is. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but notability may depend on the existence of multiple independent sources, and this seems now to be an AfD question. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right about the AfD, but it is (unexpectedly IMO) attracting some keep votes. So one way of putting this is: can this material be included assuming the article stays. --FormerIP (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the reliable source notice board, not Afd. A question was asked about reliability, and Fifelfoo inocorrectly answered it saying self published sources are not reliable. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the reliablility issue goes... A self-published source might be reliable... or not... depending on what the source is, and and how you are using it. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll restate. A promotional newsletter from an organisation clearly self-aggrandising is a clear instance of why SELF published materials are untrustworthy, particularly for extraordinary claims involving security apparatus of states. This is not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. "Might" may well be right in this case, Blueboar, but the most useful conclusion to an RSN would be anything but that. Perhaps that is all you feel able to say, but here is some more info... The source is indeed content from a the newsletter of an organisation in which Littman is a very active member. Specifically, can this source be used to state that David Littman was a key figure in Operation Mural and to give an outline of what that Operation involved? I am less concerned to include the fact that Littman was given an award by Mossad, although other users may wish to do this.

PS Fifelfoo, I completely follow your logic, but would add that the claim does not seem to me to be extraordinary. I think it is probably true, even if it is not in fact verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure its true as well. Just not verifiable from this source due to source reliability.   An appropriate academic could use this source to make the claim, and then it would be reliable: that's their job as Original Researchers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it may be a reliable source for the biography. WUPJ ( World Union for Progressive Judaism ) seems to be a pretty important organization and a quick peek at Google Books shows that its proceeds are cited fairly often.  Appears to be a secondary source to me.  If the subject of the biography is an officer of the organization, that makes it close to a primary source, but still a reliable source.  If deemed a primary source WUPJ wouldn't count towards notability in an AFD, but the award itself from the Israel Intelligence Heritage organization would.  However, the strongest claim towards notability would likely be his accreditation to the UN and work on behalf of Soviet Jews in the 1970s, which has recently been removed from the article.
 * It's surprising that we don't have an article about Operation Mural itself. It was a program in the early 1960s to smuggle Moroccan Jewish children to Israel, and movies have been made about it.  At any rate, if other sources are desired for the subject of the biography with relation to Mural, here is Haaretz, and in relation to the intelligence organization here is New English Review. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks SFC. Think the Haaretz article you found may make this discussion beside the point now, since it contains the essential information sought. Can this discussion now be marked resolved, or do others disagree (eg because there is additional important information in the WUPJ source)? --FormerIP (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest keeping the WUPJ citation even if we use Haaretz, after all WUPJ was the organization he did the UN work with. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Snippets from PPV archives at  are fairly clear. Jerusalem Post: "The Mossad, with the Jewish Agency and a humanitarian children's organization, sent David Littman, a British volunteer, to Morocco." Seems to establish notability per se. Collect (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Who's Who a reliable source?
Another editor has raised a question about Who's Who (UK), the British list of biographies. She queries whether it's a reliable source as its content is generated by the individuals it lists; as our article on Who's Who says,


 * Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. Some checks are made by the editors but subjects may omit anything they wish and such errors of omission can be difficult to identify. Examples that have been spotted include: the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry, Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his. Paxman has also calculated that only 8% of new entrants in 2008 make any reference to marital breakdown, which is far below the national average.

Who's Who therefore effectively appears to be a compilation of mini-autobiographies. How should we approach it - as a de facto self-published source subject to the usual constraints therein? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:SPS applies.  It is not a reliable source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as WP:RS requires. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Marquis Who's Who has usually been considered as more or less an SPS. Not enough to prove notability in an AfD, for instance. Usually reliable on the usually minimal facts needed, but not good for extraordinary or unduly self-serving claims. Who's Who (UK) looks better, more careful and selective; something in between SPS and RS.  The errors pointed out above are ones of omission, not outright lies.  The article at issue seems to be Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.John Z (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with that assessment by John Z. SPS-ish. -- JN 466  22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * John Z's assessment seems accurate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

poker-babes.com
Is it a reliable source? See. It's used as a source for a number of articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised it had been raised as a spam issue at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but they are assuming it's being used as an EL, but the only articles I've looked at use it as a source. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be because I just removed it from about 100 articles as an external link across the various languages of Wikipedia. I was given administrator approval to remove it as an external link in all instances, and I believe I have done so. Now on to whether or not it is a reliable source. I say no. I could be argued that for Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger it is a reliable source, since it is listed as her official site and he is listed as the owner of the domain via a WHOIS search, so they probably co-own the site. Beyond that, I do not find it to be reliable, especially when compared to BluffMagazine, CardPlayer, PokerListings and others who have full time reporters covering the poker world - and Poker-Babes.com is the first hand account of a former Bicycle Casino employee. I request permission to remove this site as a source Wikipedia-wide. DegenFarang (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:DegenFarang has engaged in extreme wikihounding regarding me including making up blatant lies. The Poker Babes links have been added by numerous users, with tens of thousands edits between them, including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and again and again and, as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters.  These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them, and needless to say all these editors are not me.  In addition to The New York Times and Times of London the owner and writer of most of the content of the site has been quoted as knowledgable source by the Associated Press and Cardplayer Magazine.  Additionally she has won major poker tournaments, been interviewed by poker websites like Pokernews.com and appeared in the Poker for Dummies DVD with Chris Moneymaker and Barry Shulman.  The owner of the site author of most of the articles, and it is plainly obvious she meets the criteria as an expert source on poker gameplay and the poker industry. She is referenced as an expert by general authoritative reliable sources like The New York Times, Times of London, the Associated Press, and also by the top poker industry reliable sources, Cardplayer magazine and Pokernews.com.  2005 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She may be an expert source for some of the specific games articles, however she is not an expert source on so many different poker players. I have repeatedly stated that you are not the only editor to have included poker-babes.com links - I have simply stated that you are responsible for at least 90% of the total number of links. That other people included a link here and there is well established and we agree on that fact. The source is still not relevant in the majority of places it is used. DegenFarang (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have added it as a reliable source. I have added refs to dozens of websites, more to thehendonmob.com and pokernews.com and others than poker-babes!  In the first dozen links listed Annied Duke was added in by administrator CryptoDerk in 2004 the day he made the article, Barry Greenstein was added by CryptoDerk, Chip Reese was added by administrator Cantthinkofagoodname in 2006, was added by CryptoDerk again at initial page creation in 2004, Gus Hansen added by CryptoDerk again at article creation.  Etc Etc Etc.  Sure I have added some, but so have many other editors with tens of thousands of good faith edits between them. 2005 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to me to be a reliable source. According to the site map pages it contains articles on poker strategy, player profiles, book reviews and a list of contributing writers.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 23:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We are tighter on reliable sources now than we were 3 years ago, let alone 5 years ago. Lists of people who added it are irrelevant. I should have been more specific and asked if it was a reliable source for people. I'm fine with it being a source for poker strategy. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lists of who added links is relevant if it is asserted the links were not added by multiple editors when in fact they were. But I agree with you that there is a distinction between people articles and strategy, and wiki guidelines have changed over time.  Strategy/rules/industry type articles is where it is suited for citations.  While it is only ever cited for interesting but uncontroversial facts about a person, BLP articles have the general criteria to not use expert/personal websites as citations.  So in some cases, say obscure people with little coverage, they could be used as external links instead.  For well-known people with a dozen citations I don't think we ever need external links to non-official sites.  The problem with removing the source citation of course is the content being cited needs to be removed too.  We can't just take down cites and leave the info.  So again, I agree this site is a fine cite for strategy/game content, but like all expert websites it should not be used as a cite in BLPs (except of course any article written by the subject of the BLP article). 2005 (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2005 it would seem then as if me and you are in agreement. I question Poker-Babes.com both as a reliable source and it's use as an external link only in articles about poker players. You said that it should not be used as an external link for well known players, however yesterday I removed it as one for at least 50 articles of well known poker players across various languages of Wikipedia. I'm glad to see you agree that this was the correct action. Regarding it's use a a reference/source for well known poker players, it seems you also agree that it should not be used, your only objection appears to be what to do with the content - I will take responsibility for either removing the content that cannot be verified by other sources or finding other sources for the content which can be verified, along with making any appropriate changes to the content in the articles, as dictated by the new sources. If I can get an administrator or a couple of editors to agree with this I will begin immediately removing poker-babes.com as a source/reference from articles on all well known poker players. DegenFarang (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No we do not agree. You have been labeling removing the links as "spam".  It is not spam and continuing to refer to it that way is inappropriate both in terms of the domain and the many editors who added it as a link.  So stop it.  As mentioned by Jayen466, it is an expert self-published source, and self-published sources should not be used in biographies.  The links were added over a period of years and are not spam by any definition.  Additionally when you have removed the links in a few cases you added non-expert self-published sources.  This is of course worse than an expert source.  Something like bankroll boost is totally inappropriate for a living person article.  Cardplayer, Bluff, pokernews, USA Today... those are non-self-published sources. 2005 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's essentially a self-published site by an acknowledged poker expert. WP:SPS applies; biographical information for players should rather be sourced to published magazines. -- JN 466  12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:SPS from a sort of expert, but generally not an expert in the Wikipedia sense. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Theplayr.com
user:DegenFarang has been Wikihounding me as noted here. And has opened numerous absurd attacks on me largely due to an orininal conflict over his repeatedly adding nonsense to the to the Amarillo Slim article. As you can see he repeatedly added a link to theplayr.com, insisting a bio movie would be made in 2009. Of course no such movie was made, and there were no plans for it. The movie had been in development for six years but nothing was made. Still, User:DegenFarang repeatedly claimed this theplayr.com knew what it was talking about. Obviously it was unreliable. User:DegenFarang is the only editor to add links to this unreliable website, and it represents most of his minimal content editing. Theplayr.com is an unknown, unreliable, anonymous website that got all of NINE unique visitors in December 2009. The website additionally is horribly mainteained as even most of the links added by DegenFarang are 404 pages. I would remove these myself as obvious junk, but given how he is stalking me I wanted to bring it up here. In contrast to his complaint above about an expert, authority website added by many editors, theplayr.com is a nearly abandoned blog-like site with anonymous, unreliable content, including some attack content Articles_for_deletion/Constant_Rijkenberg that has only been added by one user whose edits are largely only to add this site. 2005 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not reliable as a source of news. I have reviewed some of the articles published as news by the website. Some material it sources from other websites. Its self-published material is not reliable as plainly it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't see how this article could possible be cited as a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2005 has been warned to disengage from this personal dispute with me. I ask that this post be removed or at least edited, removing everything in it which attacks me personally. That said, I agree that ThePlayr.com has seen it's better days. I, however, have not used it as a reference for nearly a year other than on Constant Rijkenberg, a site which is part owned by Rijkenberg and to which he is signed as a 'Team ThePlayr.com Pro' as reported by ThePlayr and PokerNews.com (see article). Given the excellent reporting ThePlayr.com did of the EPT Sanremo and the multiple long interviews they did with Rijkenberg at that event (see ThePlayr.tv and blogs.theplayr.com/eptlive/category/ept-san-remo/) I think they are a very credible source for information on Rijkenberg and the 2009 EPT Sanremo in general. If other editors find places where ThePlayr.com is used a a source on other articles that do not seem reliable, I have no problem with their removal. I would ask that 2005 not be the editor to decide that as 2005 clearly has an agenda against me that goes far beyond a few citations of ThePlayr.com DegenFarang (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No Degen you were both warned and you have both ignored that warning. Please, both of you, stop bringing the personal issues of your arguments to policy noticeboards.  If either of you want to use these board please restrict your comments on them to the material (ie the links) and the policy (in this case WP:V and WP:RS).  Leave out the 'he's been doing this'.  This is a second warning to both of you-- Cailil   talk 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also please stop creating multiple posts for very closely related topics. This could have been placed in the section on poker-babes.com - directly above this one-- Cailil   talk 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find any publisher info on the site and see no grounds to assume that this site is an RS.  JN 466  13:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No indication that this source is reliable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

whaling in Japan
hello, I am trying to edit Whaling in Japan, however editor "Swift" seems to insinuate my changes may be reverted if the consensus on the talk page is that my changes are unpopular. However I feel quite strongly that many of the references the page uses are completely unsatisfactory. for example 1) does not work 5, 46-50, 62-84, 106, 118, 119) not public published work/non peer reviewed 6 and 8) biased because of vested interest due to opportunity to profit from whaling activity 85) biased due to greenpeace's interest in animal protection

Will I be in the wrong if I edit these references out? Because if the gist of the article is correct, there must be far more reliable sources which state the same facts. Shuggyg (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5 is a publication of the consulate of Japan and should be authoritative for Japan's position on whaling which is how it is being used. 46 is being used appropriately as a primary source. 1 and 47,48,49 etc is a primary source as well and must be used with care.  It looks like there may be some problems with the open letter... it's used as a citation over and over for lots of different things.  The IWC seems like it would be a good source for the sort of numbers its being cited for, but again it's a primary source and must be used with care not to extrapolate any conclusions that aren't in the source.  6 and 8 are not being used to support controversial claims, but rather mundane historical facts, which they are probably OK for.  85, greenpeace, is OK as well, because it's simply cited in order to support what Greenpeace claims that Greenpeace's position is.   All in all, I don't see any major problems here with the sources you have questioned.  It's important to keep in mind that while a source may be suitable for one kind of information, it may not be suitable for another.  The way a source is used is important when considering reliability. Gigs (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Gigs, youre a champ. The history of whaling is, I believe, quite important as it creates a context from where to base an opinion on the controversial issue of modern day whaling. From what I have been taught (although at the moment I dont have the time to sort out the reference) Japan does have a history and culture of small town local Whaling, however it could be that this history has been played up significantly by the post war whaling industry which has promoted the history of Whaling in Japan as a reason not to accept a ban on whaling, thus saving their own jobs/industry. its briefly written about in this article from the toronto star http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0622-32.htm

its a very contentious issue, all this whaling!Shuggyg (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Challenging DEFSOUNDS.COM as a reliable source
There are, as of this moment, 167 pages linking to DEFSOUNDS.COM according to LinkSearch  I roughly estimate that 30% of the links found are being used as sources in biographical articles, the remainder being using in album articles or discussed on a talk page for either. My question is this: is DEFSOUNDS.COM a reliable source? When I visit their main page and click on "Who is Defsounds?" it says NOT FOUND BITCH. Wow, really? Then why are we citing this ANYWHERE on Wikipedia? JBsupreme (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it's possible they were hacked, or that an RS can have a bad attitude, but apart from that, indeed it doesn't appear to be an RS. It looks like a blog site anyone who becomes a member can post to.  The couple articles from the linked list I looked at it was being used for CRYSTALBALL-type articles about unreleased albums.  I did a cursory search to see if there were Google Books, Scholar or News citing defsounds.com, which might speak to their notability or reliability, but didn't find any. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not believe they were hacked, I think this is how they have their HTTP 404 configured, tasteless as it may be. Some of the other links do actually work, but they're mostly credited to pseudonyms like "Miss Information".  So, what should be done with all these links?  Remove them?  JBsupreme (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably so, though the editor(s) who added them might not like it. Preserve would suggest trying to find a RS for the same information, or adding a citation needed tag, I think (is there an RSbot that can do that kind of thing?). Or if the info is more questionable, removing it to the talk page, or deleting it entirely.  I looked at another case where it was cited, Eminem; that article states Bizarre did an interview with DefSounds, which might make them more notable or reliable... but then when one checks the reference, it doesn't indicate an interview was done with him by "Jokesta" for defsounds.com, just quotes from an unnamed, undated interview by an unnamed interviewer from an unnamed source or perhaps just invents it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DefSounds is a user-generated content site with no editorial oversight or anything else WP:RS. The linked pages appear to be nothing more than users posting and discussing rumors, the latest Dynastyesque feud or news reported elsewhere. The existing links should be reviewed and removed/replaced as discussed above, and the website limited so only experienced users may add a link. Flowanda | Talk 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The wiki software isn't capable of preventing the adding of certain links, is it? I'd never heard that it could. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually we do have a "blacklist" of banned websites, and I believe the software gives you some sort of error message saying so if you try to link to them. I am not sure of the exact criteria for inclusion in the list, but I do know that simply being unreliable is not one of them.  So if DefSounds is deemed unreliable, then it would be up to individual editors to remove citations to it by hand... both currently and in the future. Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Right! Yes, I discovered that blacklist recently.  It doesn't make sense to me that unreliable sources would not be added to it; what a waste of time not to do so! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Strict reliability of defsounds.com apart, I guess WP:DEADLINK is a relevant how-to in this regard. In short: Do not remove information or links only because the link is currently dead. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine and well Cyclopia, but you are going off topic (see header). If the link was deemed to be unreliable in the first place, the website is still up, and the 404 tells you "NOT FOUND BITCH" that is a different question.  That is what we're discussing here.  Not what to do with dead links.  JBsupreme (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of their silly wannabe gangsta error message, the site does not look reliable. Their "news" is written by site members who recap stuff they've read/heard elsewhere. I don't see anything indicating that they are journalists or employees or vetted in any legitimate way. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this required for a RS? Note, I'm not pushing the view that the site is reliable, I wonder if it is a meaningful argument for reliability. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking. Self-published sources are a problem, and expertise and editorial oversight are important; that can all be found at WP:RS. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

counterjihadeuropa.wordpress
Is this site wikipedia reliable in this case presently it has been used in a BLP to support this comment .. Littman is one of the people listed as an expert at CounterJihad Europa, a website acting "as a clearinghouse for national initiatives to oppose the Islamisation of Europe, with a focus on policy initiatives, legislation, legal test cases and political activism.the conference website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 January 2010


 * The website, CounterJihad Europa, is hosted by wordpress.com. Wordpress.com is a weblog hosting provider. Thus, one can assume that CounterJihad Europa is a blog. According to WP:SPS, material found in blogs can only be considered reliable"when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."Prima facie, then, the material at CounterJihad Europa would not generally be considered to be from a reliable source. However, on a case-by-case basis, it may be that certain publications there may be acceptable, as per WP:SPS. That is, an individual essay/paper/article published at CounterJihad Europa that is from an established expert in the relevant field, notwithstanding being essentially self-published, could satisfy WP:SPS. Conversely, an individual essay/paper/article published at CounterJihad Europa by someone who is not an established expert in the relevant field would not satisfy WP:SPS. Finally, if all the writings at CounterJihad Europa are by one author, and that author is not considered an established expert in the relevant field, then the writings would not satisfy WP:SPS. —  Spike  Toronto  09:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the comments Spike. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, CounterJihad Europa is not a reliable source. Also note that the WP:SPS exception for experts does not extend to WP:BLP issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this appears to be a "primary source for information about itself" issue, not an SPS speaking about a third-party BLP. You're basically citing an organization for the fact that somebody spoke at a conference; this is very different from citing their opinion about third parties.  The question is whether Counterjihad Europa is relevant enough to mention in the article, and whether the blog itself is indeed controlled by that organization.  As far as importance, there's a little bit written in secondary sources about the Counterjihad Europa conference that was held in 2007 in Brussels, though it appears to be a project of the Center For Vigilant Freedom(spinprofiles.org), which has also gotten attention from secondary sources.  Looks like it's possible to cite, though with attribution. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

 * These books :


 * The World's History: South-eastern and eastern Europe, By Hans Ferdinand Helmolt
 * Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 7
 * The Ottoman dynasty: a history of the sultans of Turkey from the earliest authentic record to the present time, with notes on the manners and customs of the people, by Alexander W. Hidden
 * The International cyclopedia: a compendium of human knowledge, rev. with large additions, Volume 13, by Charles Francis Richardson, Selim Hobart Peabody
 * The Book of History: Eastern Europe to the French revolution, by Viscount James Bryce Bryce, Holland Thompson, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie
 * The Standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, by John Clark Ridpath


 * And these authors:


 * Alexander W. Hidden
 * Hans Ferdinand Helmolt (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
 * Charles Francis Richardson (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
 * Selim Hobart Peabody (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
 * Robert Elsie (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
 * Harry Thurston Pech
 * Viscount James Bryce Bryce (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
 * Holland Thompson
 * Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (Already used as source in Wikipedia)


 * Tell us that Voisava was Serbian princess. Information in Skanderbeg article was deleted, as sources are old.

Did some of those may not be RS, or can be used? --Tadija (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Authors aren't sources. Please supply a citation including work title, year of publication, place of publication, and publisher.  If a reprint or translation, please supply the original work's information.  If commonly reprinted, please supply the first impression's information.
 * Not reliable, non expert tertiary:
 * Chambers's encyclopaedia
 * The International cyclopedia
 * The Standard American encyclopedia
 * Heinemann's World history is 1907, appears to be a chronicle or cyclopedia by another name, and isn't specific. Not really RS.
 * Hidden's Ottoman dynasty is a rev ed from 1912. It is specifically focused on the aristocracy of the area.  A reliable source.  But terribly old.  Consult modern scholarship as Hidden is not representative of current scholarly consensus.  Privilege modern scholarship over Hidden if available. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tadija: That authors are cited in other WP articles isn't a good argument that they are RS; maybe that should be explicitly mentioned on the WP:RS page. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Other stuff exists.


 * @Fifelfoo: Granted, one can't cite just to a person without indicating what text, but authors are supposed to be a consideration: "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." That wording is not ideal, and might contribute to some editors' confusion, possibly like Tadija above.


 * What's the problem with Chamber's Encyclopedia? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its an encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are not inherently unreliable as Fifelfoo's comment might suggest, but they are certainly not preferred. Chamber's Encyclopedias, especially the earlier editions, were not well fact-checked.  They basically repeated whatever they found, uncritically, and without citation.  If it is in Chamber's then usually another source can be found, but not always a reliable one. --Bejnar (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RS and OR do state (reputable) encyclopedias "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."  What's the source of your knowledge regarding the quality of Chambers's Encyclopaedia?  I'm only slightly familiar with it myself.  Right now the WP article says it was "generally excellent," something Apwoolrich wrote in the first edit of that article (not that I'm taking that for granted as true!). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Referencing the nobility of an early south eastern european aristocrat to a generalist encyclopedia is not an "overview or summary". I'd say establishing the nobility of a pre-modern individual is very much so detailed discussion.  I would say the same regardless of the quality of the generalist encyclopedia.  Could you please list the publishers and works of the named individuals if you'd like them determined as RS, what you're using them for, and where in the texts that supports your use.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the OP and am not involved with editing that article, I was asking a more general question about Chambers. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This appears to be part of some sort of nationalistic Serbian/Albanian edit war, over whether a person should be considered Serbian and over the spelling ( or transliteration ) of her name.  The spelling should be a no-brainer; if two different spellings are common, even in old encyclopedias, then they should be presented as alternates in our article.  I don't think the matter of nobility is in dispute, only of nationality.  As far as nationality, there's already two conflicting but sourced accounts of her ancestry in the article.  The question is whether there is enough weight to justify adding a third alternative, for Serbian ethnicity. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Help! Source dubious @@?
Hi,

This problems regarding the articles Banbi and Beizi

These two articles are about Chinese clothings but most of us or Chinese wikipedians don't understand korean, I'm doubt the legitimacy of his source so i came here for help. Cydevil38 provided 4 sources which are either unfindable, korean language source, non-english books without an specify page, and didn't mentioned Banbi or Beizi in them. I requested him to provide some links to his sources at Oct 2009 and not until lately that he start to reply but with only a few sentences. Yet if you see his contributions, he's pretty much active and ignoring my request.

Please check out my dispute with him here and please someone give me some advise or join the discussion. It's pretty unbearable since he keeps avoiding it. Thx :) --LLTimes (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general note, editors aren't required to produce a source in a form that is easily consumable on demand. Most people can't access academic journals easily for example, yet it is fine to use them.  The same is true for foreign language sources.  It is nice to have sources in English or in a language that you can read, but we don't require people to produce them.  The other editor should put specific pages in the citation though.  Other than that, we generally assume good faith for inaccessible sources, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Gigs (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks you're nice, unlike some admin who only reply with "what part of academic journal....do you not understand" Thanks :)--LLTimes (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try approaching a [|Korean-English translator], but I think yor first step is to find out if the books cited can be tracked down in a library or if they are available on the internet. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * aahh okay :3 I just need the page number now --LLTimes (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When a book is cited the page number should be added if at all possible. That helps both editors and readers to check the source out (even if you have to pay to access the source, even if it is not in English). The person who originally added the reference to this book should be able to find the page number. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM
Routinely cited as a WP:RS in paranormal articles, this radio show is the audio equivalent of Weekly World News. I have strong misgivings about the regular use of this unreliable talk show as a reliable source by Wikipedia - it is a constant source of misinformation on MANY articles. Furthermore it is frequently used to establish notability of fringe subjects that would otherwise not meet the bar. I mean... unless we want Wikipedia to remain swamped with Bat Boy style cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only a reliable source for what someone has said, ie. interviews. The show makes no attempt to present research or news, simply providing interviews and personal anecdotes. I wouldn't rely on it as a source any more than I would The Tonight Show. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that we don't get into the habit of using this show as a bellwether for notability. Just because something appears on this show doesn't make the thing notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree with ScienceApologist. This is my main concern; that this show is not used as an indiator of notability. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies a reliable publisher or pseudoscience POV advocacy press?
Is considered a reliable source for D. M. Turner - both as a source and to establish notability.

There is a review of the book.


 * MAPS is not an academic publisher, but publishes to promote an agenda. The book is directly inline with the agenda.  Presumption against.  However, the review (in a Journal whose articles are peer reviewed, reviews of books aren't traditionally peer reviewed), considers the work as part of academic experience, if off to a side, "Despite these shortcomings, there is no other book on ketamine as exhaustive and thorough as this one. The reference list contains 635 citations, and it is well-indexed. The full gamut of ketamine’s subjective effects appear here, and anyone with an interest in why people take mind-altering drugs will ﬁnd Jansen’s book indispensable."
 * Okay to use for social use of Ketamine, subjective effects, drug culture, etc. Not okay for medical.
 * Seek JOURNAL OF NEAR-DEATH STUDIES, "Jansen published a paper outlining his theories relating ketamine and the near-death experience in this Journal’s Fall, 1997 issue (Jansen, 1997)" which was peer reviewed in preference to this work. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jansen is published, among other journals, in BMJ, which is a very respectable mainstream peer-reviewed academic medical publication. Given the scarcity of other sources, I see no reason to discredit his book. Note that, according to the wikipedia guidelines, if the competence of the author can be established, the reputation of the publisher is not relevant (even self-published material is acceptable in such cases).


 * PS: The same book serves as a crucial reference in the article on Marcia Moore. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An argument from "essentialness" isn't a valid argument here. Could you point out the guideline which says, "if the competence of the author can be established, the reputation of the publisher is not relevant"? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From here: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In other words, a 3rd party publisher reputation does not have to be evoked in such cases to establish the suitability of the source (I do not see why this guideline should not apply to the case at hand, given that it applies to self-publishing).


 * After all, it seems a bit ridiculous to relegate the ultimate authority in claim verification to the publisher (they print, it's the authors who think and find out!). It *is* a very useful criterion in many cases, but not an end in itself. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in no way persuaded that this is such a circumstance, the difference between the monograph and the journal article, and some of the specific criticism of the monograph's usefulness in academic review points to this. The book having been reviewed as acceptable for the sociology of ketamine use in an academic setting, should be reliable for this, "Turner died on New Year's Eve 1996 after injecting an unknown quantity of ketamine while in a bathtub." but due to academic review approving of its reliability, not because of authorial expertise. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that we agree on the particular use of this book as a source in the articles on D. M. Turner and Marcia Moore, I see no reasons to delve into further subtleties of how one can interpret the various clauses in the wikipedia guidelines. I totally agree with the significance of reputable 3rd party reviews, and I think they are in fact considerably more important than which publisher agreed to print a particular book (such decisions are driven by the market first and foremost, not by concerns of verity). InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowball Earth vs. Snowball Earth hypothesis
There is currently a debate between User:Viriditas, User:Dragons flight, and User:Awickert (myself) on whether the article name should be Snowball Earth or Snowball Earth hypothesis. The debate is here. The debate as I can see it boils down to:


 * Dragons flight and I say that it should be "Snowball Earth" because this is what the majority of peer-reviewed scholarly sources call it.
 * Viriditas says that it is the 2ndary sources (digests of science, newspaper articles) that should be used to determine the title of the article.

Which is it?

Thanks, Awickert (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to make a much belated clarification to Awickert's statement. I don't see RSN is the right way to frame the issue, because I don't agree that one class of sources prefers "Snowball Earth Hypothesis" while another class prefers "Snowball Earth".  In my opinion both the academic literature and popular literature significantly lean towards "Snowball Earth" as the common name, but I will happily acknowledge that both sides of the argument have reliables sources from both the popular and academic sphere.  In my opinion deciding the article's title is an issue of style and WP:COMMONNAME and consensus, and not really something that could be resolved here simply by considering the reliability of sources, since both types of usage are supported by many reliable sources.  Also, my prior argument with Viriditas is archived here if anyone wants to see it.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that the comment by Awickert above is a misrepresentation and distortion of the discussion and my position, and that a proposed move discussion has not yet been initiated. Although I have spent the last five years here supporting and promoting SPOV and the highest standards of sourcing possible, Awickert has been reduced to making unsupported attacks, accusing me of "devaluing scientific sources" when I point out that that the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" meets the naming convention and sourcing guidelines while the nickname "Snowball Earth" does not.  I have never at any time argued that "digests of science" or "newspaper articles" should be used as a sole criterion for deciding on the name, and that's yet another fiction that Awickert has invented. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; this is what I thought your position was (and indeed what I thought you meant in terms of secondary sources), as it was what you pointed me to as "secondary sources" on the user subpage you created. Please strike what I wrote and fix it.
 * My statement about "devaluing scientific sources" is in response to what Viriditas said about not using what this is called in scientific sources. In particular, when I did a search of journal article titles, I found a massive bias towards the use of "Snowball Earth" without the "hypothesis" attached. If this is again a misrepresentation of Viriditas' position, then I'm thoroughly unable to understand his argument.
 * Finally, I will point out that I was very put off by his accusatory tone early in the conversation, which led me to respond in kind. I apologize for escalating the argument. However, his continued statements about me are equally grating, so I think I will abandon the issue for the moment to the judgment of the community. Awickert (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I point out that current tertiary sources like the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments use the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" as the entry title, I am met with accusations of devaluing science. For the record, the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments is written by and for scientists, and the Britannica entry is considered authoritative.  When I point out that secondary sources like the journal Science repeatedly and consistently refer to the topic as the "Snowball Earth hypothesis" (for two small examples see v. 302, no 5646, p791-792 and v. 310, no. 5747, p. 471-474)  I am accused of devaluing science.  When I point out that secondary treatments in New Scientist and Scientific American use the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis", I am accused of devaluing science.  When I observe that the Geological Society of America describes articles on the topic covered in the journals Geology and GSA Today as the "Snowball Earth hypothesis", I am accused of devaluing science.  Finally, when I point out that Joseph L. Kirschvink, the very scientist who invented the term calls it the "Snowball Earth Hypothesis" on his website, I am accused of devaluing the science.  Can someone put a stop to this obvious nonsense perpetrated by Awickert and Dragons flight?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the articles, I was afraid that you weren't finding a representative distribution with such a small sample size, which is why I performed the GeoRef search which gave strong (order of magnitude difference in usage) weight towards the non-hypothesis argument. Much of your argument at the talk page for the article was around not looking at the scientific sources themselves, but rather to secondary sources, and that was what I was responding to. I'm having some trouble getting at what you're saying in general because there seems to be some fluidity to your argument (is it about not using primary journal sources, or is it about using just a few, or what?) and I work best on the internet when I can categorize and resolve.
 * That statement of mine was not directed towards the encyclopedia or towards the founder of the term. However, I like to be thorough, so let's look at the other issues you bring up.
 * I can assume that you're correct about Brittanica, so that's that.
 * For Professor Kirschvink's website, the term is actually used both with and without "hypothesis" (and more often without, though the main link has it). But after clicking on the main link (which inlcudes "hypothesis"), the page that I arrive at does not use "hypothesis". So before you (Viriditas) continue to accuse me of "obvious nonsense", I'd like to note that there is some overall ambiguity in the issue. And this is why I looked at what was used more often in the sum of all peer-reviewed journal titles, because it seemed to be a very simple way to resolve the issue. Awickert (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary link to the subject on Kirschvink's website says, "The Snowball Earth Hypothesis: (Possibly the worst climatic disasters in Earth history)".  You can't get more unambiguous than that. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll copy/paste what I said for extreme convenience. ...though the main link has it [uses "hypothesis"]. But after clicking on the main link (which inlcudes "hypothesis"), the page that I arrive at does not use "hypothesis". I do acknowledge exactly what you say, but in addition, I examine every other piece of information around it. If you don't have the common courtesy to read what I write, then there is little point in my writing it. Awickert (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it, and his top-level link to the subject on his main website says, "The Snowball Earth Hypothesis". Why would his subsite, which is entirely devoted to the hypothesis, have to use the word? And, do you understand that the majority of sources on the subject use the term "Snowball Earth" in quotes, because it is a nickname for the hypothesis?  We don't use nicknames as article titles; We use the full name of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. My only point is that his scientific papers and that webpage do not use it, so there is some degree of wishy-washiness. One may also argue that if the "hypothesis" part were so important, it would be included everywhere. As it is, saying that he definitively calls it "hypothesis" is cherry-picking if he doesn't call it "hypothesis" in other places. I don't understand that the majority of sources on the subject use the term in quotes, as I'm only familiar with the scientific sources, which (in my experience) do not. Awickert (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Using Google scholar "Snowball Earth" returns 3160 hits, with the highest cited papers at (690,396,288). Whereas "Snowball earth hypothesis" returns 819 with the highest cited papers at (396,192,40). The paper with 396 citations is the same one. Eliminating all papers that also use SEH from the first search gives 2340 hits (690,288,125). From this it seems clear that the most used phrase in the scientific literature is "Snowball Earth" (without hypothesis attached). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is that "Snowball Earth" is used to refer to different things, not just the hypothesis. What is the most unambiguous use of the term and to what does it refer to?  Does the term "Snowball Earth" refer to one thing, or does it refer to many things?  The term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" refers to the parent topic, which is an explicit, unambiguous name stipulated by naming conventions and found in the secondary and tertiary literature without having to interpret its multiple uses in the primary sources.  The subtopics, includes the proposed Snowball Earth period/event, which is a subset of the primary hypothesis which discuses different types of evidence, hence the reason "Snowball Earth hypothesis" is used first and foremost by secondary and tertiary sources.  This is why your search results are not a good indicator of the primary topic, as you did not sort by usage.  I get the feeling that this is another example of editors who are too close to the topic and who seem unable to see the forest for the trees.  There's a reason the secondary and tertiary literature relies upon the full name.  "Snowball Earth" is an ambiguous nickname that is not necessarily used to refer to only the hypothesis, but is inclusive of all subtopics that use the name, such as the period and/or the event., all of which depend on the hypothesis. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see our disjointedness. So tell me if I'm wrong: what you're saying is that there should be two articles: one that postulates the event, and another about evidence for the event itself and the debate over if it could happen. I'm tying everything together because this is how it have been historically in the scientific literature, from Hoffman on, and because this is how the article is currently written. So this is why I think my search was valid: I do not know of a single "snowball Earth" article since Hoffman's work that doesn't consider the event and the hypothesis simultaneously. Going to bed though, good night, Awickert (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are arguing the exact opposite position of what I have said. There should be only one article called "Snowball Earth hypothesis", of which everything else (proposed period/event/evidence) is a subset.  This is how reliable secondary and tertiary sources cover it. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you can understand my misunderstanding; I think it must be somewhere back in the multiple edit conflicts when you were talking about the hypothesis and the evidence. But never mind, I get it now. But I still disagree based on the primary sources I've read, the scientists with whom I've talked, and my not-insubstantial knowledge of the field. User:Smith609 would be a better one to ask than me for knowledge on the field, however. Awickert (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per naming conventions and PSTS, the correct, unambiguous, full name of the topic is "Snowball Earth hypothesis". But, please, answer me this question:  Why do two of the top encyclopedias on the subject, and the majority of secondary sources (excluding primary specialist research that uses the term ambiguously to refer to either the period, event, or hypothesis) use "Snowball Earth hypothesis"? Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But I can say that the specialist literature usually uses "Snowball Earth" to mean all three at once. Awickert (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The sources I've read clearly differentiate between the explanation (hypothesis) and the "Snowball Earth" period it explains.  I also suggest that the primary research you and others are using to support your contention that the article should be named "Snowball Earth" refers primarily to the cooling events and not to the hypothesis.  The problem as I see it, is that the cooling events are explained by the hypothesis, such that the evidence for the hypothesis explains the cooling events, not the other way around, which is why the current article title is inaccurate. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But if the sources you've read "clearly differentiate between the explanation (hypothesis) and the 'Snowball Earth' period it explains", why do you want to put the article (which is about both) inside an article entitled, "Snowball Earth Hypothesis"? I don't get it. Argh. Awickert (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis is the primary topic. Read the article.  The hypothesis describes evidence for the proposed cooling events, nicknamed "Snowball Earth" events/periods. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be in part due to my only-partially-finished work in starting to rewrite the lede before getting sucked into this discussion. But I can't argue with you: "Hypothesis" is a term with some leeway involved, and it's at one's discretion to include (or not) evidence in support of it, so it may (or may not) involve the specific examples. So it's not a matter of reading the article (I have, FYI). It's a matter of defining "hypothesis".
 * And I'm honestly having a hell of a time just trying to figure out what you want: first you say (on the talk page) that we should base the name on secondary sources (your quote, "We're interested in how the subject is described in secondary sources, most of which call it the "Snowball Earth hypothesis""), and then you get mad at me for saying you say so and then you bring up (a couple) primary sources and take my "devaluing science" comment out of context and imply that I'm talking about them. Then you say that everything should be under "hypothesis", after which you say that articles clearly differentiate between the period and hypothesis, after which you say that I need to read the article and everything is indeed under hypothesis. I really can't have a coherent debate because your position is so unclear. And I'm sorry for sounding frustrated last night; this was the source of my frustration. Awickert (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've said the same thing consistently for days on end (here and here), none of which is mutually exclusive.  And, your claim about the source of your frustration above completely contradicts what you claimed yesterday.  I've also recently informed you on your talk page that due to your continuing distortions and misrepresentation of my position I'm putting you on permanent ignore. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My source of frustration evolved :-). I'm truly sorry that I continue to be unable to parse your arguments, so I'll stop trying and drop out of this unfortunate argument. I also think I understand what you say here below, but that seems to be dangerous, so I'll let others weigh in... I've written enough here anyway. Awickert (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would "Snowball Earth (hypothesis)" work? Collect (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, not unless one wants to have multiple articles on different aspects of the topic, and I don't think any of us are arguing for that. Dragons flight (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just use the shortest name that can't cause confusion.... That's why we use: --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanding Earth instead of Expanding Earth hypothesis
 * Cold fusion instead of Cold fusion hypothesis
 * General relativity instead of General theory of relativity


 * Agree, just use "Snowball Earth" for the title as the most common and concise name available. The alternate title of "Snowball Earth Hypothesis" can be mentioned in big bold print in the first sentence of the lead so everyone knows that it is a hypothesis. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! This isn't a matter of the quality of sources, it's a matter of Wikipedia article naming conventions. The title "snowball earth" contains the two words that are necessary and sufficient to define the topic. Remove anything and it's unclear, and add anything, and it's unnecessarily specific. --Slashme (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been my other major thought; I've just shied away from mentioning it as I felt it unlikely to get Viriditas' support. Awickert (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the point of using a longer name when the shorter name specifies the exact nature of the theory/hypothesis/whatever. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that touches upon the problem I've raised. Does the short name specify the exact nature of the topic?  Look at the primary sources, then look at the secondary sources.  You'll see that in the former, the term is used to refer to specific glacial periods, while in the latter, it is used primarily to refer to the hypothesis itself.  So, tell me, why do other encyclopedias use the full term?  I think it is obvious.  "Snowball Earth" is an ambiguous nickname for proposed frozen periods, for example during the Neoproterozoic Era and the Paleoproterozoic Era.  The primary sources show that the term is used to refer to specific global glaciation events (also known as "episodes" or "periods") not to the general hypothesis that explains them.  The secondary and tertiary sources, on the other hand, point to and describe the hypothesis.  WP:PRECISION is important, but not if it means introducing ambiguity.  Looking at the secondary sources, we see the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" over and over again, in use by multiple scientists.  For example, multiple authors in The Precambrian Earth (2004) talk about the origin, formation, and development of the hypothesis, but also discuss the conditions and events that are a part of it.  However, when we look at the primary sources referred to by Dragon's flight and Awickert in defense of the current title, we see a discussion of the hypothesis and the specific global glaciation periods referred to as "Snowball Earth", all of which are part of the parent topic, "Snowball Earth hypothesis".  So, when we use the term "Snowball Earth" we are not necessarily referring to only the hypothesis, but actually to specific, proposed periods of global glaciation that the hypothesis predicts, such as the Neoproterozoic snowball Earth or the Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth.  This is why the full name is important, and it is the reason why most secondary sources use the full name (SEH) to talk about the hypothesis and the nickname (SE) to refer to specific periods or proposed episodes. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the consensus above - that is the current name is best for the article. Seems it's something like 7 to 1. Time to wrap it up. I would also encourage Viriditas to reread WP:AGF. Vsmith (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing my points directly. See also: Echo chamber. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cit and C citation templates at TfD
The following citation templates have been nominated for deletion for lack of use and redundancy to the existing templates:


 * C web
 * C news
 * C journal
 * C book
 * Cit news
 * Cit journal
 * Cit book
 * Cit web

All are listed at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitoshi Doi's seiyuu database
I'm trying to find sources to cite for the Kumi Miyasato article. The problem is she was active in the 1980s, so any interviews and biographical information would be contained solely in the Japanese print media of the time.

I was wondering if it would be sufficient to reference links at this site that contains lists of Japanese print sources.

books:

http://www.usagi.org/doi-bin/seiyuu-lookup.pl?DB=books&value=Kumi+Miyasato

anime roles:

http://www.usagi.org/doi-bin/getdbinfo.pl?DB=anime&T=Megazone+23

drama CD roles:

http://www.usagi.org/doi-bin/getdbinfo.pl?DB=drama&T=Mugen+Chitai+Megazone+23+Image+Album+

live events:

http://www.usagi.org/doi-bin/seiyuu-lookup.pl?DB=event&value=Kumi+Miyasato&N=

radio appearances:

http://www.usagi.org/doi-bin/seiyuu-lookup.pl?DB=radio&value=Kumi+Miyasato&N=

Tuxedo Mark (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How are you using the RS in the article? Are they supporting edits? There is nothing in the RS policy stating that RS should be online. You can use ANY source as long as it is a Reliable Source on the subject of the article. Thus, instead of using the database, you can use the original sources.--LexCorp (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking into the matter I see that what you are after is supporting claim of notability. I believe the database entries do imply that. After all wikipedia is foremost a detailed list of Pokemons wrapped around an online encyclopedia. :). What you need is to solicit help from dedicated Anime expert editors, based on Japan, on the WikiProject Anime and manga, asking them for help on digging up sources supporting a few statements in the article or importing some with translation from the Japanese article.--LexCorp (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

News article published somewhere else.
Manila Bulletin's official website didn't archive their articles until only recently, so looking for past ''MB';' articles can be hard. However, some other websites do archive news articles from other sources. For example, does this link reliable enough to be trsuted that came from the MB? – Howard  the   Duck  02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If Manila Bulletin is a reliable Source then source the article directly to them. On-line accessibility is not a requisite for RS. Just make sure that the article was from the RS and the citation information is complete so that other editors can check it by, for example, phoning the Manila Bulletin and requesting a copy of the article.--LexCorp (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. – Howard  the   Duck  02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for lists
I created the List of unofficial observances by date, and it was then tagged as needing sources. At the moment, all the list members are linked to the actual articles, where the sources of the dates for the observances are available. I'm of the opinion that it's really only necessary to put citations for list items that aren't cited elsewhere, but Ironholds disagrees. I'd appreciate opinions and policy commentary at Talk:List of unofficial observances by date. --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or here, as per the normal working of a noticeboard. Essentially, I believe each list should have standalone references, per WP:LIST, which says list info must be verifiable - Slashme interprets this as saying it must be verifiable somewhere on the wiki, which I don't agree with, but we'll see. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Verification for list articles remains an unresolved issue. I would argue that the contentiousness of the list's topic is the most important factor in determining whether a list needs citations or not.  If inclusion in the list could be controversial, then a citation (or even multiple citations) should be given to show that the item should be included (even if some other article already has such citations).  If inclusion in the list is not controvercial, then (as long as there is proper citation at a linked main article) I don't think we need to clutter up the list article with citations. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is "unofficial observances" - things like talk like a pirate day, for example. Would you consider inclusion contentious or not? Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two types of information in that list: the date of the observance, which is cited in the main article, and therefore not particularly contentious, and inclusion as an unofficial observance, which is also not a particularly contentious issue - if it's notable enough to have its own article, and that article is categorized as an unofficial observance, the categorization is a good enough reason to have it in the list.--Slashme (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I could see the arguement that this list would be better handled as a wikipedia category (Cat:Unoffical observances), and I could definitely see questioning the notability of at least some of these "unofficial observances" (but that would be argued individually). But, as for citation, if you accept my "is it contentious" concept, I would say that since this is not a contentious topic, there would be no need to include citations in the list... as long as the dates are cited at the individual main articles. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That category exists, but it doesn't contain the dates, so I created the list so that you could see when the next interesting holiday was coming up. --Slashme (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slashme in that verifiable in the links is technically enough, in the meaning it is enough to check that it's not OR or a hoax, but for sure having sources for the date in the article is strongly preferred, if anything else for maintainability and ease of consultation. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sun
Is the Sun a reliable source for this quoted comment from Anjem Choudary, it is being rejected as low quality and tabloid. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

when asked why he lived on Social security benefits, Choudary said, "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don't lie and you don't cheat - that is what the prophet said. I am not doing anything illegal." http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2805768/Mad-Moolah.html


 * Yes. The Sun is a reliable source for news-bites like this one. It is listed here and here as an example of reliable source on news. Be sure to comply with this when editing a direct quote.--LexCorp (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting, I had suspected as much for quotes like this. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally, newspapers are always reliable sources when it comes to news. This is especially the case when they are directly quoting the subject of an article, an expert in a field, etc. The reporter is not being presented as an expert, nor is the newspaper being presented as an expert, academic source. Rather, the emphasis is on that which is being presented. In this case, unless the periodical is shown to repeatedly fail in maintaining acceptable standards of journalism — which include presenting direct quotations correctly and printing timely corrections when necessary — the newspaper can be considered a reliable source for that which it is presenting, without the reporter/publication being required to have specific expertise in the subject area under discussion. Specifically as relates to The Sun, you cannot do better than LexCorp’s response above. —  Spike  Toronto  20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Context is very important. The Sun are not claiming that he made that statement in response to a question in interview, they don't describe anything around what was said.  It can only be stated that the Sun claims that this was said.
 * Bear in mind that tabloid journalists don't report the transcriopt, only selected highlights.
 * ALR (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it. The snip above say that when this guy was asked as to why he lived on Social security benefits, he said "bla bla bla". What context do you need?. Are you implying that The Sun is reporting incorrectly or out of context?. Sadly it is not for me or any other wikipedia editor to make such judgement.--LexCorp (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what the article says. It says that he said something after the Sun exposed, it doesn't identify whether that was said to the Sun reporter or not.  That places enough ambiguity around the attribution that it should be caveated.
 * And I would take the position that no media outlet is inherently reliable, they should all be challenged, the tabloids in particular.
 * ALR (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I after reading the article I see what you mean. The leading clarification "when asked why he lived on Social security benefits," is not supported by the article. The most that can be said is something like "reacting to the handouts scandal, Choudary recently stated that "bla bla"--LexCorp (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Although the Sun may be a reliable source, I question whether the information can be considered sufficiently notable to be included in the article if the only source was a tabloid. If the broadsheets have not picked up on the story then it is probably trivial. However the Mail also carried the story so it appears to be more notable. It is interesting that the sequence of the sentences is different. The Mail is a more respectable source. Better still, try and find out who the statement was actually made to. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a question regarding the use of the terms broadsheet and tabloid as they relate to the British press. Technically, there are almost no broadsheets left in Britain since most of them have switched to the tabloid format, a different response to expenses than was taken by North American broadsheets who merely shrunk the dimensions of their respective papers while maintaining the broadsheet format. So, when one refers to the the daily Times, for instance, does one still call it a broadsheet despite its new format? After all, its style of reporting did not become that of a tabloid. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I know the above might seem like a silly question, but I want to understand the terminology as it relates to the U.K. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's more a style and heritage point.
 * Grown up papers: Telegraph, Financial Times, Guardian, Independent, Times (ish it's gone downhill recently)
 * Mid market: Daily Mail.
 * Comics: Daily Express, The Stun
 * ALR (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an absolute joke that The Sun (and its sister paper Screws of the World) is considered a reliable source. If it were remotely notable it would be published elsewhere. I nominate that it's struck off as a reliable source. I doubt you could find a single person in the UK (and that includes the editorial team of The Sun!) that would trust what is printed in it. How can something be a reliable source if no-one in the country has any faith whatsoever in its accuracy??Betty Logan (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends what for as ever, for a direct quote froma subject like this The Sun is sufficiently relaible, they are under the regulation of the Press Complaints Commission and so could be forced to print a retraction if the supposed quote was blatanly untrue.  As to the distinction between tabloid and broadsheet, the main issue is witht he so-called red-top tabloids (from the colour of their banner), Sun/News of the World, Mirror as againt the former broadsheets like The Times and Independent which are now published in the tabloid paper format.  Strictly I suppose The Telegraph is the only remaining broadsheet, and The Guardian'' has gone its own way with the so-called Berliner format, between tabloid and broadsheet in size.  David Underdown (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Sun may be considered a reliable source for the odd quote, but it is certainly not a neutral or unbiased source. It is a despicable publication. Parrot of Doom 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All sources are biased (I grant you The Sun is more than a bit biased). On the question, Is The Sun a reliable Source on news? The answer is yes. This does not means that everything published by The Sun is notable or that they enforce a unbiased editorial policy. Editors when citing news from The Sun must be careful to just transfer the news to the article and not the biased comments and analysis from the reporters. So in essence The Sun is a RS for news but is NOT a RS for comments or analysis of the news.--LexCorp (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Sun is no more likely than other papers to be wrong on many clearly-defined concrete facts: three people were killed in the car accident, the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. Its interpretation, however, is more likely to be suspect. (Though, as an aside, when Trevor Kavanagh was political editor its page 2 political coverage was actually quite well-regarded.) Barnabypage (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant sentence in WP:RS is "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market.". The Sun is clearly not the high-quality end of the market. Nevertheless it is useable in many circumstances. For the dates a television show aired The Sun would be a good source. For a whether a starlet is expecting a baby, not so good - watch out for "friends revealed" and other tell-tale phrases that let you know when gossip is being spread. For science stories - no way. Most of the news that The Sun carries is also in the other papers, so they should be preferred as sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd trust the Sun to tell me the date, if I could corroborate it...
 * ALR (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just asking. Can the Sun be used for BLP?--Thundera m117 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Life and Style Mag/drug abuse charges
This is being used as the source for an allegation of drug abuse against Drew Pinsky http://www.lifeandstylemag.com/2010/01/1004-cover-inset---dr-drew.html. Source is owned by Bauer Media Group I just want to get the reliability of this source relative to the charge nailed down.Jarhed (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When these relatively mainstream (if gossipy) American celebrity/entertainment magazines clearly say they have directly spoken to a named person and have direct quotes (no "a source close to the star said that he said...") you can usually take it at face value. From what I have seen, these magazines (including Life&Style) do not have a track record of making up direct quotes, unlike say, British daily tabloids, which sometimes do. If/when adding it to the article, I would very carefully spell out in full in the prose where these allegations come from, ie "former colleagues who worked with Pinsky at KROQ in the 1980s said in a 2010 interview with Life & Style that..." Also, with this being a pretty contentious allegation, if possible I would wait to see if other more reliable/mainstream sources pick this up, and if there is any fall out and/or respons from Pinsky, to better gauge the weight of it and if applicable get more well rounded and neutral coverage in the article. Siawase (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)