Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 66

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Is the following statement in the article Mass killings under Communist regimes supported by the citation. The article says: "Following his removal from power, on 25 December 25, 1989, the communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people, and other crimes and sentenced to death. Ceausescu and his wife were executed by firing squad shortly after the sentence was handed down. In 1990 Ceausescu's brother was convicted of incitement to genocide, and four aides to the former dictator were convicted of complicity in genocide...." The source cited says: "Several Romanian leaders, including the son of Nicolae Ceausescu, were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide. The allegations concerned mass killings during the Decembetr 1989 popular uprising, as well as other victims of the Ceausescu regime." TFD (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note this is an incomplete query. The actual query ought to include:  Is a NYT cite (print edition, given on the article talk page)  a valid reliable source for stating that Ceausescu was found guilty of genocide, that he falls into the same category as Stalin and Pol Pot (online NYT), and that four aides were convicted of mass murder together sufficient to state that mass killings occurred in Romania under Ceausescu (print edition)?  The larger question, as noted unstated, is the proposed deletion of all mention of killings in Romania from the article.  Just to make the actual issue clear here. Collect (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect you do not understand the question. The source you provided does not say that "Ceausescu was found guilty of genocide".  Here is the question:  is this article, which does not mention Ceausescu's conviction, a valid source that he was convicted?  Please take the time to actually read the sources that you are providing.  TFD (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The actual query ought to include: Is a NYT cite (print edition, given on the article talk page) a valid reliable source for stating that Ceausescu was found guilty of genocide, that he falls into the same category as Stalin and Pol Pot (online NYT)" No. This formula is absolutely irrelevant. Firstly, Stalin was not found guilty of genocide for two reasons: (i) after 1917 he was never under a trial, and (ii) his actions do not fall under the UN definition of genocide. (That does not mean that he committed no mass killings or even mass murders, btw). Although actions of Pol Pot are one of clearest examples of genocide, many scholars draw almost no parallelism between Campuchea and the USSR (and Communism in general). Secondly, and more importantly, the article Mass killings under Communist regimes deals not with the facts of biographies of Communist leaders but with mass killings. The NYT article states Ceausescu was found guilty of genocide by his political opponents, and this fact is indisputable, however, it is insufficient to draw any conclusion on whether genocide took place in actuality and whether it meets the Valentino's definition of mass killing. Moreover, to draw such a conclusion would be an original research (Note, I don't state no mass killings took place in Romania, just that the source you used tells nothing about that).
 * Again, the para we discuss is and should be added to the article about Ceausescu, however it is irrelevant to the "Mass killing..." article unless the fact and the scale of killings is confirmed by some independent source (that relied not on the conclusion of hastily organised trial). If these killings really took place it should not be a problem to find such a source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, some of Stalin's mass killings might count as genocide. Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead Caulfields
Currently, the Glass family article is entirely referenced to this one source Dead Caulfields, a website devoted to a detailed analysis of the life of J. D. Salinger and his works. The trouble is, I have no idea whether this should be considered a reliable source. The site is maintained by Kenneth Slawenski, the author of the biography, J. D. Salinger: A Life Raised High (which has received a number of positive reviews:, , , ), but little else seems to be known of the man. He is not an academic or an acknowledged scholar of Salinger. So, is this a reliable source? Does his well-received bio of Salinger confer notability upon his website? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to see what other people think of this. It seems that the article is using the source only to cite births and deaths of the characters. I'm wondering how he came to those conclusions, though - is it just his paraphrasing of what happens in the books? If that's all he's doing, then I would say it's marginally okay to use the site for that, but I wouldn't say that the site is acceptable across the board. The guy wrote a biography about Salinger himself, so using the site to back up claims about literary criticism would probably be pushing it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Right now, the only things that are sourced from this webpage are birth and death dates of characters.  These facts are very specifically cited on the webpage to the story or novel in which the information is found.  As far as I am aware, this is accurate information. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD Pseudoscholarship
This discussion may interest editors with an interest in RS Anthony (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Drug Free Australia
I wonder if papers and booklets published by Drug Free Australia, specifically "The Kings Cross Injecting Room - The Case for Closure" and "The Case for Closure: Detailed Evidence", can be considered reliable sources? Are they WP:SPS? Can they be used without attribution? Steinberger (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We could use an article about this group to gather all the sources in one place. From reading, this seems to be an advocacy group, rather than a scientific research group. In fact it often criticizes scientists. It does seem to be cited in reliable sources, but always with attribution. That's what I'd recommend here. Not self published - clearly it's an established group, not just one person - but attribution required, and I'd recommend adding something like "advocacy group" or "lobbying group" by their name. --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.worldswithoutend.com
This site has been used in a number of articles on SF authors as a source for books and awards. Most awards are either reported in journals and news articles and books have a number of high quality alternatives. The site was called into question on Talk:Charles Stross and on examination appears to be more oriented towards their forums rather than as an independent news site. The site FAQ states "Our awards listings are very accurate as that data is relatively easy to come by on-line. Many authors provide press kit information on their web sites like bios and pictures etc. that we'll use here. We won't use information that is outside the public domain without permission and getting permission is time consuming and laborious thus the many holes in our author data. The same issue exists for our novels. Synopses are public domain and most times freely available on-line but many publishers/authors do not wish to share excerpts so we don't always have those."

This site might be useful as an external link but should we recommend this is not a reliable source? Fæ (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like they have an explicit fact checking or verification policy in place. It seems like they're saying it's accurate because it's openly available. If you apply the same logic to Wikipedia for instance, the information may be accurate because it's widely available but that doesn't mean you can cite it.  There's nothing to indicate they use a credible source for their information so I would say it's not a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az and U.S. Azeris Network
There is a dispute at Khojaly Massacre talk about the reliability of two Azerbaijani sources: Today.az and the U.S. Azeris Network. The latter features a PDF image of document, most likely a scan, which is genuine in my opinion. User Divot in the talk thread thinks otherwise, without any evidence, on the ground of alleged Azeri propaganda. Can we use those refs to support the sentence in question? Brandmeister[t] 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Today.az is probably the best examples of the types of websites that should be excluded from Wikipedia. For anyone who has visited it daily, they will see that, regarding issues to Armenia and Armenians, it regularly publishes information which is not corroborated by third-party sources, attributes quotes to Armenian officials where they are not recorded elsewhere, always ascribes the cease fire violations in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on the Armenian side, calls on Azerbaijans to mass edit Wikipedia articles for supposed "falsification" in articles related to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and the language and the tone of the article virtually wax lyrical against Armenia and Armenians, etc., etc. In short, it's an agit-prop type website and third party sources should always take precedent over it. Unfortunately, media originating from Azerbaijan, with the exception of the IWPR and RFE/RL's service, are much the same.


 * I have little reason to believe that U.S. Azeris is any better, based on the text found in "The Issues" section. One of the issues describes the supposed failure of democratization of Armenia as "a heist worth $2,6 billion [!] dollars to US taxpayers" and in general other activities aimed at vilifying Armenians. Regarding the document, I too, have e-mailed the Massachusetts House of Representative leaders and have not received a response. There is no record of it being passed in the official journal of the Massachusetts HoR website or any other mainstream American newspaper. Furthermore, the awkward grammar in the text almost gives it away as being a forgery: it writes that the Massachusetts HoR "Offers its sincerest acknowledgment of: The 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre." The definite article "the" is missing in the space between "of" and "Khojaly", a glaring oversight for a government document but a common error found on English-language Azeri websites. Unless we receive some word from the HoR leaders, we should probably regard this as yet another hoax.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked WP:RELIABLE, Today.az seems to fall within reliable News organizations. Obviously the proof of the statement in question is not exclusively reserved for third-party, but for national sources as well since it tackles the Azerbaijani matter. USAN does not look like a questionable source either, the info presented there is highly prone to double check, so I don't think they would publish fakes or some other kind of falsified data for propaganda purposes. Brandmeister[t] 15:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction: while Today.az publishes information on national and international events daily, it does so in a highly tendentious manner. It's useless to find a single newspaper, anywhere in the world, that does not lean in this or that direction regarding a political issue or political party but Today.az's malicious reporting (as well as other Azerbaijani newspapers such as APA) is akin to agit-prop and it does almost nothing to hide its virulent anti-Armenian reporting. It has none of the high reporting standards of say, the Washington Post or Le Monde. Since no one is finding the information published in these Azeri or Turkish sources in third party sources, it's not unreasonable to conclude, given their past track record of falsification, that this is just another hoax. In 2008, when the war between Georgia and South Ossetia broke out, APA (and only other Azerbaijani-based sources) circulated a report that Russian fighter jets had taken off from an air base in Armenia to bomb Tbilisi, thus signifying that Armenia violated a treaty it had concluded with Georgia. The article supposedly cited the Russian Defense Ministry but this news was almost immediately denied and the report turned out to be a hoax. I don't think we can expect real reporting when such blatantly dishonest information is circulated.


 * At best, you should wait until an official from the state sends you a response or directs you to officially published material.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already waited for DeLeo's e-mail, nothing. Vast side accusations do not contribute well here, I still do not see evidences of alleged forgery either from you or Divot, despite of asking him about the base of his doubts. APA is not newspaper, it is Azerbaijan Press Agency, being the official informational outlet (like Reuters or Associated Press). Brandmeister[t] 06:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the scan of the original document to wiki commons and wikisource. See here: Also there's a confirmation of the authenticity of the document from Mrs. Ellen Story, the State Representative. Anyone can contact the House of Representatives of Massachusetts or its individual members to check for themselves. Plus, I added a link to report from Azertaj, which is the State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan Republic, an official governmental source. I think this should suffice to eliminate any doubts of the authenticity of the document. Grand master  10:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az is a major Azeri mainstream news organisation, little doubt that they are reliable similar to other major mainstream news organisation from other countries. If the claims are controversial we might attribute them, similar to what we do with controversial claims in other major mainstream news outlets such as the BBC or Le Monde or the New York Times. Pantherskin (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But at least you can see a sincere desire of neutrality from sources such as CNN, the BBC, Le Monde and the NYT, whatever controversial material may come up every once in a while. When every article or news piece on Armenians is systematically slanted and worded to demonize or vilify them, then that just makes it no better than the commentary given by the personalities on Fox News. It's not just one or two pieces but a whole slew of them. The State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan is a joke. The same problems plaguing Today.az, APA and other forms of Azerbaijani media I outlined above are found there as well. The government of Azerbaijan is just as big a party in spreading malicious propaganda and misinformation against Armenians while at the same time puffing up its own ego.


 * Is it not suspicious that none of this is being reported in mainstream news sources and especially not by the media in Massachusetts or state websites? It is not even mentioned being discussed on the Massachusetts House of Representatives schedule . When, for example, a country or national parliament has recognized the Armenian Genocide, it's been pasted all over the news and not just Armenian news sites. I have sent a few e-mails to the representatives and am still awaiting a response from them. This seems to be the most prudent course.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan is a serious source. It reports official documents, which it receives thru official channels. It even provides a scan of the document. I have uploaded the hi-res scan to wikicommons. Also, a friend of mine contacted Rep. Story, and she said: Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself. So the scan of citation has been provided, and there's also a confirmation from a secondary source, Azertaj. Anyone wishing to further verify the authenticity of this document can contact the Massachusetts House of Representatives or its individual members, like I did. Grand  master  17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ellen Story's notice clarified the matter, I think this thread could be closed now. Brandmeister[t] 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself." - That is all, that she said? Are you sure? Divot (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, who is "a friend of mine"? Is he Reliable source? Divot (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all she said. I can forward the correspondence to any admin, on a condition that the private info will not be disclosed. He can check and confirm to anyone what she said. Grand  master  08:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So where is any mention in a U.S. newspaper? Also, why did this site, take a two months to mention this ground-breaking event? At a listing of Massachusetts newspapers, searching through the FOUR Boston papers,,,, resulted in no mention of the Massachusetts House of Rep recognizing Khojaly. How odd, since there are articles mentioning Khojaly dated 1992! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing odd since local Boston issues are hardly interested in mentioning the recognition of some remote massacre by the House of Representatives. I think the basic reason is that MHP has not shared the relevant info with local media, so the only interested side became Azerbaijani itself. Brandmeister[t] 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you're just giving random excuses. Something as groundbreaking as this would have cropped up somewhere in the American media, local or national, even if it was a brief little mention or a tiny paragraph, and especially since it involves international events. The fact that this is only being reported by the Azerbaijani and Turkish media only leads one to believe that there is more here than meets the eye. Given their track record for distortion and falsification and for prematurely publishing reports on unverified events, the wisest choice, as I've said, is to directly receive a response from state leaders. Until then, it should stay out of the mainspace of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The scan of the document has been provided. It is more than enough. Also, you can contact the MA House of Reps, or Mrs. Ellen Story. Like she said, they do not publish commemoratory documents in their journal. I could not find any there, which does not mean that they do not adopt such documents. Grand  master  08:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Azeris Network doesn't appear to be notable, however Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency, Today.az and International Security Research and Intelligence Agency all appear to be reasonably reliable sources who are unlikely to mis-report an event like this. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good lord, the International Security Research and Intelligence Agency claims the source comes from an Azeri source agency. Why is to so hard to just request from some official any record of it? Today.az and the Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency may be credible when covering uninvolved events, but one regarding the enemy of a war? Not to forget that independent organizations place freedom of press in Azerbaijan to be near to non-existant. Users should be searching a confirmation by now. Ionidasz (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmation has been received from Rep. Ellen Story. I already posted here what she wrote, and I can forward the correspondence to any admin. This is a real document. If anyone is in doubt, he can contact the same or other persons in MA House of Representatives. And AzerTAj has no history of reporting false international documents. They even have a scan on their page, and you can see the same scan in wikicommons. According to the rules, a scan is a sufficient proof. Grand  master  06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I already posted here what she wrote" - plese posted whole correspondence with Story. Divot (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this is not describing the actions of an enemy of war - it is report the events of a U.S. state govt, and it sticks very close to the text provided by the U.S. state govt. Where is the POV, and why do you believe it is unreliable in this context? John Vandenberg (chat) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will answer both of you once. There is a reason why in a court of law, evidences provided should be disclosed in full to both sides and the sources too. Confirmations like this are acceptable for an author who writes a book, because he takes responsability for what he writes. That's why secondary sources are what everyone search for. But here, everyone who questions the claim has to contact some official. That's sure not acceptable. We don't know what happened, for all we know there might have been three person in the house that day which would be worth clarifying, but since no info is available nothing can be writen about it. We also have a line or two provided by Grandmaster, I doubt that the reply limited to a line or two. He should be disclosing it in full. Ionidasz (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The correspondence contains private info, which I'm not going to reveal here. It is against the Wikipedia rules. However like I said before, I can forward the correspondence to any admin trusted by both sides, so that he could verify the authenticity of correspondence without disclosing the private information. Grand  master  07:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion still continues on the article page and the above mentioned Agencies, that some editors advocate here, want to represent an anouncement (though an official) by an individual member of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts to commemorate the event as a recognition. No evidence of the HoR having even had hearings on the event. This is a propaganda-manner presented disinformation by the above news agencies. Aregakn (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not propaganda, we have the scan of the document, and a confirmation from the member of the MA House. Plus, it has never been presented as recognition, the proposed edit only provides the accurate summary of the document, without calling it recognition or anything else. Grand  master  06:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, you can notice, that I said those news agencies have presented it as recognition. Those are news agencies of propaganda I said and advocating them means advocating sources of propaganda. Aregakn (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Azertaj did not call it recognition. It called it acknowledgment, like it was written in the document. Check for yourself, it is not different from the scan available at commons:  Grand  master  07:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you want to say that Ellen Story wrote that "Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre"", but it didn't publish in official site? Divot (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are not being true again. It says: "The Massachusetts State House of Representatives adopted a document on February 25, acknowledging the Khojaly massacre." The House adopted a doc? And acknowledging the massacres? Here is the quote of the quote of the codument from the same news agency: "Be it hereby known to all that: Massachusetts House of Representatives offers its sincerest acknowledgement of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre" Clearly there was no document by the House ADOPTED. Neither there was acknowledgment of massacres but of commemoration. Assuming good faith, I cannot see why you continue advocating these after obvious false claims and propaganda that can be noted even from their own written article. Aregakn (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording could be adjusted. Like I suggested before: on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives offered "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". This wording is 100% accurate in description of the citation. Grand  master  08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This suggest it's the house doing, which is not true. Ionidasz (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A statement by Ellen Story is RS for the content of a decision of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not the existance of something, but rather what this something really was. Story confirmed it was a citation, it was proposed by her. See on the Khojali massacre page, Divot just provided more correspondance from her. The wording Grandmaster propose is misleading. Ionidasz (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is my wording misleading? It just accurately reflects what the document says. MA House offered "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". That's what the document says, and it is a real deal, which the letters provided by Divot prove once again. Grand  master  12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it does not, Story proposed a citation, it's like a citation of the day. The citation includes the wording that the Massachusetts House of Representatives..., it's part of the citation and not that it was the Massachusetts House of Representatives which proposed the citation. It makes a huge differences, if not, you would not have fght for that wording to begin with. Ionidasz (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read her letters? It is an official document of the MA House. That's what she said. You may agree or disagree with that, but if we are to chose between your opinion and the opinion of Mrs. Story, we will have to go with the latter, as she is more knowledgeable in this issue. Grand  master  07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how it works, those are not my opinions against her, those are rather what it means to offer a citation in a House in a US state. Ionidasz (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if any uninvolved editor could help to draft the best wording to describe the content of the discussed document. I don't really think that edits like this accurately describe the document. Any help for dispute resolution will be appreciated. The authenticity of the document is not disputed anymore. Grand master  13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources to represent the views of a country's government
Is the Iranian media and Al Jazeera reliable sources to represent the views of a country's government (beyond Iran) about the Nuclear program of Iran? Users and  think they are.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Iranian media is subject to strict censorship. Can be used in order to show the position of the Iranian regime but always attribute. Al Jazeera is as a general rule to be regarded as reliable and doesn't need attributing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Itsmejudith, I would not endorse using Presstv.ir (part of Press TV, a government-owned television network in Iran) to source the views of other countries about Iran's nuclear program. (On the other hand, Press TV would be a reliable source as to what the Iranian government says about its own nuclear program, without assuming that those statements are true.) In the case of Al Jazeera, the events discussed in the article were presumably covered by other media sources in other countries, so one should be able to refer to other media sources to confirm whether Al Jazeera got the story right. By the way, the secure link to the diff cited above works only intermittently for me; this link should be the same diff. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear about my opinion: I agree with Metropolitan: the news is all around, get a better source! There is no reason to rely on such questionable sources.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no basis for describing Al Jazeera as a 'questionable source' that I am aware of. Dlabtot (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect to hear the opinion of unbiased editors.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? Dlabtot (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You usually edit in a pro Arab POV--Nutriveg (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a falsehood and a personal attack that you should retract. Alternatively, you could provide diffs to support this wild accusation.  Afaik, you and I have never interacted on Wikipedia before. Dlabtot (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to hear what you think about Al-Manar the satellite television station of Hezbollah also used in that problematic edit.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that Al-Manar and Al Jazeera have only one thing in common - an Arabic name. Dlabtot (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are used in that problematic edit, that's why we are talking about them if you didn't realize.--Nutriveg (talk)
 * Yes, I do realize that. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith pointed insertion of the term "regime" in her comment drew my attention. However, I would tend to cautiously agree, best to attribute inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These are issues that have come up before. The Iranian media carefully follows the line of the Iranian government (if you prefer). Al Jazeera is a totally different case, far more independent and highly regarded, should be fine for the description of governmental positions in international relations. Reports in other international news media will generally agree with those on Al Jazeera with only some nuance of political stance that is unimportant for our purposes. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis is the ascertation that Press TV (or al Manar for that matter (although i can see where you are coming from here)) makes up news to be unreliable? The BBC/France 24/Russia Today are all government-funded international news outlets. heck the BBC has already had an established allegation proven that they took the line to ratchet up the case to the Iraq war? should we now de-list BBC from across wikipedia?Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read a great deal of Press TV over the past year, I would agree w/the above who don't view it as an RS. The New York Times, it ain't.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Has it falsified news? The NYT, as with the BBC, has already been proven to have falsified news. It's got a point of view, i agree. but then again the others are also quite clearle western-centric. I havent yet seen/heard any allegations OR admissions of falsifying news, but i maybe wrong. Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * see Press TV controversies. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between government funded (like the BBC) and government controlled (Press TV & presstv.ir). The former has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", while the second is widely known to be biased. (see the link given by Dlabtot, and read the references if you don't believe the article).  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen and as per the Ofcom allegation it mentions "impartiality" which is a controversy on Fox News just the same (still cited on wikipedia), ynet. The 2nd and last para's in "Allegations of bias and error" lend some credence to thsi theory. but you look at the sources and you have to be kidding that those allegation are not biased itself (why are they are all western-centric as per the 2 sources in the last para?). As per above, i agree Press TV does have a point of view but there are no affirmed falsities. In the case of the NYT and BBC they have proven and admitted as such. (If the BBC has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" where Press TV is "widely known to be biased" (where there are no non-western sources at that) then what happened in the buildup to the Iraq War? There was clear admitance and recognitition of falsity) Furthermore, Jpost is used in the article on Press TV where it is suspect and yet Press TV can't be used on this article where it is pseudo-suspect?
 * Also on what basis is press tv govt. "controlled" as opposed to simply "funded." that's synthesis. Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting Roxana Saberi of The Washington Post: "Some Iranian decision-makers do care what outsiders say about the Islamic Republic. If they didn't, Iran would not have satellite television networks such as the English-language Press TV trying to spread state-sanctioned messages to international audiences." If you don't take their word, Iran claims that the station is government controlled: .  The Telegraph calls them "an English language mouthpiece of the regime".  I would say that these cast serious doubts on their credibility as an independent news organization.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to re-clarify, i did say Press TV certainly has its point of view but to say is credibility is at stake says it falsified news. The above accomodation to cite Press TV along with another seems fair. Of course even the above say they are fair game on issues pertaining to Iran especially from Iran.
 * But as per the source quoted to assert that iran admit it is "controlled," the source doesn't say that. "where he said "hegemonic powers"were using world media as a tool and that Iran feels the need for having its own international news network" could very well be alternatively read as expressing another point of view. Al Jaz. (with its large western crew) also says he seeks to "alter the new agenda" or bring a "southern perspective" that hardly equates to controlled/manipulated.Lihaas (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The heading talks of "views" of a government. Governments will often lie. What they say their views are isn't necessarily what they really believe. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So no consensus on the ban on Press TV/Al Jazeera/Al Manar?Lihaas (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't 'ban' nor 'approve' sources at this noticeboard. Rather, we ask:


 * What is the url of the source in question?
 * In which article is the source being used?
 * What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
 * Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?


 * And judge the use of a particular citation in context. Dlabtot (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So we agree that Al Jaz. is acceptable, and Press TV needs another supporting source when no concerning the Iran view? (already clarified that as per the discussion) Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC))
 * That seems to be the consensus here in general, but for specific cases, please give the information Dlabtot asked for. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)
I am in dispute with User:HCPUNXKID over his edits to this article, which lists diplomatic missions of a largely unrecognised country, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)

User:HCPUNXKID wishes to mention that the SADR has "general delegations" to Australia, the United States and a number of European countries.

For partially recognised country or entity (where it is recognised by at least one generally recognised country) we have allowed their representative offices to be included as long as they perform a quasi-diplomatic function. This has allowed us to include for example Palestinian representative offices abroad, or de facto missions in Taipei.

HCPUNXKID is claiming |this article demonstrates the SADR has general delegations in several countries. I do not find this source to be convincing because:
 * the website does not appear to represent the SADR
 * the website lists embassies and representatives (EMBAJADAS Y REPRESENTACIONES), not "General delegations"
 * I cannot find any other article that corroborates these assertions. A Google search on "General delegation" and "Sahwari" only produces 97 references, with almost nothing relating to a supposed diplomatic presence of the SADR in a particular place.

HCPUNXKID is claiming |this article demonstrates the SADR has a general delegation in Australia. Australia is not even mentioned in the article.

Anybody can claim to be a "representative". It is a tall order to then say they are the "general delegation" of a self-declared country to another.

HCPUNXKID has offered to withdraw these changes if I agree to the withdraw of unreferenced diplomatic missions in all the other (200+) articles. In most cases the other articles are referenced, either through references or through links to a credible source (usually the sending country's ministry for foreign affairs). In my view the absence of a reference in one article does not justify a wholesale policy change.

The matter has been edit-warred and extensively debated:
 * Talk:List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic
 * User_talk:HCPUNXKID
 * User_talk:Kransky

Could you please review the discussions (and by all means, seek HCPUNXKID's side of the story), and advise if you consider his/her sources are reliable or not.

Kransky (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have looked up each individual website of each country that HCPUNXKID claims that host a 'general delegation' of the SADR, and I cannot find any proof that such missions exist. The one website which HCPUNXKID uses as a reference, I cannot open or have access to. I hearby ask that user HCPUNXKID stops adding such missions to the List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic page. Aquintero (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added not one, but 2 official SADR pages with the list of embassies & delegations in the world. I don't know if the representations in countries that haven't recognized the SADR are general delegations, Sahrawi representations or whatever other name. Because, what's the difference between them? Who gives the "General delegation" title?. The Sahrawi offices made a quasi-diplomatic function, see the case of the South African one (present from the mid-ninetees to the establishment of the embassy in 2004), the Lybian one (present from the 70's, thousands of Sahrawis study in Lybia by this work) or the Europeans (that delegations have gained, for example, the recognition of the SADR by political parties in Sweden, Norway, Germany or Spain, as they work for state recognition). Discriminate the SADR ones from others like Palestine or Taiwan is, at least, suspicious. Also, I beg for fairness, I have provided 3 or 4 links for the Australian delegation, but curiously my friend Kransky only refers one :-(. I only claim for a fair treatment in comparison with equal status entities. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not believe the two sources you list are official SADR websites.
 * my Firefox web brower warns me that http://www.amb-rasd.org/ES/1e2es.htm is a reported attack page.
 * http://76.162.150.8/relaciones_dib.htm is a proxy address. Why would an official organisation use a proxy address?  Why are there no hyperlinks to the main homepage (if one exists?)? It just seems to be a stand-alone page.
 * Regarding your other link to the Australian delegation:
 * http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2634574.htm only mentions a particular guy is the Chief Representative of the Polisario Front. There is no mention of a "General Delegation" in Sydney


 * Nevertheless, thank you for confirming that you are not sure if they are general delegations or what names they use. I have searched extensively and could not find anything that confirmed the presence of a SADR General Delegation in those countries.
 * A "General Delegation" is quite a significant name, and signifies a significant presence where normal diplomatic relations have not been established. A representation would generally give itself a name appropriate to the relationship - if the Taiwanese in Madrid started calling their offices an embassy, they may very quickly be shown the door.
 * I do not believe I have discriminated against the SADR in favour of other DMBC articles. If you find one article lacks a reference to a particular diplomatic mission, a productive editor would find and insert a reliable reference, or perhaps add a "needs citation" tag.  A productive editor would not assume an omission means that an entire fundamental policy is no longer in effect.
 * I would add that that the List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article is only one of two DMBC articles for a self-declared state that does not actually control territory (in the Montevideo Convention sense). The other article concerns the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which has sovereignty under international law.  The envoys of Palestine, Taiwan, the TRNC etc all represent a sovereign, if not universally recognised, state.  The SADR does not fall under this discription, however I would not let this be a reason for deleting the List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article. Kransky (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For second time in this issue, update your knowledge in the issues (if it's ignorance) or stop lying (if it's manipulation), the SADR controls today (2010) between 15%-20% of the territory of Western Sahara, including some little setlements like Bir Lehlou, Dougaj or Tifariti. On talking about Palestine, Taiwan & Northern Cyprus as sovereign states and avoiding the SADR you are showing your lack of neutrality. For example, on declaring sovereignty under international law (Montevideo convention, as you mention it), you have to control at least a part of the territory claimed. Polisario Front controlled the desertic interior zones of Western Sahara near the Mauritanian border when they declared independence in Bir Lehlou (Western Sahara) February 27, 1976. However, in comparison, the PLO didn't control any part of Palestine when they declared independence in Algiers (note that it was declared on a foreign soil) November 15, 1988.
 * I think that your problem is a problem of words. I repeat, who gives the title of General Delegation? The state who receives the mission?. Because if it's like that, perhaps much "General delegations" on some pages (not only the Sahrawi) must change their names...
 * The [] link, I repeat again is the official page of the Embassy of the SADR in Algeria, you can see the link on many Sahrawi pages. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. If you don't want to accept facts... Hope your biased point of view could change someday.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to assume good faith.  I am not the person in this debate with the “I support the Sahwari people” logo on my user page.  Most of your edits are about the SADR; mine are about the DMBC articles.


 * Receiving states are not responsible for designating the names for the missions of sending states. That is the responsibility of the sending state, for which they would follow international practice.  Speculation aside, I have not found a thread of evidence that those “missions” you have cited in Europe are “general delegations”.  The only evidence you have provided is a link to a malicious website; this is confirmed through Google (http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.amb-rasd.org/&hl=en)


 * The issue at hand is verifiability. Your goal seems to be promoting the SADR; my goal is to maintain the integrity of these articles.  These are not mutually incompatible objectives, but your stubborn approach and aggressive demeanour is not helpful in resolving this solution.  Kransky (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will give the SADR reference regarding Dili more thought – it is certainly more credible than the other links you provided. I note that the SADR does not appear in the diplomatic list of the East Timorese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mfac.gov.tp/)


 * As long as I (and yourself!) remain uncertain that General Delegations exist in those places, then there is no point in you inserting them in. The references you recently provided are unconvincing.


 * this document makes no reference to a SADR General Delegation in Rome. The contents and its letterhead refer to the Polisario Front representative.


 * this link is a statement by the Polisario Front, published on a person’s private website apparently. It identifies the office’s address in London, but it is not a General Delegation.


 * the Austrian website denotes the Polisario representative offices (Vertretung) in Austria and Spain, and the SADR Embassy (Botschaft ) in Algiers. It seems that the Sahawari community in Austria (Österreichischen Sahrauischen Gesellschaft) can make a distinction between the two types of representations.


 * The other references you provide (which are accessible) also concern Polisario representations, not SADR General Delegations.


 * You say that “my problem” is “a problem of words”. Well, there is a significant difference between calling something a representative office, and calling it a General Delegation, and it lies straight at the heart of sovereignty.  There is a Palestinian General Delegation in Canberra, and an Australian representative office in Ramallah, as both countries have official contacts.  No such contact exist between Australia and the SADR, so you cannot consider that the Polisario Front representative as the General Delegation of the SADR in Sydney.  If you do not have the ability to understand this, I don’t know how to reason with you.  Just remember that the Polisario Front probably would not be happy with their position being provocatively misrepresented  on a highly sensitive issue.   Kransky (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting yourself. The Australian government doesn't recognize neither the SADR, neither Palestine. So, how can be a Palestine General Delegation if Australia doesn't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state?. Having official contacts doesn't mean recognition. It seems that it's a PLO representative office instead (as you argue on the Sahrawi case). Also, in the "General Delegation" pages I browse, (for example, this []) they use indifferently the terms "general delegation","embassy",or "diplomatic mission". How that could it be??. It seems that they play with the words depending on the situation, sometimes embassy, sometimes diplomatic mission, or they can't make a distinction between the two types of representations. So, if the sending entity can label it's representation as it wants... I think that a compromise & fair solution, as the Sahrawi case & the Palestinian case are on the same category in this issue (Unrecognized states), the non-embassadorial delegations should be labelled as representative offices of their national liberation movements (Polisario & PLO respectively, both recognized by the UN). I hope you agree with this. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Australian Government recognises the Palestinian National Authority. That is not the same thing as recognising a Palestinian state.
 * If you believe, based on a verifiable source, that a particular Palestinian embassy should be a delegation general (or vice versa, or something else), then make the change. We can compare the reliability of our sources if there is any dispute

However I don't think it is appropriate to make up facts just because you think another unrecognised state inconsistently names its missions (when there is ample evidence those general delegations do not exist). Kransky (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

 * Is the Wayback Machine a reliable source?
 * Is the Wayback Machine results considered a secondary source in the in the case of proving a website existed and that the contents haven't changed?
 * Can the Wayback Machine be used to verify a blogger hasn't changed his post in the last few years when an article is just trying to prove the bloogers page existence? Alatari (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean the Internet Archive? Its contents are considered reliable copies, like WebCite. The archive itself is a primary source for proving a website existed at a given time with the given contents; they don't interpret, evaluate, or summarize, they just copy mechanically. "hasn't changed his post" seems to require interpretation of the kind they don't make, and I can imagine might be considered original research: can you cite the specific statement being backed by the Archive? --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wouldn't call the Wayback Machine a source at all, I'd call it an archive of other material (in this case web pages, which would be primary sources). As far as I can tell their copies are considered to be accurately rendered, but I do not think we should ever be making any interpretations based on archived versions of web pages.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree... Wayback Machine/Internet Archive/etc is a tool not a source. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have another question? On the grounds that the archives of material are accuret renderings of what was on a site mean that it can be used to souce content that is no longer on the site in question for reason such as reorginzation etc. For example, the Ace Attorney page originally used an interview on Nintendo.com with people who were localisers of the series to cite that the American and European versions of the game took place In Los Angelas. The site reorginized later and that particular page and many others were removed. The article then used an archived link or the interview in question. That page is at  [].--76.66.180.142 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The original site is still the source. The reference would look exactly like it was if the information was still on the website (even if the link is dead or the content has changed), except you would also add the archive link to the end of the reference.  See the references in List of snooker player nicknames for an example.  Some of those references might be dead now, but you still retain all the original reference information so people can see where it came from and people can access the archive copy instead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Signs as Self-Published Sources
A discussion has been going on here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether publicly posted signs can be cited as sources. I think this is an important issue and would like to open it up to a larger pool of editors for consensus. The issue was discussed by a few editors that had consensus, and then it was archived, but the issue was raised again as an article that cites a sign is now at FAC, so I have resurrected the archived discussion and added a few comments. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Identifying reliable sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."

I'd also like to add that since WP:SELFPUBOK clearly states guidelines for when self-published material can be cited in Wikipedia, the question is not about the reliability of a sign, as an entity conveying information about itself is considered reliable unless it is self-serving. The question is a matter of precedent: are signs sources or not?

Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you link to a photo?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can upload one, yes, but I'm trying to get a consensus on whether a sign can be cited as a source, so if you could weigh in on that, it would be helpful. As you can see by the entry below mine, I'm not the only one with the issue. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fine, I reckon, and while a linked photo would be nice it's not essential (just as links to other sources are not). Barnabypage (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I also think that a sign duly posted by an organization is a self-published source. I'm going to lay out why, because I plan to cite this discussion later if challenged.

A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * publish: from the Latin publicare (to make public, show or tell to the people, make known, declare)
 * 1) intransitive: To issue a medium (e.g. publication).
 * 2) transitive: To issue something (usually printed work) for sale and distribution.
 * 3) transitive: To announce to the public.


 * I don't agree that a sign "clearly" is published: When we speak of something being published, we usually mean that more than one copy existed.  A written statement, even when displayed in a public location, is not published in the same sense that a magazine or newspaper is.  We would not accept a hand-written note, "Please open door slowly", as a "published" statement, even if thousands of people saw the note.  Similarly, we do not usually consider displaying original artworks in a museum as "publication" of the artworks.  These may be known to the public (your third definition is irrelevant to Wikipdia's use of the term), but they are neither properly "issued" (sent away from the person who made it) nor made available for "distribution" (you cannot distribute a unique object).
 * However, while rejecting your reasoning, I believe that this particular use is reasonable and acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "published" is not supported by the great majority of dictionaries. And the information is what is distributed. If you google "publish a sign" there are three hits on the first page that use the word "publish" to refer to disseminating information via a sign. If you google "published a sign" there are two more, and one in particular clearly is talking about a single sign. Aside from this actual use of language, what I'm saying fits the definitions I've given. Princeton defines "publish" as "To put into print." Regardless of how you "usually" (your word) use language, signs fit the definitions of publishing as given here and in other dictionaries. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Noraft, can you explain how a sign meets your definitions? Specifically, how is a unique object in a permanently fixed location "issued for sale and distribution"?  Is this a special concept of the distribution of a printed work that involves non-distribution of the printed work?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, a unique object in a fixed location is not distributed, but the information it presents is. Remember that the word "work" when referring to intellectual property, is referring to information irrespective of its form. That's why we have to say "printed work," which specifies the medium the work is transmitted through. I'm happy to explain how a sign meets Wiktionary's definitions. In the first Wiktionary definition "To issue a medium (e.g. a publication)" A sign is a medium, and it is issued. Notice that it says e.g. ("for example") and not i.e. ("in other words") meaning that a publication is one example of a medium but not necessarily the only example. The second definition is not a good fit, but that's okay, because there's another intransitive, and when multiple definitions of the same form of a part of speech exist, it is because they differ according to usage. The other intransitive (the third definition) is "To announce to the public." A sign posted in a public place is clearly announcing something to the public. A sign in someone's living room would not meet this definition, and would not be a reliable source. Finally, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly).  ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 01:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points above (in both posts). I think in instances where a sign has been produced for the deliberate act of imparting (educational) information (as oppose to street signs etc...) it has the potential to be used as a source.  Technically only one copy of a website exists, but it is seen by hundreds of people. In the same way, an interpretation board does the same job (its just a little more static). In that sense, it strikes me as verifiable and no different to using other offline sources.  Establishing reliability is important (as with any source), so it should be produced by a reputable company.  I would not for instance accept a typed, laminated sheet of paper stuck to a museum piece with no indication as to who produced it (even in a museum). However, a professionally produced interpretation board (these can cost upwards of £1k in England), appropriately branded and ideally stating sources, strikes me as just a reliable as if that museum had produced a book.
 * It could be argued that a picture would support this as a reference, but we don't require scans of books to assure their accuracy and there is the risk of breaching copyright. It could also be argued that a board would have been sourced from a book or other source, and that should be used instead.  I disagree - we're here to produce a record of what information is 'out there', and I don't think wikipedians should have to become full blown historians! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, now that I think about it from another perspective, if an organization can spend little to no money or time to launch a website, and the information contained in that website is admissible to Wikipedia under the self published sources rule, then why would we exclude information from that same source when they've spent a lot of money to post a permanent signboard in a location viewable by the public? Quite literally, if they copied the information off the sign and slapped it onto their site, then it becomes allowable. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no agreement about what "self-published" means, when the publisher is a organization rather than an individual person. Furthermore, if the information is copied from some source other than the organization that made the sign, it certainly isn't self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) I disagree that there is no agreement about what "self-published" means, regardless of who the publisher is. (2) If is copied, then it isn't self-published, and doesn't fall under the self-published source guidelines. Surely you aren't saying that can only happen on signs and not websites? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * An official sign is generally an attributable (or verifiable) document. If it's produced by some historical society and/or city government, it's a reliable source, since it normally undergoes quite a bit of vetting by different people before it's posted. I would consider it a primary source since it is typically created by people connected or related to the material in the sign. Also, knowing which organization produced the sign is important, although if it's in a public place and seems official, odds are good it was produced by an official agency. Crum375 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say no. Signs are not published according to the normal, accepted meaning of the word published. It is also not always clear who erected a sign or what 'editorial process' the verbiage on the sign went through, even when erected by a responsible entity. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the original question. Nobody is asking for signs to be considered reliable secondary sources. You are correct that there may be little to no editorial process. However, as per Identifying_reliable_sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." We all know that someone's personal blog has not gone through any editorial process, but it is considered acceptable for use when citing information about that person. For example, if a famous actor had a blog, and on it he related a story about his decision to take up acting, we could mention it and cite his blog. This is acceptable under current rules. If self-publishing in a book or on a website is okay, how is a sign different? If we're okay with the former, why would we not be okay with the latter?  ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not misunderstanding the question, I simply disagree with you about the answer. Yes, questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. So I suppose that one could make an argument if there were a Wikipedia article about a sign, than the sign would be an acceptable source in that article for stating what the sign said. That is if one believed that signs are 'published' rather than 'erected'.  I don't. Dlabtot (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "It is also not always clear who erected a sign or what 'editorial process' the verbiage on the sign went through, even when erected by a responsible entity." I think most people would interpret this as: "Signs are questionable/unreliable sources." Now you're saying "Yes, questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Glad we're clear on that one now. Regarding the definition of the word "published" I'd encourage you to step back and look at the bigger picture. If an old church has a signboard that states the date the church was consecrated, why should that sign not be cited, if there are not better sources available? It is a source (the church in this case) writing about itself, using a medium (a signboard) to spread information to the general public. Please explain to me why that should not appear in Wikipedia. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 11:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're interpretation of my comments is neither what I said, nor what I meant. What I said and what I meant is that signs are not published sources and are not reliable sources. Obviously that is not the answer you want to hear. But telling me that I meant something else won't change my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An interpretation is never what someone said. That's why its called an interpretation. If it was exactly what someone said, it would be a quote. I hear you loud and clear that you think signs are not published. We disagree there and we'll see what consensus says. I hear you that you think signs are not reliable sources, and it appears you're not hearing me that I think your logic is faulty. By the way, please refrain from shouting. The bolded sentence doesn't make your point stronger, nor does it cause someone to read something they wouldn't have otherwise. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your criticism rings hollow considering you've got bold type all over this section. I bolded that statement so that my comment could not be misinterpreted or misconstrued. Please don't edit my comments again. Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The word publishing is in bold because its quoted in bold (emphasis not mine). The only other sentence (below) was supposed to be italics, and I got lost in the code when I tried to fix it, so I accidentally changed yours. And you notified me of this on my talk page too...but wait, aren't you the person who asked me not to repeat myself? Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle... ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't edit my comments again, or engage in other breaches of policy, I won't have any reason to go to your talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page again, so we can stay on topic here. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say yes. If it is an official-looking, permanent sign, chances are that someone, somewhere checked things before having it created.  Could there be errors?  Sure, same as any source.  The old World Book Encyclopedia used to publish yearly updates with stickers to fix typos and other corrections.  If there is a discrepancy between the sign and another source, it will work out, just as with any other conflicting sources. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the support, I think you're also misunderstanding the situation. It doesn't matter if things were checked or not as per WP:SELFPUBOK. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the current guidelines for acceptable use of self-published sources:

So the question is: If a sign exists, and the material meets the criteria set forth above, is there any reason why it should not be cited in Wikipedia? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you reposting the same question you asked at the top of the section? Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because in long discussions, some people only read the top, and some only read the bottom, and the fact that I posted WP:SELFPUBOK and folks still said "I don't know if its reliable," tells me repetition may not be a bad thing. But we're digressing from the point of the thread, so if you want to talk to me more about this, we can do it on your talk page or mine. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 11:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from repeating yourself. Give the benefit of the doubt to other editors and assume good faith. Any attempt on your part to 'shape' the discussion is going to be fruitless anyway. You've asked your question - endlessly repeating it or arguing with everyone who doesn't give the answer you want is poor form and probably quite counterproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left my response on your talk page, so that the thread can stay on topic. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Museum placards have a procedure for citation in MLA 6th ed. (§5.8.2). If an academic procedure exists to cite signage, I think that helps put this question into perspective: it certainly isn't a new practice to scholarly writers. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read this entire discussion and I agree with Dlabtot that signs are not published sources and are not reliable sources. I have no idea what you're trying to source, but we should definitely not be using a sign or brochure or any other marketing tool as a source for an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet many signs are not marketing tools. Noraft mentions museum placards above, for example. What about mileage signs erected by highway authorities? Or blue plaques? Barnabypage (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the sign is reliable as a self-published source writing about itself. We don't know what editing procedure any organization-published pamphlet or brochure went through either, and I see no reason that a sign would have gone through any less strict review. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate that there are a lot of guidelines to help us decide what meets the criteria as a source on a wikipedia article, I'm afraid I'm going to be ignoring them and falling back on good old common sense. Like most people I think I can guage when an information board, interpretation panel, museum label or an exhibit sign is believable and reliable.  An expensive, illustrated board is more likely to be well researched than a laminated sticker nailed to a telegraph pole.  I don't think we should really care much about whether the board is relaible, but if its designers are considered a reliable organisation.  Take for example the board shown in the lead image at Nile Clumps.  This is clearly an expensive outdoor panel produced by a reputable organisation.  Clearly it is there to impart information to visitors to the area.  Now, I wouldn't use this board as a source about the Battle of the Nile - there are far superior sources out there.  I might like to use it as a source about the older history of the Nile Clumps, that being something much harder to find out about.  Likewise it might be a good source to list the names of the ships represented.  From memory, towards the bottom of the board is information about the Trust's strategy for maintaining the clumps and the actual trees making them up.  I would definately want, and expect to be able to use this information as a source.  After all, who else is going to know - reliably - about the actual conservation issues of the area they maintain, other than the National Trust?  I wouldn't actually expect to find that kind of information in another reliable source anywhere either, unless perhaps I started rooting around Trust property management strategies, and they wouldn't be public sources.  Now if the board had been knocked up by a different party and related what the Trust were doing, I'd be more cautious, but I'd like to hope the Trust would be organised enough to put relaible information on the board.  This might get described as a primary source in that sense... so be it.  It is information that is "out there", and that reflects Wikipedia's aims.


 * In much the same vein, I have used an interpretation panel - a large, well made, illustrated (with some tailor made images specifically for the board), outdoor board in the article 68 pounder. It was made by the Royal Armouries and sits in front of a large display of about 6 different cannon at their museum in Fort Nelson, Hampshire.  The cannon are labelled and a concise overview of their design and history is provided.  Are the Royal Armouries not a reliable source?  Again, had the board been knocked up by a cafe to label an old cannon outside their premises on the seafront I would be far more cautious, but I happen to think the Royal Armouries are a safe bet.  Yes, I could go and get some more sources from somewhere else, but I'm not a historian and nor should I be to write articles for an online encyclopeadia.  We shouldn't force editors to go and look for other sources when they've already done us the favour of letting us know what a reliable organisation is producing at their museums.  As it is I think I've done a pretty good job of researching the article anyway given the sources I used, and the board merely supports them.


 * I think that (as numerous editors have pointed out above) this must be solved on a case by case basis. We have measures to assess all the other sources (how many questionable sources get kicked out at GA, A Class or FA, whether published, online or otherwise?), yet we still have thousands of quite terrible sources gracing lesser articles.  If a board is deemed questionable, it will get kicked as the article quality goes up.  Blanket banning boards is a poor idea in my mind.


 * Boards being used as sources on themselves seems fairly safe to me. I cannot comment on the quality of the boards Noraft is using, but given the fairly incosequential details they are referencing, I don't see a problem.  Granted, this information could probably be sourced from somewhere else, but Noraft shouldn't be forced to, having already found a highly visual source that is in use today.  It will always help to have an image of a board to help editors reach consensus, but I do not feel this should be obligatory (it isn't with books) and may violate copyright on expensive official boards.


 * So, at the end of the day, I think its just common sense really. This is proabably a reliable source to state that there is a Jane Austen trail in Southampton, this probably isn't a reliable source to say.... well, anything.  Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My two eurocents on this is that it depends on what the sign says and who put it up. Now the People's Republic of China (PRC) is reliable at least regarding it's own views. If the PRC says that it has the world's best living conditions, that should be taken differently than the present info (whether a building is featured in a Provincial Historic Building Register). There is a guideline on self-published/promotional sources that applies here. The sign is in my view "published" in the sense that it's made available to the public, but the extent of editorial oversight can be enormous or slight, we don't know. I wouldn't have a problem using a sign put up by the PRC that says that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon & spirit of metal
User is insistent that the following sources are reliable sources for band genres:

1.) Spirit of metal, a webzine Note: has been brought up before:

2.) Amazon.com Note: the specific passage in question says it "was provided by the artist or their representative".

Input please 87.194.171.224 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think either are acceptable as sources. Spirit of Metal has been addressed before, but it's still a self-published source of sorts. As to the Amazon one, you're right that it was published by the band somehow, and is a primary source. And using Amazon like that is sort of a backhanded way of getting promotional links into the page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazon is a commercial website, it's certainly inappropriate here. Spirit-of-metal.com appears to still be user-generated, and as such I'd say it definitely falls afoul of WP:SPS. I'm sure there will be other sources covering the same things.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense at all. Can you show me one guideline that says that because a web site is commercial it's no more appropriate than any other. In fact, Wikipedia is non-commercial and it's not a reliable source. Also, if the band published the material they are a reliable primary source when speaking about themselves as per WP:PRIMARY. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far. Anyone else have anything to say on them, or should I go ahead and remove the spirit of metal ref (seeing that HelloAnnyong has already replaced the amazon one with one more reliable). 86.129.194.243 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas L. Vaultonburg
Please look in on Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_L._Vaultonburg.

The author - auto-biographical - thinks that the references show notability; "I am confident if people who have this expertise see it they will be able to tell you these publication credits are pretty substantial."

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ErnestoJustiniano.org
The question is about ErnestoJustiniano.org in the article Evo Morales. It is used several times in this edit.

My Spanish is not really good enough for me to judge the reliability of this source, but it didn't appear to me to be an established news organization with a defined editorial process. I could not find sources that testified to its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but, the language barrier prevents me from making a definitive judgment. What say you? Dlabtot (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not speaking a word of Spanish I can't conclusively say anything about the reliability of the site. From what I can see the site seems to be some kind of opinion/news portal and they seem to be critical of the Bolivian government. Two things worry me: The lack of anything but a nickname for article writers and that in the article you linked the articles are posted on a forum (presumably for archiving purposes, but still a forum). I would really like to have input from a native speaker or somebody who knows more about the background story of this site though. Yoenit (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My Spanish is good enough to understand this site, but there is not much on the site to indicate reliability. It looks very much like a blog. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Encubed RS?
Discussion on Encubed was brought up at Visual novels task force and is a borderline case. It has been listed by Anime News Network (which is a news lexicon site) twice in their news section for non-press related info and have had interviews with staff at some visual novel companies at E3 and Anime Expo, both of which are invite-only conventions. This suggests that they also have industry contacts which suggests they aren't some random website or blog. List of interviews:
 * E3: MangaGamer - Translator
 * Anime Expo: MangaGamer
 * Anime Expo: Circus Japanese VN company
 * list of other Anime Expo stuff.

Bottom line is would they be a RS for information on User:Jinnai/Edelweiss, a visual novel? 陣 内 Jinnai 04:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

http://bdsa.ru
It would be great to have more sources on Russian ships, but I don't read Russian and don't know if this qualifies (although they give handy flag icons that will invoke a Google translation). Discussion is at User talk:Omeganian. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It seems like a site that hosts copies of letters sent to Timoshenko and other brass reporting the Red Army's history through each day. Pretty decent, and to me it seems like it sohuld be squeezed of all possible facts. Buggie111 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The documents appear to be sourced and so reliable, but I'm not sure about the unit histories and some of the other stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SaiyanIsland Reliable source?
SaiyanIsland, it seems more like a fan site to me with users making opinionated guesses on upcoming information. An example of a page a user used to site information. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the website is being used to replace references to GameTrailers[] and has only been added by, I would suspect that this is a form of linkspam. In fact, it seems that almost all of Chriswilliams' edits are to add or change references to this website. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm still looking for a reliability check before reverting his edits and warning him. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the website contains a ton of copyvio material and is not an actual publication, I would suggest that it is not a reliable source for failing WP:COPYLINK. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll ask you for help next time something complicated happens during my daily editing. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Status of Morning Star (UK newspaper)
In an article on the iPad, the use of The Morning Star as a source is being challenged on the basis that it is affiliated to the Communist Party and thus unreliable. The use is confirmatory of text derived from fully reliable sources such as the Financial Times, commenting on events in a factory in a country governed by the Communist Party; material sourced to Chinese national newspapers controlled by the Communist Party does not seem to be a problem, so I am unclear why this is a problem in using a similar source in the UK, and why political affiliation is a reason for discounting a source. Discussion is here: Talk:IPad. Mish (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think political affiliations make a source unreliable - most British newspapers have political affiliations. Something like The Guardian that is often criticised for anti-Semitic reporting probably displays more day-to-day bias than the Morning Star.  The question is do the political affiliations lead to the false reporting of facts?  The representation of those facts may be misleading, but that's a WP:NPOV issue.  My view is that since the Morning Star employs a professional editorial staff it qualifies a RS until the point that Wikipedia instructs it is not a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * yes it is a reliable source as are http://www.economist.com/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, and http://news.xinhuanet.com. Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to regard it as a propaganda source, not a proper newspaper. Similarly "Chinese national newspapers controlled by the Communist Party". Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Dlabtot. I don't think there is any problem with its fact-checking, but then there is the question of how far it veers towards extremism. Reliable in some circumstances, not so reliable in others. One will always wonder whether a topic isn't better covered in more mainstream media. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly not as reliable as the Economist or the Telegraph. Perhaps as reliable as Xinhua, but they're different cases: the Morning Star is a small-circulation, ideologically-based newspaper. Xinhua is the huge press agency of the Chinese government, and reports directly to it. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I mentioned those other three is that they all followed up on the story first reported by Morning Star, and they are all cited. Dlabtot (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this particular cases several reliable sources coincide. The Morning Star can either be included among the sources or omitted, it is no big deal either way. As to the generic question of the status of the paper, we will have to decide case by case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. In that case, it would be best to cite just The Economist and The Telegraph, since those are by far the most reliable sources in this case. Citing the less reliable sources might lead to a situation where material is only found in, say, The Morning Star, which is not found in the more reliable sources, but is effectively given their imprimatur by the presence of the more reliable sources in the citations. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

leaksallday.com
Although I am already inclined to blacklist this without this discussion, since there has been some significant refspamming of leaksallday.com; see:



It is still used here and there as a source for more extended statements (though it is generally used to attribute the sentence 'the album leaked onto the internet on DD/MM/YYYY.(ref)'). I have a strong feeling this is not exactly a reliable source, but I'd like some second thoughts on it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look all that reliable to me. How do we know that anything they publish on there is accurate? They make no assertions about who they are, their sourcing or anything like that. Pretty sure it should not be allowed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The website gives no indication of editorial oversight, or, in fact, anything else about it. It's just another website. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll keep that in mind. Will blacklist the link as soon as I notice that the spamming continues.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello All. I am the editor of leaksallday.com. I noticed that there have been some questions as to the reliability of the information posted. I would like to ensure you that I do all of the research myself through a variety of forum threads and private bit torrent trackers. I actually listen to each album that is "leaked" before posting news. I am not sure what else could be done to make a site like this more valid as a source. Is there anything that comes to mind? Also, I respect your right to edit wikipedia content as you see fit. I noticed the reference was added again to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(album): 19:35, 3 June 2010 Ldud (talk | contribs) (1,566 bytes) (Undid revision 365170430 by Beetstra (talk) Important piece of information had been removed.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.243.180 (talk • contribs)
 * I removed it again, it is a) not a reliable source, and the info was spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What would make it a reliable source? --User:silencexx 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be reliable if you had any claim of notability, like if you were an expert on leaked albums (whatever that even means). Or if you were some news organization or something like that. Just one person sitting in their apartment download leaked albums, verifying that they are what they claim, and then posting about it on the Internet does not qualify as reliable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am an expert on leaked albums, but that term seems unverifiable. Don't you agree? --User:silencexx 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Independent Media Review Analysis"
This web site IMRA (and this link in particular) is being used on the Gaza flotilla clash article. I can't see how the site in general meets WP:RS -- it seems to me like a web site run by one guy ("Dr Aaron Lerner") to write basically whatever he wants. He re-posts articles from other sources, hence the notion that it is a "digest". But in general I think this one is no better than a blog, particular in relation to instances like the link above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks very much like a one-man outfit, hence a self-published source. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Seems like clear cut SPS, which is not reliable except to tell us about its author, perhaps. Crum375 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In case quantity counts, I concur. It would be absurd to use what is essentially a personal blog as a source regarding international law. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

All Facebook
When it comes to describing details of events that happened on FB is allfacebook.com considered reliable? Alatari (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think not - seems to be just another blog. The guy listed on the about page, Nick O'Neill, seems to be wholly non-notable and not an expert in the field. Further, that about page is a bit of a coatrack for selling services. So no, I wouldn't use it as an RS. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Dlabtot (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So I can spy on the page and use it to track down his sources but not use his application growth stats. Alatari (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do that, you have to be extra careful not to draw any conclusions with whatever you find. Doing that is stepping into dangerous territory either way, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumor sites such as MacRumors and AppleInsider
During peer review of MacBook Air, the reviewers have found referencing from AppleInsider and MacRumors (rumor sites) strewn across the artical. Would these sources be reliable in any way, like if they were reporting on tech specs or an Apple announcement? --  m o n o   02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there really no better sources that have covered the text in question and can be better sourced? Like, the NYT and CNN have tech sections; even a site like CNET would be marginally better. That's just my take on it... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Customized Google Map as a source for evidence that certain words are or aren't legitimate aka's for another word
Link in question:

Article used in: Tree shaping

Text supported: "Other names for tree shaping include:"

Talk Page Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping&action=edit&section=19

Consensus was to move our Alternate names section out of the mainspace into the Talkpage as on the main page it may have been being used to establish and push a non-neutral POV, surrounding the renaming or not of the page; whether or not certain names or any or all names are aka's for the page name (which has undergone contentious change and remains unresolved with an open discussion as to whether the page name should be returned to its original name or some other neutral name, as Tree shaping has turned out to not be so neutral after all); and thus whether and which of the names should even be included as other names, and also whether the other names should appear in the lead or be buried at the end of the article. That tedious discussion continues as part of an even more tedious systematic process of re-evaluating all of the citations (about 100) (including those left stationary for the time being on the main page) for drivel and unreliable sources, of which there have been found many unreliable sources so far. We need to know regarding this source, whether that list of names on the top left of the customized google map, presumably edited by the map's creator, is a reliable source for establishing secondary/tertiary uses of these other names, which all are purported to be aka's, not brand names, for Tree shaping. An involved editor insists that it is, and has turned out to be one of the members on the googlemaps page as a contributor.(listed thrice, by products). It's pretty sticky and we are trying to diplomatically overcome a suspected WP:Promotion situation as fairly and even-handedly as possible by first establishing which of the other names is legit, as supported (or not properly supported) by the multiple citations attached to them. Thanks for your help on this one. Duff (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Dlabtot (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you can't back up that text with that source. You can't use that source for anything. I'd say it falls under WP:SPS. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's an anonymous WP:SPS. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the consult. Duff (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reprints of letters on a discussion forum as a source?
The article Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu is using a source I find questionable. The source is a reprint of a letter that was supposedly published in a magazine. The reprint is posted on a discussion forum (a site whose wikipedia article was recently deleted) by a member. I tagged the sources with a tag and it has been removed by User:Wgungfu, who says that the letters can't be found anymore, but he's seen them himself. I replaced the tag and it was removed again, without any discussion....so here I am. I felt that just tagging it as dubious and leaving it in place was the least disruptive way to go, but since we are at this point, the question now is should the link stand as a RS, or be removed altogether? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to be sourced to the magazine, any on-line archive is just a convenience link, not the source itself. Which doesn't address the further question of Letters to the Editor as RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that a link to the original isn't a must......but what we have is a discussion forum, which isn't a reliable source, hosting a reprint with the claim that it is verbatim. The reprint doesn't even specify what issue it was in, let alone a page or anything. It merely says it was a response to an interview that was published in Feb 1996. If this were a reliable source, like say a newspaper website, hosting a reprint, that would be one thing, but a discussion forum as a reliable source? While this isn't BLPN, we can also take into account that this is a letter, supposedly authored by living people, that makes contentious claims about another living person. Wouldn't we normally error toward the side of caution? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion forums don't get used as references except in very unusual circumsances (and I can't think of any). We can't use a source that isn't reliable for anything. And why would we use a letter to the editor as a source anyway? And what kind of encyclopedia says " There are two references on the history page on Master Phillip Redmond's wingchunkwoon site regarding GM William Cheung (Chang). One is an interview with Master Wong Shun Leung and the other is an article from a 1974 Martial art magazine."? I note the current link is to a page that says "t is regrettable that his lies have got is regrettable that his lies" - clearly a BLP violation.

There's some gross misscharacterizations of my stance here, which I do not appreciate. First and foremost I want to state that I was in no way claiming a discussion forum to be a reliable source. Rather, I was stating that the letter being reprinted was from Inside Kung Fu (itself a notable and reliable source) and was a formal statement sent by the Ving Tsun Athletic Organization" to that and other magazines regarding the controversy in question at the time. The VTAA is a major governing body in Wing Chun/Ving Tsun/Wing Tsun, founded by Yip Man's students to govern his branch of the art (which William is a part of as a student of Yip Man's).  At the time it was headed by his fellow peers, including Yip Man's two sons. Likewise, I did not state the letters can't be found anymore - I actually have an archive of back issues in storage I can get out and look up the exact issue numbers.  I simply stated the letters/statements can't be found anywhere else online, i.e. "can't be "directly linked to". William Cheung is a controversial figure in this martial art, as is his brand of the art (the article topic) hence the section. Likewise, the very existence and marketing of his "traditional wing chun" is based on the controversial concept that only he teaches the "traditional" version (hence the name) and that everyone else teaches a "modified" version. That only he was taught a "special" version and everyone else something less. It's not Wikipedia's place to promote judgement (nor is it my intention to state some sort of judgement). But it is Wikipedia's place to denote this as being controversial, and to provide a referenced counterpoint to maintain neutrality. Addressing a point and counterpoint will not violate BLP if worded in a neutral manner. Other controversial topics, including valid criticism, are routinely discussed on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a copy of the printed article, then you can use that as a reference, assuming the magazine itself is a notable and reliable source. You can't use this forum posting as a convenience link, though, since there's no guarantee that the forum posting is an accurate representation of the letter in the magazine. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated, the source would be Inside Kung Fu and the statement itself is from the VTAA, both reliable and notable sources. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming the actual source is reliable and accessible, one would, at a minimum, need to supply a publishing date/issue number, and a page number. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, you weren't mischaracterized. You ARE using bullshido as a source. Second, the entry at bullshido says the letter was in Martial Arts Magazines. It's not specifying any magazine. Now you say it was in Inside Kung Fu, but don't cite which issue. This replication on a forum and your vague memory of "it was there" doesn't come close to passing RS. We wouldn't even be here if you hadn't decided to edit war over simply tagging the source as dubious, which a discussion forum is, without bothering to try to talk about it. So don't go acting all indignant. And what's with the different usernames here and there?Niteshift36 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I most certainly *AM NOT* using bullshido as a source, I could care less about it. The only intent is a copy of the actual letter itself which can easily be replaced by a citation to IKF.  I saw the tag claim and was simply addressing that.  Likewise I said from the beginning IKF, and there was no "vague memory" (I.E. I think it was in such and such), there you go again misscharacterizing me, check my edit summaries.  My two edits and edit summaries cleary state IKF.  As stated above, they were sent to multiple magazines (worldwide) with IKF being the main printed source of them within the US, Combat in the UK, and Australasian Fighting Arts in Australia.  Claiming "vague memory" on my part is once again gross misscharacterization by you about me, my memory is anything but vague thank you.  Then you made false claims in your statements about me here, such as claiming I stated "the letters can't be found anymore" when that was stated nowhere, and now you continue to do so - hence once again the claims of misscharacterization.  Likewise nowhere do I see you having tried to discuss said dubious tag other than said edit summaries that I also responded to.  I'm sorry, but turning this in to some further personal claims against me is just not the way to go.  The issue was already resolved above and I will try to get in to my storage to get the specific issues with the statement this week.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I see a little number and brackets around it. When I click on it, it takes me to the references section.....sure looks like it's being used as a source. You can "clearly state" IKF all you want....reliable sourcing requires more than just a title of a magazine. I paraphrased your position, so what? Anyone can read the edit summaries (and that's all there is since you woulding take part in any discussion) if they wanted. What does the tag say? Dubious-discuss. Since you felt the tag didn't belong, why wouldn't you take the opportunity to discuss it, especially when it was replaced and you decided to remove it a second time? Yes, it has been resolved.....and even if you get into your storage (how interesting that you will just happen to have that issue), as the admin who removed it stated, there may be a BLP issue anyway. This whole trip could have been avoided.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't paraphrase, you miss-stated it and missrepresented my statements, as you continue to do so. Even when I'm sitting here stating point blank what my intent was and showing what my actual statements were.  You are truly coming off as someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.  And actually, I have the entire set of letters back and forth including almost 25 years worth of back issues of IKF in general (along with other martial arts mags), which I used to collect.  Not sure what you're trying to imply with the "how interesting" statement, other than once again trying to move this in a personal direction. :( --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I paraphrased. Period. You can complain that you don't think it was accurate, but don't tell me what I did. I'll tell you what I'm implying.....instead of just using a proper source, or letting the dubious tag sit there while you went into your stash, you fought it with no real policy basis. Then, after arguing it here, you just are now certain you have that issue sitting in storage. I find that interesting. It's interesting that you wouldn't just want it done right the first time. It's interesting that you wanted to argue trying to keep a clearly unreliable source in the article, then it's interesting that you'll dig out that issue. It may all be a coincidence, but I usually find coincidence interesting. Now what part of that is personal? Personal would be your assessment that I am "coming off as someone who...." I'll refrain from giving you my take on what you are coming off as. I'd also note that you are completely ignoring the BLP issue that the admin who removed it spoke about. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And more misscharacterizations about me, including your last of "you are completely ignoring the BLP issue" when I clearly started a discussion on it with this entire section of my first response and even directly address BLP by name: "William Cheung is a controversial figure in this martial art, as is his brand of the art (the article topic) hence the section. Likewise, the very existence and marketing of his "traditional wing chun" is based on the controversial concept that only he teaches the "traditional" version (hence the name) and that everyone else teaches a "modified" version.  That only he was taught a "special" version and everyone else something less.  It's not Wikipedia's place to promote judgement (nor is it my intention to state some sort of judgement).  But it is Wikipedia's place to denote this as being controversial, and to provide a referenced counterpoint to maintain neutrality.  Addressing a point and counterpoint will not violate BLP if worded in a neutral manner.  Other controversial topics, including valid criticism, are routinely discussed on Wikipedia."  As far as the magazine, imply and allude with "coincidence" all you want.  The reference was added in 2006, which at the time it seemed more important to quickly find a direct link to a reproduction of it, becuase the article was under assault from people on both of the subject's side adding a plethora of non-neutral and WP:OR.  So I undertook a rewriting at the time to try and keep it neutral and somewhat referenced.  There were no complaints about that specific reference until now, hence now the offer to dig out the specific magazines.  Nothing ominous or overly "coincidental" about it.  Your accusations about why I offered are just that - accusations, and wrong ones at that.  Now I don't see the point to you continuing to do this with regards to me, I'm once again telling you where I was coming from vs. you having to wonder about coincidence.  If you want to continue to ponder coincidence I can't stop you, but I can move on and give other people a chance to weigh in on the actual subject matter as well.  Hopefully you choose the same as well.  I'm an experienced editor, so are you, and so are everyone else involved in this discussion.  So I'm sure everyone can reach a resolution to this.  I'm operating under the idea that everyone involved in this discussion has the article's best interests at heart. If my reverting a dubious tag seems to have pissed you off and started this whole volley on my intent and statements, then let me apologize if it'll help move things on.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec):::::::*And now you're going to lecture me, at length, about the BLP policy? And yes, I do find the whole coincidence interesting. Verifying the source info when it becomes available will probably be interesting too. Again, you've spent all this time and space talking about this when the tag, which was proper from the beginning, could have simply been left in place until you did your digging. But you want to act like I did you wrong somehow. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody was lecturing you, I wasn't even directly addressing you with that original passage - rather the group in general that was concerned about BP. There you go once again misscharacterizing me.  That statement was addressed to the discussion in general (hence resetting the column) and attempting to give background info on the subject matter because I didn't want to assume everyone was familiar with it.  It's called a discussion.  First you accuse me of completely ignoring BP (which itself is lecturing me on BP), I reprint my section (from my first response to the general group) to clearly show I did not ignore it in this conversation, then you try and twist it to say I'm lecturing you.  I can see the request to move on and closing apology fell on deaf ears.  I'll have to do the moving on for the both of us.  G'night. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)*When you start talking about how point-counterpoint is allowed.....yeah, you're acting like I never heard that. And your request to move on.....was edited in while I was posting my reply, hence the edit conflict that I noted. Yeah, let's move on, we should have never had to be hear in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

on line paper
I am writing a wiki page off line. Because I do not want it getting deleted again until I am done. Alot of the Ref's are to an online paper that has won many journalist awards...infact they just beat out CNN in a catagory last month. I just don't want it to be questioned as a non reliable source. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/ I did notice that the City of New haven used a few of their articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticut and Yale Hospital did as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_%E2%80%93_New_Haven_Hospital as well as others  as seen in this search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_%E2%80%93_New_Haven_Hospital

NHI has been recording this groups history. So it will be a large part of my Ref's....

I just want to make sure I dot all my I am check and make sure this is not going to be an issue --Happypixie (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The New Haven Independent appears to be a legitimate local journalism web site. I think it would be allowed to be used as a reference. However, coverage in the New Haven Independent is only sufficient to establish local interest, so if your topic is supposed to be notable on a national scale, you will probably need additional sources to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have cited the Independent in several other articles on local topics, including Worthington Hooker School and Richard C. Lee. As an online publication with articles that are dated and bylined, a stable web presence, statements of policy, and an impressive volume of good-quality advertising, it looks like a good resource. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white people
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&action=historysubmit&diff=365560546&oldid=365555768

A user has continually been inserting biased material which is either not supported by the given citations, or is cited with websites. This is attested to in the diff above (it represents the re-insertion of often-deleted material). I would greatly appreciate some guidance from fellow editors as to whether this material is flagrantly in breach of WP:NOR and WP:RS, or whether I am in fact totally insane for being sure that this is so. I stand ready to call a psychiatrist or revert the article depending on your answer. BillMasen (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick cursory glance shows a lack of reliable sourcing. For example, they added "This train of thought often leads to political ideals such as White power and White nationalism" and attributed it to http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-06.htm, which doesn't strike me as reliable in the least; it just seems to be some guy's website. They also attribute that line to a link on Stormfront, and although Stormfront is a haven for white nationalism, I don't think its FAQ counts as reliable. Later on down they use a bunch of YouTube videos to source "This stereotype has become so accepted that both White and Black comedians lampoon the dancing ability of White people." - and that doesn't really work for me. Seems a bit of synthesis there. Later on down http://www.crusader.net/texts/wpfaq.html is used to source "the fear that Whites will eventually become a minority, or fear that members of the White race would lose their “racial purity,” often resulting in White power movements.", which I can't find in that source. And that source is, again, some guy's website.
 * Overall it looks like that person is trying to use the article as a platform for injustice or something and it's kinda skewing the page towards POV. The new Racist stereotypes section seems to be a coatrack for complaining about the flaunting of YouTube's community guidelines. I'd like to see what other people have to say about that edit, but that's my take: as a whole it seems to be original research, or at the very least, using non-reliable sources. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs 1-9, 12, 16, 28, 29, 32-37 appear to be fine. I am not really sure about 17, as the writer may be a recognized expert (Elizabeth Martínez) and 27 may be a reliable dictionary but I would prefer oxford. Everything else seems to be Youtube videos, polls, racist websites and racist blogs and several links are not even working. Kill it with fire. Yoenit (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that article does indeed need work. I think this article needs to be viewed as part of a series, along side other "Stereotypes of..." articles (such as Stereotypes of African Americans).  These articles can be valuable and informative ... but they need conform to similar standards as to form and structure, and should require the highest quality sourcing.  And since all are potential vandalism and POV magnets, they will need to be watched carefully.  I would suggest forming a work group to improve all such articles, and to maintain them once improved. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, may I ask that one of you revert the article to the version prior to the revision I linked above? I would do it myself, but I don't want to give the impression (clearly mistaken, since you are all obviously against the current version) that this is my own private war. This is the revision I meant it should be reverted to []. BillMasen (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um.. why can't you do it? Your last edit on the article itself was early March. Besides, it looks like someone else is already working on it. Maybe you two could work together on it? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm trying to get more people involved in editing the article, because I know that so many suggestions on Wikipedia are fated to be applauded and neglected. Ultimately, the article is going to re-fill with crud every so often if it isn't expanded in a positive way. I do not feel particularly qualified to do that. BillMasen (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chav is an example of an article about a stereotype, It was poor in the past and frequently vandalised, but now is better and more stable. As well as outright vandals it's attracted people who wish to discuss unsourced opinions that seem like common sense to them. You get that on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

russia today and anya bazanova?

 * link is http://rt.com/prime-time/2008-11-12/Russian_girl_learns_shes_an_African_princess.html
 * used in Anya Bazanova

The source isn't used so much to validate specific statements, but to support the article's existence. I'm not familiar with Russia Today, so I don't think I have a good grounding on whether it is a reliable source or not. I know when I did a google search yesterday on this person (I believe with an alternate spelling, the article creator has been doing multiple versions) I only found links to Wikipedia and to Russia Today. Anyone who can give advice? Syrthiss (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the source is true, that article suffers on two fronts: one, she seems to be WP:BLP1E; and two, multiple sources are needed to establish notability. If you can only find one article, then doesn't it come up short? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was kind of my thought on the subject, yes. Syrthiss (talk)

Geographically locked websites
Is there any guidance on the use of such websites as cites in the English language Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiuserNI (talk • contribs) 20:49, June 4, 2010
 * I'd think the standard reliability rules still apply. Like, a geographically locked blog would still be unreliable if its writer was non-notable or something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you give us an example of what you mean by a "geographically locked website"? Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that they mean sites that are only available in some countries. The only one I can think of right now is Hulu, which isn't available to people in the UK (I think) due to licensing issues. But WikiuserNI would have to clarify. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Southparkstudios.com is one such site (it would likely apply more to entertainment related sites I guess). There is a version for German and UK viewers as well as the original US site. From what I can see, links to the US site that I had added as cites no longer work for me, but are just fine for US readers and editors.
 * Some of the content on the site is user generated and some added by the producers of the show, it's always handy to know which is being drawn upon. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the situation is just like WP:NONENG, except in this case geography instead of language is the barrier here. Jim101 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So the issue here that the website is not accessible to you?... if so, that is not what is required. What it required is that it be accessible to someone who could verify it. Think of it as being similar to citing a rare book that is only available in a specific library in England, or citing a news site that is locked behind a pay wall.  Not necessarily available instantly to everyone... but someone who lived near the library in England, or subscribed to the news site could verify it for us. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it just a question of assuming good faith on behalf of the editor adding the cite then? WikiuserNI (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. While you can't double check the citation personally, you can always ask someone who has access to the website to do so on your behalf. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Access to sourcesCamelbinky (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

History section in New Madrid County
There is a lengthy history section in New Madrid County, Missouri, which appears to be lifted, from this site.

See, for example:

This letter produced upon Gov. Miro the effect desired by Wilkinson. On May 20, 1789, Miro wrote the Spainish concerning the policy of the conditions of the concession to Morgan and the extent of it. He denominated it an Imperium in Imperio and protested against it. He also wrote to Morgan, stating how he had been deceived in regard to the conditions and extent of the concession, and declared that it was entirely inadmissible

and This letter produced upon Gov. Miro the effect desired by Wilkinson. On the 20th of May 1789, Miro wrote the Spain concerning the impolicy of the conditions of the concession to Morgan, and the extent of it. He denominated it an Imperium in Imperio and protested against it. He also wrote to Morgan, stating how he had been deceived in regard to the conditions and extent of the concession, and declared that it was entirely inadmissable.

(Interestingly, not a straight copy-and-paste, as one spelling error was corrected, but another introduced in an attempt to correct a wrong word choice.)

There are attribution questions, copyright questions and reliable source questions. Attribution is easy if the other two can be resolved.

I'm bringing the reliable source question here, because I doubt it will be considered a reliable source. The project sounds like an admirable one, but I have no familiarity with it, and my brief review doesn't identify the attention to sourcing we would require. If it turns out to be reliable, I'll turn to the copyright question, but I'd like to determine whether it passes this hurdle first.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether the source is reliable or not, we need to rewrite our article text substantially... cutting and pasting to this extent is simply not acceptable.
 * As to reliability... The cited source is merely a transcription of Goodspeed's History of SouthEast Missouri... which appears to be an old, out of print, genealogical history of the area. I am searching to find out more (publishing date, reputation of the author, etc) ... but I think it qualifies as reliable.   It may be old enough that it is in the public domain, in which case there is no copyright issue.  Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... a simple google search gave me more... for example, see: this website which contains an introductory paragraph about Goodspeed's. It was a reliably published genealogical history, written in 1888... so it is in the public domain (ie copyright is not an issue).
 * That said... I still think it is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to copy anything to this extent. My call: a) rewrite the text of our article (so that it summarizes the information in our own words) and then edit the citation to make it clear that the material comes from Goodspeed's (and then linking to the currently cited website as a "courtesy link" per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.) Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the in-depth research. I see this as good news. I was worried it wouldn't be acceptable at all. I agree it cannot be used as is, but I was worried it might not even qualify as reference material. I'll remove the section from the article, copy it temporarily into a collapsed section on the talk page and see if someone wants to make the effort to rewrite, and properly attribute.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Are these sites reliable? (Islam Watch and History of Jihad)
A series of recent edits made to Kashmir and related articles sought to use these websites as sources for the claims made therein. I visited the websites, and they seemed to project a suspiciously POV version of the history of events they seek to document. I'm not very well-versed with either the scholarship on this topic or the reliability of the sources that make these claims, but I've never seen them being made in any of the reliable sources that I've been through, nor do these sites appear to be scholastic prima facie, so I seek help and consensus in determining whether these sites can be used as reliable sources. The pages in question are available here and here). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This doesn't say anything to make it seem reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks a little better, but I'd look into who MA Khan is. If they're some super respected scholar or something, it may be reliable.  If not, it's might be OK for some statements, but not for anything controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims made in Isang Lakas from sources that do not mention the show
User:79.72.128.246 is repeatedly reinserting content into Isang Lakas‎ about claims that certain actors and certain characters will be part of the show.
 * 00:35, 4 June 2010

The edit summaries claim that the articles show that actors are portraying certain characters in an upcoming television series "Isang Lakas‎" or originally "Sanglakas".

There is clear evidence that the following will be part of the program
 * Vhong Navarro as Lastikman/ Miguel "Migz" Asis
 * Jon Avila as Kapitan Boom
 * Mariel Rodriguez as Varga/ Vara
 * John Prats as Tiny Tony/ Anthony “Tony” Aniscol
 * Shaina Magdayao as Dragonna/ Rona
 * Luis Manzano as Flash Bomba/ Roldan Legazpi

But the IP is insisting on inserting additional content.
 * Piolo Pascual as Captain Barbell/ Enteng - a superhero who has the ability of superhuman strength and flight. He transforms from an ordinary geeky guy named Enteng, to the superhero Captain Barbell through a magical barbell, hence the name Captain Barbell.
 * Angel Locsin as Darna/ Narda - a superheroine who has the ability of superhuman strength and flight similarly to Captain Barbell. She transforms from an ordinary woman named Narda to the superheroine Darna by swallowing a magical stone.
 * Anne Curtis as Dyesebel/ Isabel - a mermaid who has the ability of communicating with sea creatures. She also have the ability to tranform her tail into human feet.
 * Kristine Hermosa as Maruja/ Maruja Martinez - a young woman who has the ability to communicate with ghosts as well as get help from them. She also has the ability of premonition and precognition.
 * Vhong Navarro as Lastikman/ Miguel "Migz" Asis - a superhero who has the ability to stretch his body hence the name Lastikman derived from Elastic Man. Lastikman is a meta-alien since he has a human mother and an alien father.
 * Jon Avila as Kapitan Boom - a superhero with superhuman strength, flight and super-flight speed. He has an alter-ego named Lance. Lance can transform into Kapitan Boom without needing any items needed. His genes were genteicaly transform by his scientist and genius father.
 * Mariel Rodriguez as Varga/ Vara - A princess from Planet Vargon. She landed on Earth when her planet exploded. She met Olga who has the a deep connection to her. Only Olga can see her and the only way she can make connection with humans is when she combines herself with Olga, a little girl. Together they are called Varga
 * John Prats as Tiny Tony/ Anthony “Tony” Aniscol - a science genius who after accidentally spilling one of his formulas to himself became small, however gainging superhuman strength. He uses his knowledge to create great mechanisms such as a rocket, rides etc.
 * Shaina Magdayao as Dragonna/ Rona - a superheroine who has the ability to control fire. She was in a bloodline on the legendary tribe Tagon (Taong Dragon) or Human Dragons. It was believed that when humans manage to defeat dragons, the ability of the dragon such as pyrokinesis and superstrength will be transferred to the killer.
 * Luis Manzano as Flash Bomba/ Roldan Legazpi - After a freak accident by theTikbalang, he discovered his superhero secret identity as Flash Bomba. He gained one of the Tikbalang's hair which is believe to grant one wish from the creature himself. He had large arms which can create earthquake and give him superhuman strength.

I have searched each of these articles several times and found no mention of the series, let alone support that the actor will be appearing or what role the actor will be playing or a detailed description of the character. The IP has been asked to provide information about where these sources confirm the claims and the only response has been the edit summary "It says so in every article, most of these articles have it in different language and on second pages" which would put it in the forum posts, not reliable sources. I have attempted to communicate on the article talk page  and the IP talk page, but no additional response as to why the IP thinks these sources can be used to confirm any of the additional actors being cast for this program in the articles.

Can someone help? Active Banana (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn from here, conveted to RfC on talk page Talk:Isang_Lakas Active Banana (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Too Close for Comfort referencing issues
I'd like to know if this particular site would be considered reliable to source a supposed internet rumor regarding the "Monroe gets raped" episode of the series Too Close for Comfort. IMO, the site looks to be a joke fansite of some kind that doesn't support the content I initially removed to begin with (it has since been restored because the link contains "primary content" hence this thread). I can't get the movie to play for some reason so perhaps that is the part that supports the content? Either way, I'd like some additional opinions as I believe the source and the content is shaky at best.  Pinkadelica ♣  07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't report internet rumours anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why I removed the content but another editor restored it.  Pinkadelica ♣  08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan's Indigo Children
[DISCLOSURE for the purpose of context] I have been making a few minor edits here and there, but never engaged extensively in Wikipedia mainly because I do not have the time, not for lack of appreciation. Recently I thought that content from the site http://thepatientacapacitor.com/ would be useful and carry value to Wikipedia so I edited a few entries and inserted reference links. For the record these were;

"Perspective (graphical)" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/

"Perspective (visual)" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/

"Inertia Coupling" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2010/01/the-physics-of-moving-about/

"Alexander Abian" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/

"Gravitational Binding Energy" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/

"Fermi Paradox" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/why-would-extraterrestrial-aliens-contact-us/

"Carl Sagan" http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/10/carl-sagans-indigo-children/

The author of these posts identifies himself in the /author/ page as a physicist by training with PL Monteiro as his real name, the whois for the owner of the domain says Paulo L Monteiro owns the site, and a search in Linkedin will turn up http://www.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro. A technicality important for the everything are rules and regulations people, is if the site is a blog or a start-up online publication. From the information in Linkedin, I would say the owner considers the latter should apply. In any case this distinction may be artificial given the arguments I am going to produce.

As to the links and referenced articles, I would say that at least in the "Alexander Abian" and "Inertia Coupling," the links I have added are of great relevance. In "Alexander Abian" the post linked examines in detail the facts of figures of the matter; in "Inertia Coupling" the post linked to allows a huge leap in understanding of what Inertia Coupling really is. In these two as in all the others it seems to me, my editing and insertion of links, should be read by the usefulness and value to the readers of Wikipedia. That's the consideration I made when making the edits, but I do admit this may be just my own personal opinion, and other editors may dispute it.

[To finish with context:] There was a legitimacy challenge in the "Fermi Paradox" that the editor making it dropped after a brief exchange. The statement there rounds off the whole discussion in the entry, which I think is appropriate to the head summary, and links to a post that is an allegory, conveying in this way points hard to make in other ways. More recently the legitimacy of the source was challenged in the "Carl Sagan" page, but in this case even the refutation of false claims that would undermine the credibility of the source, refutations whose acceptance would allow reaching an editorial agreement, were not ackowledged, the editor challenging the source sticking categorically to his interpretation of Wikipedia directives and rules, in the process raising ethical concerns I cannot simply pretend I didn't notice. If you are examining this issue, you may want to review the discussion there Talk:Carl_Sagan. The issue boiled down to what a Reliable Source is and if the thepatientcapacitor.com is one.

[THE ETHICAL ISSUES:] In the Sagan talk page I laid three different common sense challenges that could be made to the statement and link I inserted. These were ''1) Is the statement appropriate and does it enrich Wikipedia? 2) Does the source validate the statement in ways that enrich Wikipedia? 3) Is the source reliable? The people debating me decided not to take the first two, instead focusing on the last, the only one that raises ethical concerns. In these I stated: "The fact is that it is ethically improper from me and from Wikipedia to declare that the (you call it blog) site is not a reliable source here, but then find that the links and statements [elsewhere] are significant enriching contributions to the users of Wikipedia, and the sourced site is reliable there." And additionally: "It would be highly objectionable from Wikipedia to keep those links unchallenged for the time being, and when someone gets [...] to rewriting [around] the original material in the specific blog posts, the links will be trashed out.''" So it becomes this: if the patientacapacitor.com becomes an unreliable source to Wikipedia, none of its original content, data, results, mathematical proofs, ideas can ever be used by Wikipedia in any way. This includes a rewrite of the content. Even if there are no laws against rewrite of, say, a mathematical proof, doing this would be to refuse to source the creator of the original content, while at the same time accepting it from someone else who in fact stole the ideas. These are the matters of principle.

[Assumptions:] At this point I would like to clarify that this analysis in not about thepatientcapacitor, or not only about the patientcapacitor. I will assume in what follows that that particular site satisfies criteria I will be writing about, but to consider that fact, will continue to rest on Wikipedia editors agreeing with such criteria, and ascertaining thepatientcapacitor satisfies them. Additionally and from the outset, I would like to make a distinction about what common sense and pragmatic rules of thumb say is a Reliable Source as Commonly Understood and what Wikipedia editors interpret as a Reliable Source By The Rules. Notice that in the latter, the essence of the matter is not what Wikipedia directives say, but instead what editors think they mean.

[Reliable Source as Commonly Understood] So what would be a Reliable Source to me, the rules of thumb, the criteria I think a source should have for me to consider it worthy of reference and belief? In general reliable sources have these characteristics 1) They are well written and care with detail was taken; 2) They are well researched, 3) The author articulates ideas that are intelligible and cogent; 4) There are no obvious flaws in reasoning or fact; 5) There is no intention to deceive or mislead; 6) Most, if not all, assumptions can be verified (either by our knowledge of the subject or independently in a different reference); 7) Generally information for verification purposes is supplied. To this, as a group of characteristics, I have to add a few words of alert to preconceived ideas we may have, to cloud our judgment in assessing a source: 1) You may not like the style. The writer is informal when you would prefer formal, or writes formal and you prefer informal. This depends on who the writer thinks s/he is addressing with the writing and something to be published in the Physical Review Letters for sure is inappropriate if trying to entice scientific curiosity in young people. 2) You may not like the content having a lot of colorful pictures. You would prefer dry graphs. Again who is the author writing to? 3) You just took a quick look and jumped to unpleasant conclusions. Is that fair if you really did not examine at all the source? 4) You may never have heard of the author. Well, authorities and experts sometimes go wrong, the author may actually be the best world expert in the very narrow field s/he is writing about but it just happens s/he never appeared in the cover of People Magazine, and talent, knowledge and understanding are not the exclusive domain of Ivy League, CalTech or MIT professionals. But the really important argument here begins by noticing that a mathematical proof, articulating ideas to a conclusion, may be incidentally made with different details by different people, but the fact of it does not depend on who made it. Would a proof of a geometrical theorem be valid if done by Michio Kaku, but invalid, being done the exact same way, by Joe The Carpenter? Of course there are different expectations in this: if receiving the proof from Kaku, you would think he thought about it, and he is qualified to make it. But that does not change the fact that getting that same proof from Joe, you can check and see if the proof does do what it is supposed to prove. The end result of shutting yourself out to any Reliable Source as Commonly Understood is that you'll only know, think and believe what comes from some authority, and I dare predict that in those circumstances in all likelihood you'll find yourself belonging to the group of people that know nothing, think nothing and do not understand anything of what they believe in.

Of course there's a line to be drawn in this and the argument of authority sometimes is the only one we can have. Michio Kaku worked extensively in String Theory, of which I do not know anything in any depth, so if Kaku says something about it, I'll believe him. I would not say the same about Joe. The crux of the matter here is that I do not really know or understand String Theory in any technical depth. However Michio Kaku can examine Joe The Carpenter statements about String Theory, and see if there's anything to them.

[CONTINUES BELOW] Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Context:
 * Url of source: http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/10/carl-sagans-indigo-children/ Article: Carl Sagan Statement: "He remains a respected figure for many people in the generation growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s"  Talk page discussion:Talk:Carl_Sagan
 * This started with this edit removing a statement added by Deep Atlantic Blue (DAB). I had noticed some back and forth changes between "figure of reference", "figure of reverence", "respected figure", so I decided to go and check the source. I was surprised to find that the statement in question was just WP:SYNTH and that the cited source looked extremely suspicious, hence my documented removal of the sentence, accompanied by this article talk page message, resulting in this large exchange, and finally in this message on DAB's talk page. I think I did everything in my power to explain some of our basic policies, but DAB seems not to be interested rather seems to be interested in changing our policies.
 * I haven't really looked in depth at the other articles where this website is used as a source, but I did have a close look at About thepatientcapacitor, and I tried to find some official publications by its owner P.L. Monteiro, who seems to sign his articles as "Catch 22". I also tried to find some secondary sources. So far I haven't found anything.
 * So I strongly suspect that thepatientcapacitor.com is not a proper source for Wikipedia. Perhaps DAB was right after all to (sic) "go ballistic" and remove all his entries (,, , , , , and finally ). A day after this WP:POINT, DAB restored everything though.
 * DVdm (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm anticipated supplying the information that Dlabtot requested, though it is presented at the top, but it comes with his point of view and arguments about the site that to him "the cited source looked extremely suspicious." And that seems to be the problem. In any case, when examining DVdm arguments take a moment to see how they were addressed in the original dispute in the Carl Sagan Talk page. As to the discussion I am trying to produce here, my intentions go beyond the simple dispute in Carl Sagan page, to discuss a current Wikipedia flaw and how independent writers (like perhaps the one at thepatientcapacitor.com) may help address the issues. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: 1) Is a statement about the generation that grew up watching Cosmos, relevant and important in Carl Sagan's page? DVdm agrees it is. 2) Does the post linked to describe the specifics of that generation? DVdm has not stated otherwise, instead conceding he identified with the description made in the post. 3) Is the source reliable? That's where we part ways. DVdm seemingly would have preferred a scholarly academic paper published in a peer reviewed journal. To me, if the source is reliable or not can verified by anyone taking the time to read it. Simply excluding a source by statute, seems to me a case of when trying to keep bad things out, wrapping the good ones in it too, throwing away the baby with the bath water. I discuss the relevance of this below. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're becoming a pain in the neck DVdm. You do not agree with me, but do you have to harass me in very conceivable way, because something is improper, goes against your sense of traditional ways, slapping this and that of procedure, when you seem not to understand the reasons for due process in the first place? Will you let me make my case? Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * DAB, I'm not trying to harass you. Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you. By all means make your case, but frankly, I think that you are doing it in the wrong place, again. If you want to change the policies, I think you should go to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources or to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, as I said before. Anyway, I will try not to interfere with your case anymore. DVdm (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, please accept my apologies DVdm. I am used to speaking frankly, but depending on your standards of communication, that may come up as a bit blunt. I did take your advice in going to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources as you can check by going there. Meanwhile Johnuniq told me that was not the appropriate place to make a case, because only specific details of guidelines are debated there. I then moved my discussion to this page. To me it seems that if showing my points with the strength intended, editors will notice, and the arguments will be carried into the deep recesses of Wikipedia. Of course I am assuming people will take the time to read this. I am putting this comment in your talk page too. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you had added an extra (personal) comment on my talk page, I have replied there. DVdm (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]

At this point I wrote down a group of specific criteria to ascertain if a source is reliable, under an empiric pragmatic assessment anyone should be able to make. I did point out however that the editor making the check should be equipped with a minimum of the background knowledge and understanding required to read through the source, or trash it out for evident ignorance from the author.

[A FLAW WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT] (topics: public education; perspective, interpretation and insight) I may not be completing this, for the time it would require, no proper place to do it, and the affront to common sense DVdm seems to want to make this issue to go through. See below. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Our criteria for determining what is a reliable source are at WP:RS. I'm afraid that any criteria you develop are simply not relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To where do I take this discussion then? And I still haven't made my point. This is one of the reasons I never went into any serious Wikipedia editing: edit wars, ego driven disputes, a bunch of legalese, and if you are trying to make a point you can't. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request that WP:RS be overruled in the specific list of links above, to thepatientcapacitor.com, under the WP:IAR policy. The reasons to do so, are explained above. Do these links improve Wikipedia? That has always been my point. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at my talk, the biggest hurdle to the text that you want to introduce is that the source does not use any language that directly leads to that text, so there is a big original research problem. Regarding your comments that suggest flaws in the current verifiability policy, please stop and think how this encyclopedia would look if all the kooks on the Internet could edit articles and add whatever interpretation they thought was useful from all available websites. If you still want to pursue that approach, please comment at WP:VPP (not here), but such sweeping changes to policy are not going to happen. This page discusses whether a particular source meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point I would think, assessment of if the statements and links improve Wikipedia would be the thing to discuss, as I invoked the WP:IAR policy. But, hey, that's just me thinking. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As to "if all the kooks on the Internet could edit articles and add whatever" I don't think what I am trying to say changes in any way how the community handles those cases. What could change is the slapping around of guidelines, with the purpose of removing what you don't like, without thinking up what those guidelines really mean. And I am bit tired of going at them one by one. DVdm started by saying he couldn't find the sentence in the post, but then it is not supposed to be a quote; Then you said it was Synthesis, but you are unable to get rid of all and any statements about a source that are not direct quotes; Now you say it is original research, but it seems the community (or some part of it) agrees with the statement, there are no wild claims in it, and it is something anyone can check. If I say "in a sunny day the sky is blue" will you attempt to spin me into knots because that is original research? I have discussed and refuted every single objection brought to the fore, other than the rules and guidelines putting off clear and undisputed improvements to Wikipedia. This is not my day job. Please discuss the statements and links I put in, in the context of the WP:IAR policy. I would appreciate it. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be very likely that you would be able to find a corraborating source that easily meets the WP:RS standards for the statement that you wish to include in the article. Have you looked? (most hits from news.google.com (except the blog posts) or books.google.com (except Inc Icon and some print on demand publishers) are generally considered reliable) Is there some reason why you are wedded to using this particular website? Active Banana (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Ac-Ba. You are not addressing the issues. Did you read [THE ETHICAL ISSUES:] above? Are you discussing this from the WP:IAR point of view? Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am addressing this from a practical point of view. You have content you wish to add. There are likely other sources that pose no questions about their meeting WP:RS that would support that content. If you desire is to include that content, why not just use the sources that meet the requirements rather than engage in extended (and likely fruitless) attempts to use a particular website? What is improved about the encyclopedia by ignoring all rules and allowing a this site to be used than simply using a site/book/newspaper that is obviously a reliable source under our standard cirteria? Active Banana (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether something is good for wiki doesn't matter, unfortunately. Pretty much, rules are rules, and IAR doesn't get to be used much.  If it isn't an RS, and we're using their info, you could remove it to avoid the ethical problem I think you're describing above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is like any other policy here - in order to apply it, there has to be a consensus that it is applicable. Which virtually never happens. Certainly not in this case. Dlabtot (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the consensus here is a general unwillingness to discuss WP:IAR, while also everyone seems to think that "Whether something is good for wiki doesn't matter, [...]," I will be removing all content and links associated with thepatientcapacitor.com. I will personally see as a substantial infringement on the writer's creative and intellectual rights if Wikipedia ever uses his data, content and ideas in any way, even if rewritten by someone else. I am dropping out of this discussion because "Whether something is good for wiki doesn't matter, [...]," makes clear and categorical I have no business here, in editing, discussing, adding or removing stuff, trying to improve Wikipedia. If improving Wikipedia, to you does not matter, I am done wasting my time, and will not try to figure what is it that does matter. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "I will be removing all content and links associated with `thepatientcapacitor.com` ". Good. That definitely imho is what is best for Wikipedia. It's not RS and it shouldn't be used here. Dlabtot (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The most appropriate site to discuss WP:IAR is that talk page. It is very hard to see where "ignoring the rules" regarding our sourcing requirements would end up resulting in "improvements to the encyclopedia".Active Banana (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, although I think that in this case the removal by DAB is a clear case of WP:POINT (example 3), and thus entirely for the wrong reasons. Under normal circumstances such action would probably result in a block, but I don't think that pursuing this would be appropriate. DAB, for what it's worth, I'm sorry it has come to this. Take care. DVdm (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not restate my case YET AGAIN. The links have been removed and ample information is given above and in the Carl Sagan Talk page showing why they "would end up resulting in 'improvements to the encyclopedia'" Ac-Ba. Again DVdm, removal of the links is not WP:POINT because if the the source is not WP:RS then it is not WP:RS. I have no comment on what Dlabtot said. It saddens me a bit though, to see how the Wikipedia insider community has become impervious to good faith common sense. Good luck in trying to maintain a supposedly useful and educational tool for its readers. From this discussion and seeing how you argue, you may know a lot of things, but you seem to understand little. I am sorry, but that's what I infer. I have no place bothering you with valid, lucid points. The air is awake with acoustic vibrations, those get to your eardrums, but you still say you are not listening. I have better uses for my time. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

'''Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.''' —George Pólya, quoted from WP:WIARM. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter
Original section title was: The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter as evidence of common usage of arborsculpture to name the craft, supporting usage as a generic term and possibly supporting a page move back to its original name.

1. p.6 Arbor Sculpture: If you like I'll Grow You a Mirror 2. Tree shaping Current editors at Tree Shaping are sorting through a raft of alternate names, and questionable sources for both the synonymity and neutrality of those names, all of which were presented and used to establish the neutrality of the current title Tree shaping and to sink all other names, including the original page title, out of the lead (except if used as trade names, oddly) and into a final section of the article. Tree shaping and shaped trees as neutral terms have turned out to be not so neutral after all, as they are strongly associated with a pair of the article's covered artists, who are well documented as soon-to-publish their own book entitled Pooktre knowledge to grow shaped trees, and who also continue to edit forcefully on the page.
 * "Richard Reames is an American arborsculptor[39] based in Williams, Oregon, where he manages a nursery, botanical garden, and design studio collectively named Arborsmith Studios.[39]"
 * "(In 1995, he wrote and published his first book, How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary.) In it he coined the word arborsculpture[4] and since then this word has been used around the world to refer to the craft in general,[39] to the works of various live woody plant artisans, and to the artisans themselves as arborsculptors, including Christopher Cattle,[39]..."
 * "Dr. Christopher Cattle is a retired furniture design professor from England.[39]"
 * "According to Cattle, he developed an idea to train and graft trees to grow into shapes, which came to him in the late 1970s, in response to questions from students asking how to build furniture using less energy.[52][53][39]"
 * 1) Further, discussion and citation analysis continues on the talkpage at Tree shaping, regarding whether or not this page should be returned to its original page name, arborsculpture; whether or not certain alternate names for the craft should be listed as alternate names, whether or not certain names are generic or are trade names, etc. Tension continues following a page title change to Tree shaping (from Arborsculpture) which was decided outside the Arborsculpture discussion page by editors in an AfD proceeding for yet another article, Pooktre.

This source is one of many that use arborsculpture/arborsculptor as generic terms for the craft and the craftspersons who practice it.
 * Is it one reliable source for establishing that generic usage? Duff (talk • contribs) 15:00, June 6, 2010

The bullet points are the five instances in the article, of citation to the named source, and for which the analysis is requested. A more pointed link to the pertinent discussion on the talk page is: Talk:Tree Shaping Duff (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've got more of a long dispute than a RS question. I doubt we can solve this for you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been a long dispute and I do not expect RS to resolve it. We have to start somewhere though, to move forward with the article, so we are starting with the citations.  I may well have provided too much context, but my question pertains specifically to the use of this source in confirming these cited points in the article, and most importantly to the 5th bullet point (which isn't as clearly stated in the article, so that's why I added the context), as to whether this source is one reliable reference for the use of the term in a generic sense.  I'll strike out the context, if that helps.  If the source is deemed unreliable, perhaps it is not appropriate to use it either for the other 4 points cited by it in the text, but those 4 points stand without controversy at this time.  I provided the other 4 in an effort at completeness, based on the instructions given.  If there is a more appropriate place to get an answer on this one citation, as to its reliability, I welcome that too. Thanks.Duff (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HipHopDX
It is no doubt that HipHopDX has information that is reliable and is credible. But recently, they have started a new weekly post called "Wednesday Rap Release Dates". Now, many users are using this to justify information and one page is purely sourced by HipHopDX (this page is of course 2010 in hip hop music), 99% of those release dates are sourced with the same multiple links of HipHopDX. The list of release dates on HipHopDX does not cite any of their knowledge of the release date. They could say Detox will be out next week and it could be sourced on Wikipedia.

I am just wondering if information should be purely based on this weekly post, release dates should be backed up by more reliable sources (such as artist pages, record labels, Billboard, XXL, MTV, etc.) like it used to be. SE  KinG. User page. Talk. 06:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've discussed release dates before and it's been pointed out that they are only ever planned release dates and subject to change. Best just not to report the release until it's actually happened. We need to resist those who want to treat the encyclopedia as an advertising medium. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they are all dates released by the record companies. Fyi that post "Wedsday Rap Release Dates" has been up and going since 2009 so don't state it as "new." As you said "HipHopDX is reliable and is credible" they have been right about dozenes of Rap Release dates and were also the first to report them. They would not be dumb enough to say "Detox" would come out next week. If there date is wrong then it's not their falut its the record companies false info. STAT -Verse 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Allmovie
I've checked the archives and can't seem to find anything discussing allmovie.com in the context of biogrpahical info. I know NYTimes mirrors their info in some cases (movie credits). I know they have paid writers and an editorial staff, but I don't know that they work on biographical data. Specifically, we're looking for a solid source for a birthdate for the late Michelle Thomas. The obits we've found disagree on her age when she died, so her birthdate might not be solidly established anywhere. In any case, Allmovie gives a birthdate. Is this a reliable source? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am involved in this discussion as well. I have a hard time understanding how Allmovie.com is considered reliable, when IMDB.com is not.  They seem to be on the same level to me.  That being said, there are direct source citations available from Jet magazine, People magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and the New York times that contradict Allmovie.  Several other websites also contain a copy of the AP story (which contains the same dates as the sources I already mentioned), but the original story from 1998 is no longer on the AP's website.  Should not original large media outlets with printed sources carry more weight than websites like Allmovie and IMDB?  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb is, IMO, clearly not a reliable source for biographical data as it is essentially user created. (Bio material in IMDb can be submitted by anyone. A staffer "reviews" submissions, but that's about it.) IMDb's credibility is not the issue here. We're looking at Allmovie.com. I do not know where they get their biographical data. For film credits, I consider them credible on the basis of the NYTimes mirroring their info. For biographical info, I'm not really sure. (Weighting of material in various sources is an issue for a different venue. Jet, People, EW and NYTimes are clearly reliable in this instance. But they don't provide the birthdate.) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of the editorial process at IMDb is not accurate. We've had this discussion about IMDb over and over at this noticeboard. Please search the archives.  Dlabtot (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that is not what is at issue. I am certainly not on the side of using IMDB as a source--especially when Jet, People, Entertainment Weekly, the NY Times, and the Associated Press are available.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb, Jet, People, Entertainment Weekly, the NY Times, and the Associated Press are not at issue here. We're discussing Allmovie. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmovie contradicts all of the other sources. It boils down to which should be given more weight (Jet, People, EW, The NY Times, and the AP... or Allmovie).  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 21:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmovie gives a birthdate. The others do not. Other reliable sources (see below) give an age that agrees with Allmovie. Weight is a separate issue. The question here is Allmovie's reliability. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmovie is generally regarded as a reliable source because it employs full-time professional researchers, so on that basis it probably should be given the benefit of the doubt as a reliable source. The contradiction isn't actually a problem - if there is overwhelming agreement between other reliable sources then use the other sources since it's not impossible for a reliable source to be incorrect.  Alternatively you could just document the contradiction a'la Audrey Tautou. Betty Logan (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Until another, completely rock-solid, source shakes loose, I'm not opposed to that at all.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What about her mother? Is her mother a reliable source for when she was born, cuz mama's website is saying it's 1968.  I'd think if anyone would know with 100% certainty, it'd be her own mother... wow.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say her mother's site would be a reliable primary source for this information, provided of course you can independently establish it is her mother's site. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Her mother references the URL in an interview available on Youtube. Admittedly, there is a very small degree of synergy there--but that bit of info, in conjunction with all of the other primary sources (NYT, EW, Jet, People, AP, etc.) should be more than enough to settle the question and receive more weight than a website like AllMovie.  Also, if you look at the article in its current state, I have included the line (sometimes reported as 1969) for her birth year.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The video (which I have not viewed) purportedly refers to her mother's MySpace page. That MySpace page links to the memorial site as one of 287 "friends". The memorial site gives "1968-1998" in a photo. It also gives conflicting information about her date of death: the bio states, "On December 23, 1998, Thomas died...". The "Facts about Michelle" section says, "...when she died on December 22, 1998." The page is internally inconsisent. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that her mother's Facebook page also lists 12/23/98 as the day Michelle died. However, what is at issue here (currently) is not the day she died, but the year in which she was born.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is at issue is the reliability of the MySpace page in question. We don't know who set it up, we know it is internally inconsistent. Is it a reliable source? I can't see how it would be. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the content her own mother endorses is not reliable??  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see an endorsement from her mother. Anyway, it's as reliable as a site that gives two dates of death for one person can be. :) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(Exdent) FYI... this will most likely soon be a moot point as there is now a question about Michelle's DOB on Phynjuar Thomas' Facebook tribute page. FWIW, her mother added this picture to the Facebook page in which the years are 1968-1998. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And another with comments from Michelle Thomas' mother.  Is not the woman who gave birth to Michelle the ultimate source for when she was born?  So to recap here: The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, People, Jet, the Associated Press, and Michelle Thomas' mother have all said in print that Michelle Thomas was born in 1968.  Allmovie has 1969 on their website.  Which should be given more weight?   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Skipping all the other sources and the lack of verification on your site, the question here was whether allmovie.com is a reliable source. We've answered that. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of verification? Phynjuar points people to her Myspace page in a video-taped interview.  Phynjuar's website is registered to her via InterNic and Network Solutions.  Her Facebook page has dozens of otherwise unpublished photos from when Michelle was a child (including pictures of their home) and comments on multiple rememberences.  Public background searches and other public registrations for her travel business also point to all of these locations.  Short of a DNA swab, what more would you like as confirmation that she is in fact Michelle Thomas' mother?   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here was whether allmovie.com is a reliable source. We've answered that. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not and no we have not.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the Reliable sources Noticeboard. The question was "Is (Allmovie) a reliable source?" (see the top of this section). The opinion in response to the question (other than yours) given here was: "Allmovie is generally regarded as a reliable source..." Betty Logan - SummerPhD (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmovie is regarded as "reliable" by the Film Project, but generally it is used for information about release dates, running times, cast lists etc. It might face more of a challenge in regards to biographical information.  However, the literal answer to the question is that it is currently in use as a reliable source on Wikipedia.  The Allmovie date would make Michelle Thomas 29 at the time of her death and there are other reliable sources out there that are consistent with that date such as the LA Times  and Variety, so there are plenty of reliable sources out there for both dates.  A primary source such as her mother's official site (or MySpace) would probably be decisive here, but a site's authenticity needs to be established since MySpace/Facebook profiles can be fake, and fan sites can claim to be official when they are not.  A fansite that is merely endorsed by her mother would not qualify as a primary source since they are "self-published" and are not accountable to anyone but their owners.  My recommendation would be to use both dates/ages with the appropriate sources, unless you can establish the authenticity of a primary source and then use that in conjunction with the secondary sources that back it up. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the biographical information. As for the authenticity of mother's MySpace, Facebook, and website -- her family members are also involved in the tribute page (and include additional information and personal photos about Michelle Thomas that is no where else in the public domain), the website is registered to Phynjuar Thomas, and Phynjuar gives the URL to the Myspace page in a video interview she did online.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How authoritative is that site, given that it disagrees with itself about the date of her death? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A little bit off topic, but claims that the mother's personal site is an "ultimate authority" are not valid. There are many many reasons why a person may "fudge" the birthdate of their child. Self published sites can be used as sources for non-controversial material about the subject, but if they are in conflict about data covered in reliable sources, than the content from the self published site must be taken with a grian (or more) of salt. Active Banana (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What if that website is consistent with original source materials, such as People magazine, Jet magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and the New York Times? Should Allmovie be given more weight then?   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed below, we are accepting the HighBeam archives as accurate copies of the originals. The website (which contradicts itself) is consistent with some of the reliable sources (about half). This is also discussed on the article's talk page where another editor finds a similar story with a different set of reliable sources from a different archive. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very careful about biographies of living people. The Transformers producer comes to mind for why...  Here's some context that might be missing here  There are still living people who will read and see every comment made here and this biography deserves the same consideration as any other.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't apply. Thomas is deceased.Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When multiple generally reliable sources specifically contradict another generally reliable source, we tend to favor the majority view. Even if it was only one of: People magazine, Jet magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and the New York Times in conflict with Allmovie, I personally would presume that Allmovie was the less reliable source. I have not looked specifically at what data is in each of these sources, but if they all state one thing and Allmovie is alone in stating something else, we go with the majority, and in this case perhaps do not even mention the minority view. Active Banana (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should also be noted that it appear that the bulk of the smaller (not original sources) that state her age at the time of death was 29 are from the same source.  In other words, smaller newspapers picked up the story with the wrong dates and reprinted them.  IMHO those should count as one source, not multiple sources.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 21:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's just not true. I don't think you can call the New York Post, Associated Press, Reuters, CBS, Toronto Star, Buffalo News small sources, all of which give her age at 29 per a Factiva archive search. Allmovie is certainly not the best source, and could/should be replaced by these more clearly reliable ones, but it is clear that it is not a question of allmovie vs the rest here --Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

iCarly episodes on show fax
Okay I know blogs are not realy a RS. But he is the problem The  source we have show fax for new icarly episodes adds them but then a few weeks later or so takes the new episodes down. I was just wondering could we use http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/. I know it is a blog site but here is the thing. the person who runs the site and the victoious site gets the episodes off show fax and puts them on there. the new episodes would be under the section upcoming episodes on the bottom of the page. Now if this is fine, How would I use this without it getting takien down when I put the new episodes up. Also What is the difference between http://danwarp.blogspot.com/ wich is used for the main icarly pages and dan's other shows. danwarp is the creator of the show. With episodes up on show fax Dan also shows fans pics during the filming of that episode. The ones that are already confirmed. are iHave a hot Room and iDo. They will be deleted form show fax any time soon. I also don't realy know how to use the other type of back tracking. I say it is kind of Reliable since the person that gets the episodes and up them on the site gets them off show fax. I would like to start creating the season 4 section for the show. Checker Fred (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the first blog, no, I wouldn't use that. Even if they do get their text from Showfax, who's to say that what they're copying over is what the initial source says? It really depends on what the text is that's using the reference, but if it's just things like casting, then you can probably cite the show itself. As to the second blog, it's more or less the same thing - that it depends on what text is being added to the article. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wondering could I still use show fax or is it a better idea to hid the episodes like I did before and the the FETCH with ruff ruffman episode page.Checker Fred (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, showfax used episode planning information (casting calls etc) so it's not a good source for episode information because episode shooting schedules, name etc change between when the episode is planned and when the final product is released. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * well I would leave the air date blank. Just look. dan the creator of the show is producing the episodes right now. I would just be adding the title and production codes and hide them. in the edit summary I would put the episodes may be shown when more can be provided or something. I did this for half of season 3 and it seemed to work.Checker Fred (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

High Beam Research
This is also on the Michelle Thomas article (see above). Are otherwise reliable sources archived at High Beam Research reliable? Specifically, an editor is questioning a Bay State Banner article and one from [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22424893.html the LA Sentinel. My impression was that they were legit electronic archives of a whole raft of media outlets, and I've seen them used before. However, I cannot seem to find out much about the site itself. Opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * High Beam itself is not the "source" - the source is the original newspaper or publication. High Beam would be merely a courtesy link. But I have not seen any reason to doubt High Beam providing accurate reprints of the material they have archived. Active Banana (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know High Beam is not the source. The question is it's reliability. Clearly, we'll accept a newspaper's own website's archive as a reliable copy of an original article. We wouldn't necessarily accept a purported copy of an article on someone's blog. Having not seen the original article myself, where on that continuum (newspaper's own web archive -> random person's blog) would High Beam fall? I have no doubt that there are sources throughotu Wikipedia that claim to be newspaper/magazine article that are really Lexus-Nexis searches, blogs copying articles, etc. I'm just citing where I got it. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view HighBeam Research, Lexis-Nexis, Factiva are all perfectly respectable professional archiving services; one can cite articles hosted there with has much confidence as the newspaper archives themselves. --Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I would say that the woman who gave birth to her is the ultimate source for when Michelle Thomas was born and should be given more weight than any of the sources you've cited.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here was whether HighBeam's archives are reliable. We've answered that. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You are using sources' "reliability" in a way that allows you to pick and choose which sources carry more weight than others.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here was whether HighBeam's archives are reliable. We've answered that. -
 * Yes, HighBeam provides accurate reproductions of the archived material, so it is perfectly fine to use for accessing archived versions of news articles and the like. Just as, for instance, the archives at nytimes.com are fine to use for archived New York Times articles, and the michrofiche department of the Alachua County Main Library in Gainesville, Florida, is fine to use for old copies of The Gainesville Sun.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DSRCT.com
After the HighBeam issue (above), we have the question of www.dsrct.com, a site about desmoplastic small round cell tumor. I don't know much about who runs the site, other than the notice at the bottom of many of the pages: "I am not a medical or health professional. Information in this site has been gathered from numerous sources and is for research purposes only.  I do not guarantee the accuracy of any information in this site." Another editor at Michelle Thomas wishes to use two articles copied at the site]. One says it is from "CBS Website, Dec. 1998", the other "AP wired reports, Spring 1999". Are these reliable archives of articles from (presumably) cbsnews.com and the AP wire? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This same AP article has been reproduced elswhere too. The issue at debate here is whether or not a young actress, who has since passed away from DSRCT, was born in 1968 or 1969.  Original source materials like EW, Jet, People, and the New York Times state she was 30 years of age at the time of her death.  In addition, her mother's Myspace page (which is clearly her Myspace page, as she gives the link to it in a video-taped interview with comments about her daughter) has links to a tribute site that support the sources I just listed.  Finally, the question has been put to the actress' friends and family members to confirm publicly what Michelle Thomas' birthday actually was.  Given the past two days and the history within the wiki, it is becoming clear to me that the editor who keeps opening disucssions about these issues has a history of ownership with this article.  I would invite anyone commenting further to look at the interview and the mother's website for themselves.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is if DSRCT's archive of these articles is relaible. Yes, other sites reproduce those two articles, with exactly the same odd attributions. If you feel any of those are reliable, we can examine that as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the reason Michelle Thomas's wiki reads (sometimes reported as 1969).  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether DSRCT's archived articles are reliable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They should be as reliable as any of the other reproduced materials you are citing, rather than relying on original sources.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether DSRCT's archived articles are reliable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * DSRCT.com is what has archived articles about the disease, DSRCT. The context is that a famous person died of DSRCT--which is the form of cancer that Michelle Thomas had--and those archives are supported by multiple original sources.    Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This site doesn't look like it qualifies as a reliable source. It doesn't seem to be affiliated to any official organisation - so is essentially self-published - so doesn't qualify as an authority on anything or anyone.  Its authenticity as an archive is impossible to establish because it's not clear who is storing the material or if it has been manipulated, and the person who has collected the stuff won't even vouch for its accuracy. I think any challenge to this site as a source would be supported. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the site does not qualify as a reliable source. Yoenit (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not a reliable source. I'll add that I have access to Associated Press archives via Factiva and Lexis-Nexis, and the second article presented on the DSRCT website does not appear within them. Certain sentences appear to have been taken from AP reports, and then other material (about her birth and death) added. On the other hand, the first one is identical to versions archived on Lexis-Nexis etc, and is actually an Associated Press article on December 24, 1998, and was republished in several newspapers. --Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has access to those websites or information. If I have access to information not available to the general public (like the resources of the US Federal government), is that a reliable source--despite the fact that it can not be readily verified?   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiable reliable resources do need to be accessible to everybody, but public access may require payment or some shoe-leather with trip to the library. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If your US government resources are only available to government employees then no, not verifiable, but if available to all, (even if only in print form and/or with a payment) then yes. Books, for example, are also reliable sources that require either a library or a financial outlay to get access to. --Slp1 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, so what you're saying is that a copy of her birth certificate would be acceptable because someone could obtain it from Massachusetts. Thank you.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. You'd have to ask the question and see what the consensus is, because it is not a clear cut case. We used "published" reliable sources, secondary sources by preference because of the danger of original research. Obviously a birth certificate is not published in the usual meaning of the word, and is a primary source. --Slp1 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't do anything to encourage people to look up someone's birth certificate or other personal documents. We report what the reliable published material says, with a strong preference for secondary sources. In this case the specific issue is whether or not dsrct.com can be used to cite news articles. The answer is no, it's a personal web page and there is some indication that they're not reproducing the articles accurately. If the articles themselves are legit, cite them directly or through an archive. If they're not, don't cite them at all.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether a birth certificate is personal information, or a public document, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nevertheless, using a birth certificate from an official source on Wikipedia is likely to be original research, because the process of tying a birth certificate to an adult involves original research; the birth certificate might be describing some other person with the same name. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
Is anyone willing to give an outside opinion on the use of material published by "Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research" (website), please? Specifically: Thanks for any help you can give. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article: http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_health/Induced_abortion.html
 * Used in Abortion
 * To support this text: In such settings, the risk of maternal death is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion tenfold safer than a live birth.
 * As under discussion at Talk:Abortion (long)
 * This seems to be a scholarly organisation, but we generally require very high standards of sourcing in medical articles, and I don't see that the article cited is peer reviewed. However, it does cite its own sources and I would think that stats for mortality due to abortion in developed countries should be fairly accessible. I found them a while ago for the UK by going through the government stats website www.statistics.gov.uk. I thought it was quite well known that termination of pregnancy is much safer for the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term. The question is whether that is a meaningful comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to what extent it's peer-reviewed. On the other hand, we use (and value) material written by experts and published by expert bodies. The authors are from the WHO, and GFMER works closely with the WHO (as well as Geneva University). It's a scholarly and reputable organization, expert authors, and the text doesn't raise any red flags (i.e. it's entirely consistent with other demonstrable expert opinion in the field). I won't go into the content dispute over the comparison between abortion risk and childbirth risk, which is a topic of active discussion at Talk:Abortion, other than to say that this comparison is widely used in numerous scholarly sources and not unique to this one. MastCell Talk 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Massacre of Hormova
Need third party opinions on highly divisive Balkans related history. Particularly in reference to sourcing. Savonneux (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Main article Massacre of Kodra, talk page: Talk:Massacre_of_Kodra, deletion discussion Articles_for_deletion/Massacre_of_Hormova. The article and talk page have been deleted but I still want feedback on sources. --Savonneux (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the contention of Users, , and that the sources listed below fail WP:V and WP:RS. Users also maintain that the authors are essentially pro Albanian (it's on the talk page, I'm terrible at diffs).

Newspapers in English:
 * Multiple newspaper coverage at the time including the NY Times

US Congressional Record:

Books:
 * -- Contested that book is inadmissable and the author supposed Albanian nationalist. Publisher website McFarland
 * -- Contested that book is inadmissable because author is self described Albanophile. Publisher website I.B. Tauris

Source material in Dutch:
 * Doe Hans bio apparently was a journalist.
 * Doe Hans bio apparently was a journalist.
 * Doe Hans bio apparently was a journalist.


 * Colonel Thomson in Albania, exhibition by Harrie Teunissen (freelance curator/historian) in Groningen Public Library http://www.siger.org/albania/nl/ (includes pictures from Instituut voor Militaire Geschiedenis (Institute Military Research), The Hague).

I asked generally if anyone involved would like to bring it to this notice board was ignored (dif deleted). So I made this. I never edited the article (dif deleted you'll have to take this on good faith now) it only came to my attention because it was nommed for deletion and most of my contributions are on AFD. --Savonneux (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Updated --Savonneux (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC))


 * I concur with Savonneux' concerns and request as many eyes as possible on the article and the related AfD page. Edward321 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated. Still want third party opinions.--Savonneux (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I closed the AfD as delete. I can confirm Savonneux's (now-deleted) diffs, though.  My take on the sources, copied from my talk page:  the problem isn't with confirming that the Times, etc., said something about an incident. The problem is that those articles were all based on uncomfirmed rumors, and each reported different information. There's no consistency with which to say what might have happened, and the general lack of scholarly inquiry means that there's nothing to rely upon except  those initial reports. As far as the books, Pearson definitely appears partisan. The Dutch books may have material allowing for the recreation of the article, though. It would be nice if we could find something  written about the incident by a historian. Shimeru (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've checked the Dutch link siger.org (titled 'Thompson in Albania'), where a Dutch officer (Thompson), that commanded Albanian gendarmerie units that time, claimed that 'there was said that this incident happened'. Actually, this is another primary source (in fact another rumor). What's important reliable secondaries&tertiary sources are absent and the major parts of this puzzle are still nowhere to find. According to the afd this was one of the reasons of deletion. However, J. Fabius could help the situation but he is offline.Alexikoua (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the books that covered it you checked their sources and said the books use primary sources, so they themselves are primary. Everything can eventually be traced back to some primary source. On a side note, that website actually says Thomson did not go:  Een commissie, onder leiding van De Veer onderzoekt de zaak in opdracht van de Internationale Controle Commissie en maakt proces verbaal op. A commission led by De Veer investigated for the International Control Commission and made a report. Fabius' book is non circulation, but I have a journal article coming (which took forever to track down). --Savonneux (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking forward to it Savonneux! As you pointed out, not everything is online and most of the comments of many users for a deletion were based on the fact that there was almost nothing online, but there are offline secondary sources and the photos that you brought, which make this article worthy of this Noticeboard. However I also have to add that I found suspicious and very odd that user:Michael_IX_the_White and user:Megistias voted after a long time that they hadn't been active on wiki (see Special:Contributions/Michael_IX_the_White and Special:Contributions/megistias, so I find that this may have been fruit of an off-wiki canvasssing activity. --SulmuesLet's talk 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably the biggest reason people don't get responses from uninvolved editors is that they don't bother to read and follow the directions for asking questions at the top of this page. Dlabtot (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean? The thing where it says link to article/source of question/exact statement? Because those are all linked... Vague complaints arent really helpful. --Savonneux (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah nvm, you did said the same thing to every single post on this board.--Savonneux (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a journal article now that someone was kind enough to download for me, it covers the political situation more than anything else but confirms the names of the Dutch officers involved and that there was Greek activity: "However, the nascent Albanian gendarmerie and small army proved too weak to defend Albania against Greek insurgents in the south..."

With a reference to Which is completely unavailable to me. --Savonneux (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Sulmues: I would appreciate if you avoid wp:npa vios against other users here. By the way the creator of this article [] is a national advocative spa, with only sporadic edits and 'pretents' that he is online in the Albanian wiki, as User:Future Perfect noted too [.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems there is some problem with this [], but even if it says: "However, the nascent Albanian gendarmerie and small army proved too weak to defend Albania against Greek insurgents in the south..." The incident is nowhere mentioned here. On the other hand this can be added in the relevant article (Principality of Albania)Alexikoua (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * o.O I wasn't going to use it, sometimes you look at related things to accumulate a list of information. Related to that, I found this my german is not so good but somethign like "According to telegram from Ablanian gendarmes in Tepeleni... Greeks massacred 200 Muslims in Church in Kodra", I dont understand all the words. Author is Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Austrian Chief of Staff in WW1. I can't place it in context though =/ --Savonneux (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, he speaks about rumors and the work is also from that era. What's more important these rumors were in disagreement with eachother. For example I've found this, by a French, [], who's descriping crimes committed by Albanians in the very same period. I disagree that we should create articles for every rumor of wwi, as the closing admit concluded, especially if they are completely absent in contemporary bibliography (lack of secondaries&tertiaries).Alexikoua (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, wasn't a historian but an Austrian officer. I don't see a reason why we should play with unconfirmed and contradicting rumors, this time by an Austrian officer of that time. For history Austrian officers organized and directed Albanian gendarmerie units in wwi which makes the incident even more questionable [].Alexikoua (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua it seems like you said that you would need further secondary sources. The even is from 1914. However now it seems that we have further three (3) reliable secondary sources, and the event has not been notable for a determinate period of time, but for a larger frame. In fact we have the following secondary sources: (The first two are declared partisan by the Greek side, but I'm sure that are many more in the History of Albania, however I am far from a library). When Fabius is brought here, I really think we should go to Requests_for_undeletion. --SulmuesLet's talk 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jacques 1995
 * 2) Pearson 2004
 * 3) Fabius 1965
 * 4) Goslinga Gorrit 1972


 * To summ up: Jaques& Pearson are far from considered wp:rs. Fabius, Gorrit are offline. Some unconfirmed rumors of officers (that's we've got now) that commanded and organized Albanian armed groups that time are far below wp:n. As I've stated, I agree with you about Fabius. He might have to say something.13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Alexikoua (talk)


 * A question (which I would have raised at the AfD if it were still open)... do sources support the use of the title "Massacre of Hormova"?... I am not asking if sources say a massacre occurred, I am asking whether there are reliable sources that clearly refer to the event by the name "Massacre of Hormova". If not, then per WP:TITLE we would, at minimum, have to change the title of the article to something more neutral. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The International Control Commission that sent the Dutch officers to the town called it an investigation into the massacres at Hormova and Kodra, Kodra means Hill or something in Albanian I think so it's not very descriptive.--Savonneux (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I found the images of the massacre from Area 15: The fight in South Albania (continued)(there is a whole report on that page)


 * Exposing a mass grave near Kodra


 * Church at Kodra, probably with Captain De Iongh-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... if that was in response to my question... the images do not support the title. In fact, they do not even support the idea that a massacre took place ... one image does show dead bodies, but gives no context as to how they died... a massacre?  An accident?  The plague?  you can not tell from just looking at the picture. The other just shows people standing on a church wall, again with no context.   Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually these where found by Savonneux, before the deletion of the article (just check the afd process). The closing admin was well aware of this stuff (part of the memoirs of an Dutch officer of the Albanian gendarmerie as the site says, nothing to do with a 'report', just primary rumors that are inconsistent with the rest of the primaries-as stated in the closing comments on afd).Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is siger.com? Why should we rely on it?  All we have are some old photographs on a website.  This doesn't prove anything, and for all we know the images may have nothing to do with the specific incident.  Until the event is treated in by modern historians, I cannot agree to the article being re-created.  To do so without general consensus would be disruptive so soon after it was deleted. Athenean (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of those photos are also located on Robert Elsie's website and they have the same description

.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been already discussed in the previous afd. Recycling again and again the same rumors isn't really productive. By the way this link has completely irrelevant pictures.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Siger.com is the homepage of a historian, I wrote about it at the top of this page. He's written several books on spain, apparently the presentation was part of an exhibition in a library and said exhibition was covered in newspaper. See my original post here. --Savonneux (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Explanation and the material at siger.org is very interesting. British MP claimed that he had photos of the massacre and he presented them to the House (apparently these are part of his photos). Also the source says that people were taken from Hormova village and were massacred at Kodra (that explains different references, Hormova massacre since they were from Hormova or Kodra massacre since they were massacred in Kodra). More interesting is that even in the article it is written that "Forty men were said to have been locked in a church and shot by men firing through the roof and the windows" so this was the first rumor, but then the investigation commission found "Approximately 200 partially mutilated corpses " clearly a massacre and also "In the church, investigators found traces of blood and bullet holes; spent small-arms cartridges were found on the roof" clearly confirming what was said about the church. Aigest (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FOLKS... This isn't the venue to discuss the incident or what the sources say about it... please keep your arguments focused on whether the source should be considered reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why we are recycling the same (excactly) information and sources that were already discussed during a recently closed afd.Alexikoua (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the sources should have been discussed here before AFD Aigest (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fifth source (besides the ones I provided earlier)

Can also be read online here It's a book of Abas Ermenji, that now can be found online, published in Rome Italy in 1968. Mentions the burning of 314 Muslim villages and in particular the massacre of Hormova where Muslim Albanians were killed inside of a church from the Zographos paramilitary bands. --SulmuesLet's talk 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fifth what? By the way who is this guy? We have severe incosistency of higly questioned rumors according to an alleged incident: sure the Albanian ultranationalists (like him) raise the number while some Dutch officers limit the alleged number in 40-50. By the way, each rumor is in complete disagreement with the rest. I'm sure that third-grade ultranationlistic stuff by Albanian authors (like this, where are by the way the bibliography and the inlines?) tend to create a new reality. It would be appropriate to find at least ONE wp:rs secondary or tertiary source, to take this serious Alexikoua (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am creating an educational/cultural site about Malaysian uncommon flora
I've been photographing,tasting and documenting Malaysian flora, especially uncommon fruit species for the past 5 years. Now, I have decided to put up an advertisement free Google site to bring people of the same research field together. I'm also organizing two Google groups one in Malay and another one in English to help the exchange of info. All the photos are watermarked "Sample" it doesn't mean that I'm selling them it simple means "Copyrighted". Is this site considered a reliable source? If not, what do I have to do to make it one?

Thanks,

Frank Frugivore (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've forgotten to give the address of the site http://sites.google.com/site/malaysianedibleflora

Thanks,

Frugivore (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the google link for you. This is clearly a selfpublished source and falls under WP:SPS. This policy says: "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."


 * basically this means you need to have written other stuff about ethnobiology or Malayasian flora, preferably academic journals or books. You don't seem to have done any of that, but if you have please post links to the material here and we can discuss it.


 * On a sidenote, I see you have created or at least worked on an article about yourself Frank Juhas under your old account user:Frank juhas. This is very strongly discouraged by wikipolicy WP:Autobiography. The article also seems to fail notability guidelines set at WP:BIO and as such I have proposed its deletion. More information about this can be found shortly on your talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on making such a fine site. You obviously put a lot of work into it, and are justifiably proud. I'm also sure it's a useful resource for those interested in Malaysian flora. However, I doubt that there's any way you'd be able to make a site that could be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. I would also caution about any temptation to use the site in the External links section of articles, unless you can show it provides a unique resource that could not be incorporated into an article.
 * I'm sorry there's nothing Wikipedia can do to help you promote your site, as I feel it deserves viewing - it's just that this isn't the place to let people know about it. On the other hand, there's a lot you could do for Wikipedia, if you accept there's no 'quid pro quo'. We have an article on Wildlife of Malaysia – completely unreferenced – so if you know any books, journals, etc. about the subject, you could use what's in them to improve that article. I also see that the lists of flora and fauna are tiny compared to those on your site. Again, you probably know of other sources that could be used to expand that article. Finally, is there any chance you'd be willing to release even one or two of your photographs under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence? Upload them to wikipedia or to commons with that license; you keep the copyright, but allow others to use them for any purpose as long as they attribute the source of the image to you. You get to mention your website (at last!) as the source, and you have the kudos of having your photos in Wikipedia. There are quite a few articles linked from Wildlife of Malaysia that are not illustrated, and wikipedia would benefit from even a few of those you have taken. --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of heroin maintenance programs
I am seeking advice on the use of a source which says fairly much the same as the text I have entered into the Harm reduction page. I have entered a criticism of heroin maintenance (now removed) to add some balance to the subject. It reads:


 * The British heroin trial initiated in 2005 [14] costs the British government £15,000 pounds per participant per annum. This is roughly equivalent to average heroin user habits of £15,600 pounds per annum which were funded significantly by crime. Participants average a continued use of illegal heroin of £2,600 per year, again funded significantly by crime despite the provision of free heroin. Critics cite these high costs to the public purse, despite any touted savings to society from reduced acquisitive crime.[15][16][17][18][19] Alternately, some assert the greater value of a restrictive drug policy which emphasizes rehabilitation of the drug user, who when abstinent present no further drain on the public purse.[20] They further cite the success of Sweden’s restrictive drug policy.[21] The UNODC has promoted Sweden's investment in, and commitment to, a drug free society in which compulsory rehabilitation of drug addicts is integral. This policy has given Sweden the lowest illicit drug use levels in the developed world[22]

My main cited source is a statement by a drug prevention organization called Drug Free Australia, which is resisting a push for heroin maintenance in Australia. Its statement is found on the 'Update' official bulletin board listserver of the peak Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) organization in Australia called ADCA. ADCA's Update bulletin board provides AOD information and news to more than 1,000 AOD professionals in that country and has no comparable communication mechanism for this field in that country. Their guidelines are at http://www.adca.org.au/ndsis/uploaded_files/fck/Update%20Guidelines%202009.pdf. Subscribers to Update are required to post anything which is acceptable under the guidelines under their AOD organization's name, not under a private name only. The Drug Free Australia criticism, under the name and title of its Secretary, reads thus:


 * I must point out the enormous cost to society of heroin use. We have people here with 300 pounds per week habits, which comes mainly from acquisitive crime. That means that society is footing 15,600 pounds per year for a heroin user’s habit. With the trial they now foot 15,000 pounds plus an extra 2,600 pounds per annum for continuing acquisitive crime. Total 17,600 pounds per year. Do the math.
 * Drug Free Australia’s position is compulsory rehab, where the results in Sweden have shown the lowest drug use levels in the developed world, down from the highest levels in Europe back when they did do their 1970’s prescribed morphine/amphetamine trial. Rehab costs far less than prison, and less than 15,000 pounds per year, with the benefit that once a user is off heroin they have far better health than they have on it, prescribed or illicit, and no 15,000 pounds per annum into eternity. That is a huge societal saving.

I have considered this a reliable and verifiable source (despite the Update archive being password protected the administrator can provide the post on request), adequate to the argument mounted by Drug Free Australia. It has been under discussion at Talk:Harm reduction from 6 June until now. But needing a second opinion.Minphie (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see why Drug Free Australia should be considered in itself a reliable source, since from what you say it is an advocacy organisation. If it cites evidence such as official statistics or research reports, then it would be better to follow the leads and cite the evidence itself - assuming that they are not primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that we talk about postings on a Internet bulletin board by its Secretary. Not some official paper by DFA. Reading WP:SPS, is DFA's secretary a "established expert" or rather can that criteria be reinterpreted to "leading opinion maker"? Further, "is [it] really worth reporting" if it only is published on a bulletin board? Steinberger (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The rules of the Update listserver are that contributors must list an organization name under their own signature, therefore the Secretary of Drug Free Australia is representing the organization's view to the list unless there is a specific disclaimer to say otherwise.Minphie (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Are Job Postings (Employment Descriptions) RS?
We're attempting to start gathering more reliable sources for Research Fellow. This article will describe what the job of a "research fellow" is, employment conditions, etc. Will job postings--that is, offers of employment posted by employers advertising for Research Fellows--count as Reliable Sources? My initial opinion is no, since at best each one refers only one, single, specific position, and that to use the material we'd have to engage in WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, I'd be afraid that, since each company/institution posted there own info, there's nothing reliable about that information. But as this is a new field for me, I wonder if there is any precedent either way.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that going from individual job descriptions would be synthesis. You really need sources that discusses research fellows and what is needed in the plural. For instance some publication saying the sorts of things that people with degrees might be able to apply for or a recruiting agency talking about those type jobs in general. There may even be some government booklet or site describing such jobs along with other job descriptions. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. If you're looking for sources, in the UK there have been some publications commenting on the career development prospects of "contract researchers", a category that overlaps with resarch fellows. There is a "concordat" of good employment practice, but I'm not quite sure who concorded with whom. UCEA was probably involved, possibly UCU as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Job postings are mere ephemera. Dlabtot (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, all. I'll take the opinions back to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly right. They can be reliable, but you can't extrapolate from them to generalizations about a job. That's OR. There are lots of things they could be reliable for, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)