Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Now then, there is another contention that this content doesn't satisfy

WP:NPOV

has been acheive (simply by avoiding any point-of-view and just sticking to the verifiable facts rather than the verifiable opinions).

So, while I don't think that the secondary sources are necessarily required to satisfy either of these contentions, I would not mind an expert opinion of their reliability in terms of being secondary sources of this content. If there are any other contentions (a recent one which was debunked was

^discuss

18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can agree that it sounds a bit

neutral way to present the information would be:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'" (citation)

Wjhonson

18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That to me would be a neutral expression presenting both *sides* of that topic. Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think that is a workable solution. I definitely see your point with regards to

^discuss

19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is one editor who still feels that this information is in violation of

^discuss

20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, going to BLP noticeboard may be a good idea; I think reliability issues are settled. For the record, I don't think this editor is right and BLP does not apply here, but better experts than me are available there to address that particular issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for your help on the reliability of sources issue (and I appreciate your insight on BLP as well). I tend to agree with you, but let's see what they say at the BLP noticeboard. Much gratitude to all the editors who helped us out here! --

^discuss

03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Search engine optimization is a featured article candidate. Due to the nature of the subject, we have relied heavily on web sources, including several prominent blogs.

• SearchEngineLand.com - Industry journal published in blog format
• SearchEngineWatch.com - Industry journal published in zine format
• Matt Cutts' blog - Personal blog of a Google insider, used as a primary source about Google

A reviewer has asked for community input as to whether these sources, and others used in the article, are reliable or not. Please comment here or there. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply about blog reliability at #The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer. Briefly: 1) are the blog claims controversial or contradicted? If yes, consider removing that info, if not, keep it but add in text information that the source comes from blog X by Y.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there are a lot more articles and stubs that have the same problem. What was said for the SEO article is also true for a lot of existing and missing articles about any type of internet marketing. Its the platform of choice. All print publications in affiliate marketing switched to blogs over the years as their online publishing CMS. A lot of other sites did as well, including sites that were always online publications only, but used some sort of CMS in the past. See my comments here at discussion for the SEO nomination as featured article candidate (starts at the first line, I created an anchor). Jeochman also started a discussion about some rephrasing or changes to Wikipedia guidelines to more reflect reality than they do now see here. We will run into the issue time and again and I have to say that it is getting old in some cases where you have to explain over and over again that site xyz is a reliable news source that happened to switch their CMS to WordPress. That did not change their editorial process nor the way how they research facts. The switch to a blog did not make those publications become sloppy. I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible, because it will only get worse --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a key point is whether the source is fact checked; if it is than it doesn't matter if they publish via blog, paper of papyrus :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. This article was promoted. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Every once in a while someone tries to "correct" the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article with their pronunciation, which usually results in a few pointless edits until we reach a compromise. So I decided to research the issue, and discovered (unsurprisingly) that people pronounce it in many different ways: "sness", "snez", "s-nes", "s-n-e-s", "super nes", "super nintendo", etc. The ideal statement for the article then would be along the lines of "English speakers pronounce SNES in various ways, including ...". The hard part is finding a reliable source, as AFAICT no one has bothered to write an article on the subject. I have an argument for using what is normally an unreliable source, but I suspect my line of reasoning will be opposed by some editors. Step by step, the reasoning is:

1. If someone posted their claimed pronunciation to a blog or forum,
   WP:V
   says we could use that under the following conditions:
   1. The source is used in an article about that person.
   2. The claim is relevant to the person's notability. This is more about whether the statement should be in Wikipedia at all rather than whether this source should be used to source the statement.
   3. The claim is not contentious. I suppose this means "No one reasonably thinks the author is lying"?
   4. The claim is not unduly self-serving.
   5. The claim is not about third parties or events. This is satisfied by the definition of the post being considered.
   6. We can verify the identity of the author.
2. While it's not explicitly allowed, as
   WP:V
   generally consider a source's merit only as a secondary source, I can think of no reason that blog or forum post couldn't be a primary source for the statement "Person X pronounces SNES as P" in any article (besides "Oh noes! It's a forum post, and forum posts are not allowed!"). This relaxes the first WP:V criterion to "The source is used in an article about the author or to source a statement (in any article) that the author makes the claim". Also, the second criterion shifts to whether the new statement is appropriate for its article, rather than whether it is relevant to the author's article. We still have to meet criteria 3–6.
3. Of course, we don't particularly care about Person X in this case, just the fact that someone pronounces it that way; this blog or forum post could be used for that purpose as well if you accept step 2. Since "someone" doesn't depend on knowing the identity of that someone, the sixth WP:V criterion no longer really makes sense (the author is trivially identifiable as "someone"). Note that criteria 3–5 still apply, as do the modified 1 and 2.
4. A statement "someone pronounces SNES as P" is not particularly notable, of course. We can cite a number of such forum/blog posts to strengthen it to "some people pronounce SNES as P". Note that "a number of forum posts" could all be in a single thread, so the number of actual <ref>s need not grow unmanageable.
5. If we have statements "some people pronounce SNES as P1" and "some people pronounce SNES as P2" sourced as in step 4, we can rewrite them as "People pronounce SNES in different ways, such as P1 and P2". Note that one thread could have both posts supporting P1 and posts supporting P2, further reducing the number of <ref>s required. P3, P4, and so on can be added similarly.

In general, this sort of thing could support a statement of existence like "Some people believe Y about X" or "People believe different things about X, including but not limited to Y1 and Y2". It cannot be used to support statements like "Everyone/No one believes Y about X", or any quantitative statement about levels of belief or non-belief in Y, or "few/many/most" semi-quantitative statements, or any indication as to whether Y is actually true or false.

This could also apply to

Any thoughts? I've read some of the past discussion in various talk archives, but it only went as far as step 2 in anything I've found. Sometimes there was consensus, and sometimes not. Anomie 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• as there is no consensus--or the balance may be changing-- and as opinion about this varies with whom you ask, simply use the best source you can, and word it in the clearest way. For disputed pronuciation or spelling, I like the wording, "It is sometimes written/pronounced X, and sometimes Y." The only problem is when there are conventional RSs for X, and only a blog for Y. In general, your description of the situation above is--in my opinion,as always-- the fullest presentation of it that has yet been written. DGG 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have such a statement already, I'm mainly looking for comments on my reasoning for use of forum threads in this unorthodox manner. Especially if the consensus here is "that's acceptable", I can point to this discussion in support of the use. Anomie 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. Give a full presentation of pros and cos for various names, either in a separate section or a footnote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "pros and cons" of the various pronunciations are relevant to the article, and I certainly can't source any such presentation. The current footnote just mentions the existence of the various pronunciations, and the effect this has on choice of indefinite article in English.

I am interested in a discussion of the merits of my argument for considering a forum thread to be a reliable source for this particular type of statement. Anomie 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Basicially forum thread is a reliable source only if no more reliable source can be presented. See

WP:RSEX#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. This would be an exception, as we usually don't accept forums as reliable sources - but if no better refs are presented, I think it can be mentioned.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an "Oh noes! It's a forum post!" response. Your two wikilinks seem to be considering reliability as a secondary source, or assume the "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" criterion of

WP:V#SELF cannot be met. In this case, the use is as a primary source supporting the fact that someone states the opinion that the author states in the post. The use is along the same lines as sourcing the fact "Some cows are brown" by citing a number of photographs of brown cows: proof of existence by presentation of direct evidence. Anomie

01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning, although you may want to consider whether this is not bordering on

WP:OR (I'd think not but it's close...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad my reasoning makes sense, and thank you for your input. Specifically, I'd be concerned about it being

WP:SYN, but I agree it isn't quite there. The reasoning depends on a bit of logic and a bit of summary, but there doesn't seem to be any novel conclusion. Anomie

19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a ''Nintendo Power'' which clarified that it is pronounced "Super NES"?--Flamgirlant 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote from the September 2000 issue of Nintendo Power here, but "after checking with our legal team and passing a survey around the lunchroom" doesn't sound that official—it sounds to me like legal said "no official pronunciation we know of" so they took a small survey. Perhaps that forum post is inaccurate, or perhaps there is a second issue addressing the question, but until someone supplies the citation information and relevant quote.... Anomie 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this discussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, produces the CCG Magic: The Gathering. As part of their website, [7], they regularly produce informational columns [8] and provide specific information on cards [9]. They also answer questions [10] . Sometimes the articles can be a bit silly (I included one for an example), but in general, I feel it's clearly a professional site with an acceptable standard for accuracy. Now there may be concerns about marketing bias and other such issues, but I think that the appropriate response is to use them with a slight level of caution, and if other reliable sources contradict them, to include that contradiction if it comes up. IOW, I believe that usage of the site is acceptable in general, and only individual specific concerns are worth covering. Is this acceptable or not? I've invited the person who disagrees with this to make their position clear, but you can also read about it on the MTG Wikiproject's discussion page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a magic player myself, I am actually familiar with the website, and would certainly agree it has many valuable informations. There is indeed concern about marketing and bias, this is addressed by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves - however I don't think this would be much of a case here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, this is a gross misrepresentation. I've only been removing a narrow case of references; claims of "Notable cards" sourced only to WOTC's website. Since when do we cite the publisher of a product as a source for opinionated claims about their product? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would a possible compromise be: card X is considered notable by the publisher'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested you add your perspective here. Perhaps instead of saying I'm wrong, you can be more clear on your position, since the previous discussion I've had with you indicates that you're not just concerned about this particular usage, but about overall usage of Wizards.com in general. Am I wrong about that? And in this case,I think you're mistaken in your representation of the situation as well. in many cases, there weren't opinions about cards (though sometimes there were, but those were often unsourced to anywhere, let alone wizards.com), but instead nothing but facts about specific cards. If you'd just edited the various iffy examples of notable cards, that'd be one thing, but your methods to me indicated a wider problem with using wizards.com at all. Do you have no objection to using them in some cases, such as to say which was the first card to have a given attribute? Or the last? That's not exactly an opinionated statement, is it? Why then, do you remove it here [11] and here [12]FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't have these bulleted lists of trivia; instead, incorporating them into the body of the article. The first thing we need to do with eliminate this heavy element of parroting WOTC's party line on their products. Why are we citing the official site of the publisher of a product for critical reception of that product? Why should we mention their faux critical reception at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first would be a style issue, not well-addressed here. It's not about sources at all. The second would be, um, confusing to me. As what critical reception is apparent in "this is the first card to have double-digit power and toughness" ? I'm afraid I don't see your comment as applicable to the individual situations over all. Perhaps if you gave an example of a usage that concerns you? FrozenPurpleCube 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be parroting WoTC, you're right. And maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've been removing, but if a source is an article on wizards.com, it is certainly quotable, as it is not actually the entity that is Wizards of the Coast itself, but one person writing an article. And if a source is gatherer...well, that should be a statistical resource, and should still be fine. If the source was just "wizards.com," then that's wrong. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Every card that isn't a stock reprint of something is the first card to do something. Every single card introduces something new, even if it's something trivially new (such as a new combination of old ideas). Why are we saying that such-and-such card is notable when the only source is a form of advertising? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's nothing wrong with use of self-published sources, and Wizards.com is a reputable site that isn't simply blind advertising, but a professional website that provides content which you haven't actually impeached. FrozenPurpleCube 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the question of whether what a card does is unique or not, that's one that exists regardless of sources, so I don't feel it's relevant here. When it comes right down to it, I could probably find unique and verifiable information about a huge number of cards. I believe some editorial discretion will be needed. FrozenPurpleCube 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Every card is unique, and deciding on our own which ones are most unique is definitely original research. Now, using reliable sources (SCG, Inquest, Scrye, MTGS, etc.) would be different, but deciding on your own or using a company mouthpiece isn't a good way to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this Gatherer page, Spellweaver Volute is the only card that enchants an instant. Is that original research? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it's original research to claim that that is important. Fugitive Wizard is the first 1/1 Wizard with no game text. Kavu Glider is the first Kavu with enemy-colored activated abilities. Every card is unique. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Our deciding what cards are most unique may be original opinion, but our deciding what cards to cover on a given page is nothing more than editorial discretion. It's not original research to use our own opinions and reasoning to write a page. If it were, we couldn't write any pages at all. In any case, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That editorial discretion, as with all NPOV disputes, needs to flow from the form that the reliable sources take. I'm disputing that any card not covered by a third-party source isn't noteworthy. (Most of the "notable" cards, before I first started trimming these lists, were pretty silly.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To repeat my statement, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. That's the problem here. You can't even accept the invitational cards if verified solely at Wizards.com. I'm sorry, but your opposition is excessive and not supported by actual examples. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, as long as those guidelines are followed, wizard.com can be used as a source. Let's review them one by one:

• it is relevant to their notability; -> from the preceding discussion, the answer seems yes
• it is not contentious; -> from an online dict. "involving or likely to cause controversy"; I don't see any arguments that the information would be controversial
• it is not unduly self-serving; -> again, I don't see that much bias on wizards.com, although care should be taken to distinguish articles from purely marketing pages
• it does not involve claims about third parties; -> I don't believe so?
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; -> I don't believe so?
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. -> this is important - read: state that the source is publisher's webpage, wizards.com, in the article.

Bottom line is that if its only a producer who says its product is notable, we shouldn't repeat their claims, but if the producer is also a publisher of a widely respect (correct me if I am wrong) journal or informative website, that source can be considered more reliable, but it should be made clear in the text that a possibility of bias or unreliability is higher - so if there is no clear consensus of for or against (as seems to be the case), I suggest stating in text (or via dedicated footnote) that the claim about notability comes from wizards.com. PS. I'd suggest discussing the reliability of publications on wizard.com - is it a respectable site or 'company's mouthpiece' - as crucial in solving this debate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the official site is being used as a source of importance for trivial claims, ones made nowhere else. WOTC had a promotional contest! (Source: WOTC's contest) WOTC made a card based on a design submitted by the winner of a WOTC-run tournament! (Source: WOTC) WOTC considers such-and-such card from an old set influential in their new product, out next week! (Source: WOTC)

Generating interest and claiming that the game is important is unduly self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please convince me how the content of Wizards.com is unduly self-serving, with examples and explanations. You do realize that the keyword is unduly, which means that it would be self-serving beyond a reasonable amount. That Wizards produces content as a benefit to increasing their product sales is understood. This doesn't mean that their content is nothing but advertising pap with no reasonable material on it at all. See, that's the problem, your objection is not based on any particulars. It's a blanket prohibition that's not supported with any actual reason for it other than a conceptual one. Sorry, but I don't feel there's an inherent problem with Wizards.com content. It only merits reasonably caution. Oh, if you don't believe that the Invitational and YMTC were covered by third parties, please go to Starcitygames.com where you can look it up. I don't think adding those sources would be meaningful to these articles, as I feel it's only neccessary to add sources to demonstrate the truth of certain statements, nothing more. But if you feel a desire to do so, go ahead. [User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Out next week? That's not good, per

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. I think talking about notability of already printed cards, especially older, using wizards.com, is fine, but new ones? Nope, per CB ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Predictions aren't really at issue. My point is rather that WOTC has an interest in promoting even their older sets, as they are frequently mined for reprinted cards and ideas; in fact, every core set (a yearly release) and indeed the next set and the last four sets were based on making nostalgic references to older sets. There's lots of "Wasn't Invasion a great set? I know I sure liked it. By the way, there are new versions of the Invasion characters in Planar Chaos, on sale right now!" It's not quite that blatant, but it is self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me some examples and explanations of unduly self-serving. Simply saying "Here's this, and here's this now" might conceivable be beneficial to them, but is it unduly so? I don't see you convincing anybody of that yet. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WOTC just released four sets in a row that relied heavily on reprints or references to previous sets, and a fifth is on the way. Do you not understand how generating interest in older sets is self-serving, given this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but once again, I have to ask you to provide examples. You're merely asking me to assume they're biased because it's logical to you. But this doesn't demonstrate actual unduly self-serving bias on their part. That doesn't fly. If you want to say "We should use caution in using this" fine, I agree. But that means examination of each individual situation as it comes up. Can you provide one single example at all of an actual problem with the content of Wizards.com, preferably with a rebuttal from another reliable source so we're not relying on your opinion that it's wrong? You haven't so far, and I'm not even requiring you to provide a third-party rebuttal if you can just provide a decent case example. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read:

WP:SPS. Therefore, I suggest you reserve objection to any use of Wizards.com content to the particulars of the circumstances. FrozenPurpleCube

23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?

Why are we not following the lead set by the independent coverage, and instead giving undue weight to the company mouthpiece? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said this to you many times before, you're welcome to be skeptical. That means caution and an individual examination of the circumstances behind any decision, not a blanket refusal to use them. Concern means you carefully look for a problem before doing something, not that there is an over-riding problem that prevents it. Do you see the difference? Therefore, I once again, ask you to demonstrate an actual problem with Wizards's content. If you can't, then I must say, be cautious, be skeptical, but don't deny it without individual examination of the circumstances. FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WOTC's content is that WOTC has a vested interest in giving undue weight to their own products, as all corporate mouthpieces are generally assumed to be doing. (Why else would they exist?)

The question I pose to you is such: when has wizards.com been critical of a product they're selling? When have they ever seen fit not to cover WOTC's latest tournament or set as unimportant? Why can we trust them to be impartial about what is important and what is not, regarding their own products? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of them giving undue weight to anything. Not being independently critical is not the same as being unduly self-serving. But to answer your question, well here: [13]. In any case, I still don't see any actual problems being demonstrated by you. Can you give me a reliable source that shows them not owning up to a mistake or problem? Show me any kind of cover-up or astro-turfing on their part? FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have any sort of examples of gross malfeasance on their part. Merely a promotional tone and emphasis on self-promotion. Isn't that enough? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. See

WP:IAR. You seem to be stuck on the particulars and missing the spirit. FrozenPurpleCube

00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If wizards.com isn't a promotional outlet, what is it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no demonstrated objection to a problem with content overall on Wizards.com, then the concern must be with specific content. Go for it. Name some examples. Point out some problems. Perhaps I might even agree with you. But you'll have to make a good case. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wizards.com is a promotional outlet" is the demonstrated objection. Every single new set is described in glowing terms. Information is rationed according to WOTC's promotional plan. Wizards.com doesn't comment on WOTC's ongoing legal matters. Promotional activities (You Make The Card, upcoming events, previews of upcoming sets) are intermixed freely with coverage of current events, with little dsitinction drawn between them.

The problems are more ones of omission and tone, ones that are part and parcel of the editors being hired by WOTC and the whole site belonging to WOTC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't demonstrated an actual problem with specific content being unduly self-serving. Please do that, or try to consider it in terms of individual situations. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to support your assumption that there is a problem which merits blanket rejection of wizards.com. Any problems that do occur should be handled as they occur. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good, because I'm not blanket rejecting wizards.com. I'm rejecting it as a source for the implicit claim that a specific card or group of cards is noteworthy, as they have an interest in claiming that their products are noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, who has suggested that use of Criteria from Wizards.com for what makes a card notable or not? I'm not even aware they have criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody. I'm merely removing both unsourced claims that cards are notable, as well as claims that cards are notable based on insuffucient sources, such as self-published fansites and wizards.com. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it's obvious that wizards.com is a source of verifiable information. Which means of course, they can be used to verify whether or not a card meets the criteria established for notability. If you disagree as to what makes a card notable or not, then I suggest you go to the discussion on that subject. Make your points there. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com is not a good source of claims that such-and-such card is noteworthy. It's a passable source of certain types of information, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not what's being done here, sorry. The idea of what characteristics determined whether a card is notable or not is not related to any claims by wizards.com as far as I know. FrozenPurpleCube 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The characteristic of being notable, on Wikipedia, is having been covered in an independent, reliable source. Wizards.com isn't independent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" is used in the English sense in the "Notable cards" sections, not in the

Settlers of Catan editors about how the desert tile is mentioned in the article without proof of its notability. --Ashenai

02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of

WP:N is not relevant here. You are confused, perhaps because in English, things can have multiple usages where their meanings are not quite identical. If you'd like, I suppose we could change the title of the section to "Selected Cards" or some other such title. FrozenPurpleCube

02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants an example of the promotional tone, I suggest this article, written shortly after the release of

There's an existing discussion I've pointed you to on the subject of what criteria makes a card notable. Of course, you could well argue that it's ultimately subjective anyway, but then, I've always said the whole concept of notability is subjective. That's an ongoing debate which isn't likely to be resolved, and is in fact, getting steadily more complicated. (see the recent addition to

WP:NOT for an example.) FrozenPurpleCube

02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And what's the problem with the content of the article? Give me some direct examples. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything, but that's because [14] is much better. FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That discussion sucks. It's people arguing about their own

WP:MTG

replaced with "someone." Not a significant improvement.

As for the problems with that article, any article on Wizards.com touting WOTC's latest product as "possibly the greatest Johnny set of all time" needs to be immediately discarded as a potential source, as does the wrap-up for a publicity stunt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest instead of insulting the discussion, which helps nobody, you contribute your own clearly articulated position on the subject and see if you can develop consensus for it. But your opposition to the wizards.com articles makes no sense to me. For the quote you gave, I'd simply say "person x described it as the greatest Johnny set of all time". But then, I'd do that no matter who said or where. That kind of statement merits a quotation, not a simple usage. FrozenPurpleCube 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the other source, I think it's quite a valid one for information on the process of how the card was chosen. Do you believe there's a problem with it, if so what? FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a valid source to justify mention of the contest in the first place. Once we've justified mention of the contest at all, it's a passable source for describing the contest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, given the standard in

WP:SPS, even if we leave aside the issue of the criteria for what makes a notable card. And if you think that the idea that "A card which was developed through the input of a player through a contest by Wizards" isn't a valid criteria for a notable card, then I only have to say you can easily be proven wrong. So don't even begin to suggest it or I'll think you're just being stubborn. FrozenPurpleCube

03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have you reached a compromise? Or do you need further input on reliability?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, where I am is here: Don't make lists of notable cards (or example cards or whatever) with no sources or WOTC-owned sources, because

I dunno about anyone else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Article deleted a couple of times at

Article moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing added

Article has been moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing has been added to two of four sources. The Time, NY Time and AP sources were discovered in a proprietary LexisNexis database. The indictment is a paper document obtained by me from the federal court. Also, the article is now, inexplicably to me, no longer visible. Thank you. --I3142p168 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the reliability matter solved then? Or do involved editors have any further questions?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the sourcing adequate, and there is no requirement at all that the sources be accessible freely--people are assumed to have access to libraries. DGG 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry for not responding in atimely manner. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned if this site is a reliable source: [15]. It neither lists where the information comes from, or even gives a date for the club's founding. I am concern that it's not suitable, and that a better source should be found. I can't even find out anything about the person responsible for the site's content. How do we know David Hayes (the person claiming the copyright) knows what the oldest anything is? I'm just not sure it should be trusted. This isn't to say the information is controversial and needs to be removed but I think a better source would be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The author is Bill Wall as is stated elsewhere on the website. Wall is a chess author (e.g. Wall, Bill (1988). Grob's Attack. Chess Enterprises.

WP:RS and I am looking for a better source if that helps the discussion here. However, the question as to whether this source should be cited, pending a successful search for a better reference, is for the talk page of the article and that is where you should be seeking a consensus. BlueValour

20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But the page itself doesn't mention Bill Wall, and exactly why should we trust David Hayes to know whether or not Bill Wall knows the truth? As for Bill Wall himself, unfortunately, publishing a book (or several) on Chess doesn't an expert in history make. Especially since the book isn't directly related to Oxford or Chess History. Where can we find his credentials endorsed by anyone else? I'm not even sure Chess Enterprises is a reliable publisher. If it's the one describe here [16] (and if that is indeed an accurate description, which it might not be, but I don't know that it isn't.), then it's a publishing out of a garage. Which makes for a vanity press. Therefore, I'm not inclined to rely on it. I'm also concerned that you replaced a SPS with the same source under a different flag. That doesn't fix the problem, it just repeats it. Again, I suggest looking for a better source, or if you can't do that, referring it directly to the claim by the club itself. That would be far more acceptable. Heck, I'm not even removing the information, just objecting to use the current sources. FrozenPurpleCube 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets are reliable. A minor webpage or a book publisher are less reliable, but unless the information is contradictory to something else we have it can stay - although it may be a good idea to mention a source in the text (ex. Bill Wall states that...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• “Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.”
  • Handleman, Scott, "Trivializing Jew-Hatred," in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p. 13.
• “Apologists for Israel’s repression of Palestinians toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end.”
  • Cockburn, Alexander and St. Clair, Jeffrey, preface to The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p.vii.
• "More importantly, Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics. Mostly, he tells us what we already know."
  • Paul, Ari. "Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the Abuse of History". Tikkun, October 11, 2005.
• "Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies."
  • Baltimore Sun
    , February 7, 2007.
• “The lack of debate is, of course, a measure of the power of the Israel lobby to suppress discussion of its role, and the fear the lobby stirs among American writers, especially non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites, a death sentence in the profession."
  • Shatz, Adam. "Dialogue of the Deaf". The Guardian, March 24, 2006.
• "'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said."
  • Cohler-Esses, Larry. "Carter Faces, and Disarms, Jewish Crowd". The Jewish Week, January 26 2007.
• “The Great Silencer: No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most important weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite.”
  • Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University, March 2006.

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel.

• “The charge has been leveled at Jimmy Carter over his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I, too, didn't like the book...Still, Carter's overall point about Israeli occupation of the West Bank is apt, and calling him all sorts of names does not change that...It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel."
  • Cohen, Richard. "Cheapening the Fight Against Hatred"
    . Washington Post, February 6, 2007.)
• Philadelphia Inquirer: Truth at Last

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.

• ADC Denounces New Efforts to Chill Academic Freedom, Press Release,
  Arab Americans Anti-Discrimination Committee
  , September 26 2002

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Rashid Khalidi, a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch says:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus."

I find the sources reliable. They are from a collection of print news media as well as scolars in the field of politics. Others have disagreed at the talk page. // Liftarn

Your examples here look acceptable to me. However, the reliability of your sources doesn't seem to be the real issue on the talk page discussion you cited; rather, the issue seems to be that others don't want these additions in the article at all. On that front, I have two suggestions for you. First, either establish your case that one of the books you cite is a scholarly work or find a paper in a respected peer-reviewed journal to bolster your position; this will be unlikely to convince the others, but will help your case in step 2. Second, take the matter to an official channel for dispute resolution, such as

Mediation, as I think anything less isn't going to settle the issue. Anomie

12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While you are probably correct in your belief that no matter of sources will ever convince them. It will not matter if the source is a scholarly work or a paper in a respected, peer-reviewed journal as that issue already have been adressed ("They are not scholars of antisemitism"). As they are only used as source for "Some have argued" the demand of a scolary work by an expert on antisemitism published on a peer-reviewed stone tablet handed down from the sky by God is way too much. // Liftarn

In fact, the issues here are much more complex, and it's rather disappointing that User:Liftarn uses this board to mis-characterize them, in an attempt to get support for his position. To begin with, the sources used are not scholarly sources about antisemitism, but for the most part are people who have voiced fairly extreme views, then claimed that they have been, or perhaps will be, accused of antisemitism. These claims are entirely self-serving, and in no case actually provide any example of who has accused them of antisemitism; they're just vague smears. Second, the material itself is not relevant to the antisemitism article, which is about actual antisemitism, not vague claims that people have been accused of antisemitism but deny the charges. Third, it is a truism that everyone accused of antisemitism insists that they are not antisemitic, and is being targeted for political reasons - David Duke says it, Jew Watch says it, etc. Even if we had more than a vague claim from someone that they had been accused of antisemitism, the protestations of innocence are predictable, and not notable. Fourth, the entire topic is not particularly notable; one would never find this kind of vague, self-serving, political material in a real encyclopedia. Fifth, the material has already been rejected by AfD processes - Liftarn has been trying to shop this material around encyclopedia articles for a year now, including it in the List of political epithets article, and at least a half-dozen others. The material has been rejected by a wide variety of editors, and User:Liftarn's edits at this point are disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Jayjg is a bit overzealous in protecting what he perhaps view as an attack on his political views, but the facts are

1. the sources used are scholarly sources or from other
   reliable sources
2. the people cited are not extremists (that he says so may say more about him than the sources)
3. the claims are clearly not self-serving (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter)
4. the material is relevant to the article, but I have asked for suggestion where it would be better placed with no luck (what Jayjg refers to as "to shop this material around")
5. I don't see Jayjg trying to remove the criticism section from the islamophobia article
6. the subject is notable enough to have been the subject of at least two books (The Politics of Anti-Semitism and Beyond Chutzpah)
7. this material has not been "rejected by AfD processes"
8. it is true that some editors
   don't like it
   and go to some lenghts fighting over this
9. bringing in David Duke and Jew Watch seems like an attempt at poisoning the well

// Liftarn

Regarding Liftarn's claims,

1. In fact only one (Mearsheimer and Walt) could be even claimed to be scholarly, that one is highly controversial, and in any event the scholarship of the authors does not extend to antisemitism.
2. The people cited have generally made extreme claims, and Liftarn needs to focus on edits, not editors.
3. All the sources except Paul Ari and Adam Shatz are self-serving.
4. The material is not relevant to the article, which is about actual antisemitism, not political posturing and self-serving whining.
5. I don't much about Islamophobia, and I have no idea why Liftarn would insist I have to edit that article.
6. Both works are polemics, and if Liftarn is looking for a place to shop this nonsense around, those articles would be likely candidates.
7. This material was indeed rejected by AfD processes; it was Liftarn's insistence on including the material in List of political epithets that finally exposed the absurdity of the list, and led to its deletion.
8. Attempts to mis-characterize the reasons for opposition to this material are dishonest at best.
9. Rather than poisoning the well, bringing Duke and Jew Watch points out that everyone rejects the charge of antisemitism; it is essentially a
   tautology
   to state that a person accused of antisemitism rejects the charge. Even the most obvious candidates (and their followers) will insist that they are not, so even if one were able to find reliable scholarly sources discussing actual examples (not vague innuendo), the statement that a person so accused rejects the charge adds no information or value. If someone, anyone, actually accepted the charge of antisemitism, that would be noteworthy.

Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Strawman agrument. It is not required that they are scolars of antisemitism, they are scolars of politics and that makes their views relevant since it deals with the misuse of antisemitism as a political tool.
2. Ad hominem attack and false.
3. Dubious and any way irrelevant.
4. the misuse of antisemitism as a political tool is relevant to the article (if you have a suggestion for a more suitable article please say so)
5. Just pointing out your double standards.
6. False, and in any care still irrelevant.
7. But not everyone rejects it when it's applied to others. The sources talk about the use of the charge of antisemitism as a political weapon in general terms, not that they specificly have been targeted

// Liftarn

1. Actually, it is required they be scholars of antisemitism. As explained elsewhere, the claim that this is an example of "misuse of antisemitism as a political tool" and therefore "scholars of politics" can comment on it is circular - there is no evidence that this is an "misuse of antisemitism as a political tool" except from those who make the claims in the first place. Moreover, most of the sources are not even "scholars of politics".
2. You have misunderstood/misused the term "ad hominem".
3. Highly relevant; people commenting about themselves are recognized to have a built-in bias which makes them inherently less reliable.
4. The claim of such misuse by people who allege they have been accused of it, without any evidence of that claim, is not relevant to an article about actual antisemitism. I've already suggested where such material might be more appropriate.
5. Please avoid
   uncivil
   statements; there are 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia that I do not edit, and it is not a "double standard" for me not to edit them. I don't know what the contents of the article are, and have no idea if the situations are at all comparable, but in any event attempts to bully me into editing it fall on deaf ears.
6. Not sure what you're referring to at this point.
7. Supporters of Duke and Jew Watch reject the charge of antisemitism when applied to them. Supporters of anyone accused of antisemitism invariably reject the charge. And certainly Carter is talking about being specifically targeted; Mearsheimer and Walt pretty much are as well, in a pre-emptive way. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As a general comment, I tend to be wary of statements that say "some people argue". A statement like that raises a huge red flag for me, in that it is so often misused as a weasle phrase to make a relatively Fringe view seem more significant than it is. I immediately suspect such a statement, and want to know who exactly is making the argument and why. I almost alwasys come to the conculsion that the statement should be directly attributed to the individuals who are making the claims. I am not saying that this is the case in this situation... but it does make me suspicious.

In this situation, I would be inclined to accept the citations as being reliable sources if they were broken out into individual claims and attributed to their authors. However, that would expose each to scrutiny as being

Fringe

. In other words... taken out of the context of the article in question, I would call these reliable, but I have difficulty doing so within that context. And used to support a "some people" claim I am even more reluctant to accept them. I would want any citation in support of such a statement to demonstrate that "some" is actually a sizable number... more than just "a couple of people with chips on their sholders".

To sum up... I think the sources are individually reliable under this guideline, but they do not properly support the statement "some people"... and when used in the context of this article, they fail several other policies and guidelines. In fact, I really don't think this is truely an RS issue. It seems much more a NPOV (and especially an Undue weight) issue. Perhaps you should raise this at that policy's talk page? Blueboar 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, I agree with Blueboar that it looks like the Undue Weight/FRINGE issue; a discussion needs to resolve the question whether it is a view important enough to include in the article or not. For the record, I think it is a widely enough heard view to merit an inclusion, but let me try to help the discussion by addressing the concern this board was designed to deal with, that of reliability. are the sources used to back up the above assertion reliable? Per

1. AK Press publisher: radical, but has some notable names, and is not directly criticized - borderline, but yes
2. Alexander Cockburn author: controversial but has also a number of positive reviews and endorsments
3. Tikkun (magazine): criticized by some but again applouded and endorsed by some, nothing out of ordinary for any magazine, and seems notable enough, same for the author Michael Lerner (rabbi)
4. Washington Post
   - mainstream newspapers, reliable per our rules
5. The Jewish Week
   : local newspaper, but doesn't seem unreliable (no criticism reported)
6. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University - Harvard sais it all, and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are reliable scholars; their paper (note it has an article on Wiki - The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) - may be controversial, but seems quite reliable
7. Richard Cohen (Washington Post columnist)
   - notable mainstream journalist
8. Rashid Khalidi - reliable scholar, if engaged in some heated political disputes, one should distinguish between his academic and non-academic works, the latter should be less reliable

Overall, the sources seem reliable, and the amount of them indicates to me that it is not a 'fringe' view.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the main issue, that they are vague claims written by non-experts, and reliability is entirely dependent on context. For example, an oped written in the online "Comment is free" section of The Guardian website by Adam Shatz is about as reliable as Adam Shatz himself. It is a reliable source in that we can reliable say Adam Shatz wrote it; but the contents themselves are not The Guardian's position, only Adam Shatz's. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are OK and prove the fact that was written by Liftarn. --Dezidor 18:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, could you elaborate on that? It does not help to just declair something OK, without explaining why you think that. Piotrus and I are both saying that we think the sources are reliable, but that they have other issues that need to be looked at... issues that seriously impact whether they can be used in the specific article, Antisemitism. Those issues need to be discussed and resolved (mostly at other policy talk pages and at the article talk page). So... while they do "prove" that someone wrote something, they still may not be "OK". Blueboar 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are sources reliable was written by Piotrus and it is needless to write it again. You wrote you think they "do not properly support the statement "some people"..." I think that view is important and sources prove that many authorities have this opinion. --Dezidor 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Dezidor, you're also the person who thinks that David Irving has not been discredited. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are also the person who thinks that sources like

Anti Defamation League are reliable. --Dezidor

14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for everything, but, unlike you, I don't insist they're "extremist" either, and remove links to them and wikistalk others as an IP editor so my edits won't accrue to my account. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, my point is that even though the sources are reliable, using them in the Antisemitism article may not be "OK" because of what other policies say. RS is not the only issue here. Blueboar 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if the al Jazeera video and transcript linked in naked short selling (see end of "media coverage" is a reliable source and thus is worthwhile to be linked. My tendency is to think that it is not, but I am interested in hearing other views.--Samiharris 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the entire media section is full of refs to popular press. Since I am not aware of any connection between Al Jazeera and the subject matter, it seems to me that it is as reliable as any other mainstream media outlet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not its reputation, but if that is Wikipedia's policy on Al Jazeera I of course will not dispute it.--Samiharris 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a policy on Al Jazeera. But I am not aware it is considered unreliable - you are free to make your case for it, but please inform editors on that article's talk page, as well as on related noticeboards and projects (media, etc.) that we are discussing this, because the outcome could influence more than one article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the english version of Al Jazeera highly reliable on all subjects, including the Middle East, and certainly including topics like these. Ask me for help with evidence if needed. I strongly doubt the other language versions are even approximately identical, and they would have to be discussed by those who can read them. DGG 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it has. While I respect the opinions that have been offered, I do not see how a propaganda outlet run by a Persian Guilf government can be said to produce reports that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.--Samiharris 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can present sources to back up your opinion, it would help. So far, I would only recommend noting in text that the given reference, if controversial, is to Al Jazeera - and let readers read article on it and decide for themselves if they think it biased or unreliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure whether or not Detstar (a GoldenEye 007 fan-site) can be used as a source for information on the GoldenEye 007 article. I do not believe so, as that website is not an official source of information on that game. Of course, given that there are no official GoldenEye websites anymore, could it just be a matter of whose GoldenEye fan-site is the biggest to determine what's "official" and what isn't? SpinyMcSpleen 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial website seems to fail the reliability criteria of being 'mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets'. They may even fall under self-published sources issue. However, I'd say that the bottom line is controversially and attribution: if the information is not controversial, use it, but note in text that it comes from the website in question.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is going on at High School Musical 2, as to if the site tommy2.net can be considered a reliable source. The site has been known for breaking news that interests tweens, however my concern is they don't cite sources themselves, and I can't find any third-party mention of the site. I've asked proponents of the site to back up their claims and cite where Tommy2.net is referenced as a source by a media outlet, even Tiger Beat. Meanwhile, I've decided to be responsible and ask folks who are more knowledgeable than I to weigh in :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The interviews are primary sources and should not be relied on to verify the information in the article. As for the rest of the site it is neither considered an authoritive source nor do we have any guarentees that they check their facts. As an unofficial rule of thumb, sites that would not pass

MartinDK

14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about the validity of the sources used on this page. Note that Mr John Hill who has tried to correct the misquotes and sources used has recieved considerable abuse and character assasination from my Burdak and DrBrij. The article is a seriously flouting many of wiki's principles of a NPOV. Please see the discussion to the article and you get an idea of what is happening. Also speak to John Hill.--Sikh-history 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts also, though they may not be about the same sources; Cunningham was a 19th century amateur anthropologist, and some of the other sources seem dated. I would be very leery of using such material in discussing ethnic origins. DGG (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FAIRlds.org is an apologetic web site operated by

Is there anybody who is considered reliable and who agrees or disagrees with their claim of being peer reviewed and similar?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They might be treated like the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an information source that tries to follow the way of thinking of an organized church. They could be a good source of a Mormon standpoint on various issues. Whether they are reliable on matters of fact (for example, 19th century history of that church) would need more study.

One of the citations to the work of FAIR in the First Vision article is http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/First_Vision_accounts. That particular reference looks to be balanced and informative although not neutral, and I would keep it in the article. It's like a particularly convenient presentation of all the arguments for one side of a debate. Readers of WP are not likely to be misled, and if they care enough about the topic to read the First Vision article at all, chances are they won't mind being referred to this external link.

The reference list of First Vision consists mostly of work written by Mormons or published in Mormon-affiliated journals. That may be unavoidable, if no-one else has taken the trouble to write about the First Vision topic, though it does cry out for more balance. EdJohnston 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen several cases of people using material posted on blogs, personal websites, online forums et.c. that claims to be from a reliable source (like a print newspaper). Even if it's not possible to check if their version of the article is genuine or entierly fictional is it still reliable? // Liftarn 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sources don't have to be online at all - so urls that reprint reliable sources in unreliable contexts (on blogs, what have you) are only courtesies, they're not required. Judge the reliability of the source by it's origin (in this case, ask only whether the newspaper is reliable). WilyD 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But they have to verifiable too. // Liftarn

Right. But you verify with the newspaper, book or whatever, not on the blog. WilyD 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's like with

WP:AGF. Sure, if possible, do try to verify the blog or similar citation with directly checking the book - but I would put it on a lower priority then, let's say, verifying completely uncited statement.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know AGF also applied to any random homepage. // Liftarn

It doesn't - it applies to the user who adds it. You should not use the reprint in a blog to write the article - that should definitely use the original newspaper article. But providing a link to an online copy is a nice thing to do, even if it's in an unreliable source WilyD 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cheremushkin (from Moscow State University), Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation, InterMarium Volume 5 (an academic journal of nstitute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center). With reliability of author and publisher estabilished, let me bring a few quotes from the journal: p18: "Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] "This [Meltyukhov's - note by P.P.] point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

Polish professor of Jagiellonian University, Andrzej Nowak, in his conference paper writes (p.9): "It would be possible to indicate various examples of more subtle apologias for the Empire, linked with the rejection of all arguments for its victims or critics. Examples which dress themselves in the trappings of the most academic monograph. [...] A more brutal example of the same tendency is expressed in the book by the professional historian from Moscow, Mikhail Meltyukhov, dedicated to the Polish-Soviet conflicts of the twentieth century. These conflicts are, for him, fragments of eternal Western aggression against Russia. When Russia (in this case, Soviet Russia) comes into conflict it is only to take what is rightfully hers. Stalin appears as a genial successor to Catherine II. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the involvement of the USSR in the attack on Poland in September 1939 are presented as purely defensive postures, underlining the primacy of Russian raison d’etat. This posture represented not only Stalin’s profound realism but also historical justice and even – argues Meltyukhov – humanitarianism. In this context the mass deportations of more than half a million people from the territory occupied by the Red Army in September 1939 to camps in the depths of the Soviet Union is presented as a “peacekeeping mission” which prevented the murder of those Poles deported to Siberia by protecting them from the Ukrainians panting with thirst for revenge...". Please also note a damning footnote: "M. Meltyukhov, Sovetsko-polskie voiny. Voienno-politicheskoe protivostoianie 1918-1939 gg., Moskva 2001 – compare my comprehensive review concentrating on the shocking falsehoods in this book – in: A. Nowak, Od imperium do imperium. Spojrzenia na historię Europy Wschodniej, Kraków 2004, p. 258-271."

In light of those two reviews, it has been proposed at Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Criticism and Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Request_for_positive_reviews_of_Soviet-Polish_Wars, that unless positive academic (and preferably Western) reviews of Melt.'s works are presented (or critical reviews of Cheremushkin and Nowak works as partisan are presented), Melt.'s works should not be used as references for alleged Polish attrocities in particular, and areas where his "Stalinist and neoimperial" bias can affect in general (or at least, that such bias should be noted in text). Since in two weeks since discussions at the above discussion page stopped no requested positive reviews have been presented, I would like to ask editors interested in reliablity whether they feel it would now be justified to remove the controversial references to Melt. from our project? Note that nobody is questioning the Melt's reliablity where the references to his work concern purerly military matters (numbers, dates, strategy), only where they concern the issue of national POV, neutrality and undue weight/fringe to controversial statements (ex. about Polish army alleged attrocities not confirmed by any other work).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Update. Nowak in his 2004 book in detail lists bias and inaccuracies concerning Polish-Russian relations in this book, primarily pointing out that Poland is always portrayed as an aggressor and many instances of Russian aggression toward Poland are ignored:

Well, Melt. certainly seems to be a biased source... but I hesitate to clasify him as unreliable, even for his POV claims of attrocities. He meets our guidelines for being published etc. Once again, I find that Fringe and undue weight might well apply but not RS. If it must be used, a direct text attribution seems to be the way to go. Blueboar 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on your statement "He meets our guidelines for being published etc."? Do you mean that we must accept as reliable every work by him? Balcer 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar is certainly correct with pointing out the importance of Fringe and Undue Weight, however I'd like to note that Fringe policy is part of RS (per

WP:ATT/FAQ#Does_this_mean_we_have_to_include_every_crank_view_that_can_get_itself_published.3F answers the issue well, and he cannot be considered a reliable and neutral source on the raised issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it a crank view. I consider it erratic, but necessary to be considered. Once a reputable scholar has published a work, and it has been taken sufficiently seriously by other scholars to refute it in academic periodicals, it may be wrong, it may be fringe, but it is no longer negligible. I've seen the same tendency in other articles to ignore minority views by classifying single books by qualified people that take a strongly revisionist position as crank. . One reputable person is enough. Since other people have commented, you just give all the views. In this case, as his work has not yet been translated into English, you could say that. But his Russian books are held by the major US academic libraries. Minority views do not disappear by calling them crank. Crank in this would be an erratic view expressed only in a blog. DGG 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is scary, but that might be a reason to keep it. Other editors have added some well-founded criticism to the article. My impression from a quick overview is that Meltyukov may represent a certain current of opinion within Russia, however irrational it might seem to us. Stalin was probably not the only one who thought those massacres were justified. This discussion would be different if he were truly an isolated crank, representing no-one but himself. EdJohnston 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question. When do certain views cross from

WP:FRINGE into a controversial but notable mainstream? Fringe is not only, after all, consisted of isolated cranks: there are relatively large communities of neo-Nazis, Holocaust denialers, Stalinism fans and such. Yet despite relatively high notability we don't, for example, cite David Irving or Stalin Society. As Nowak notes in his 2004, indeed, Melt. is not isolated and does indeed represent with his biases a clear trend in Russian historiography. There is however no proof that anybody outside Russia is treating this trend as reliable, and instead, when it's rarely commented upon, we have only critical academic reviews of it. Certainly, this trend is notable enough to be described in articles about it (such as Melt.'s bio) - but I don't see how a view "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts" can be considered reliable or even 'duly weighted' and be cited in other articles?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

11:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it can be cited as a direct quote if a brief explanation of his position is included, which can be done as a ref. e.g.The neo-Stalinist [ref] Russian historian Melt. says that " ". I would not use a quote from that book to justify a statement of controverted fact without some qualification, but I see no reason to omit such sources altogether. DGG (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A

Please see Jossi's answer in the section right above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The section above deals with different types of materials, but looking at the applicable part of Jossi's answer, I guess the answer to my question would be "yes"? PubliusFL 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What appellate court? In the US? A Federal Court? Please provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Federal appellate decision are binding precedent only in the geographic region of appellate jurisdiction, and are just suggestive elsewhere. In the absence of contrary decisions they do represent that state of current legal opinion about what the law is. DGG (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone advise me whether the Statements and Recommendations of the International Herpes Management Forum (Editors of the Journal ‘Herpes’) and sourced from their website, ^[1] are considered a Reliable Source and Verifiable? I have been reverted several times now, without discussion on the article pages, but generalised comments made on my talk page and on other editors pages to the effect of unsourced material, quote mining, and lack of peer reveiwed sources? The particular quotes used are listed below.

“Current antiviral therapy for herpes zoster is moderately effective. Aciclovir, valaciclovir and famciclovir initiated within 72 h of rash onset reduce viral shedding, new lesion formation, time to lesion healing and time to pain resolution” “Current antiviral therapies provide a degree of efficacy against varicella infection and herpes zoster,”^[2]

Where available “Antiviral drugs are useful (for herpes zoster) but have a limited effect on post-herpetic neuralgia prevention.” ^[3]

“Antiviral therapy, oral corticosteroids and neural blockade are appropriate in the pharmacologic management of acute pain in herpes zoster”, “There is only limited clinical evidence to support the use of aspirin, acetaminophen/paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs), opioid analgesics (including tramadol), tricyclic antidepressants (especially nortriptyline), gabapentin and pregabalin in the pharmacologic management of acute pain in herpes zoster “ ^[4]

The following has also been reverted without discussion by the same editor on a separate article on the basis of unsourced material and pseudoscience! And so I seek independent opinion on V and RS before engaging in further attempts at discussion.

Medications are available to ameliorate the pain of PHN, but data suggests these agents provide incomplete pain relief and their use is often accompanied by troubling side effects, especially in the populations of the aged and immuno-compromised, who should be monitored closely.^{[5] [6][7]} Jagra 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think dispute resolution would be preferable here since this seems to be more complicated than just a dispute over whether they are reliable sources or not. Try

MartinDK

09:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Check

WP:RSEX for some comment on medical sources. Has any claims been presented that your source is not reliable?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Piotr, leaving aside generalized accusations that arise from this, made on various user talk pages, such as here but more specifically to RS: here 21st june revert and here 1st july revert

I think dispute resolution should be the last avenue, what I would like to know is there a real issue of RS or just editor prejudices/ opinion?Jagra 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From a policy point of view they are reliable. That does not imply that other reliable sources are wrong. It implies that you can cite them but you need to keep in mind that NPOV means that both views should be represented if reliable sources exist. As for the rest of the content dispute and the various accusations you will want to refer to dispute resolution.

MartinDK

10:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on treatment in professional journals often vary. & I would not necessarily use such statements fro ma research carticle. But these sources are explicitly put forth as representing a medical consensus, and are thus suitable unless challenged. I would still prefer to take such a statement from a source that aimed at a non-professional audience, such as PubMed Plus or some similar source.DGG (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Steam

More specifically,

Steam_(content_delivery)#Crossplatform_Support. I dont think this should be there because its interpretation of primary sources and the given secondary sources is digg.com . What does everyone think? Corpx

19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Forums and other user-edited sources are not reliable. I see no reason not to delete it. There is no way we are going to accept digg.com as a reliable secondary source. That whole section seems like the usual complaining by people who can't tell the difference between Wikipedia and the valve/microsoft/find more yourself complaint department.

MartinDK

08:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone might re-word the paragraph in that article about cross-platform support, perhaps reducing it to a single sentence (with a reference). The fact that the

Steam (content delivery) providers choose not to offer a Linux version is of interest, but the doings on those forums don't seem notable. EdJohnston

19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be noted, but I dont think we should be interpreting it as criticism when no other reliable secondary sources do so Corpx 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Conference proceedings

Resolved

Trawick, Prof. Margaret (1999), "Lessons from Kokkodaicholai", Proceedings of Tamil Nationhood & Search for Peace in Sri Lanka, Carleton University, pp. 1–10

Does using this violate

WP:RS ? This is Professor Trawicks home page. This has been disputed in the Prawn farm massacre article. Thanks Taprobanus

17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The book is certainly a reliable source by our standards (it is published by a reputable publishing house). It might count as a biased source... although that is not clear (and is a very different matter - one not within the domain of this guideline ... see WP:NPOV, especially the section on undue weight, for assistance on that), . If so, any statements taken from the book should be phrased as being the view of the author and not stated as fact. Blueboar 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean this ?McGowan, William (1992). Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka. Farrar Straus & Giroux. pp. 243–244.

ISBN 0374226520. Right ? Because this has also been removed from the article but it is a book, where as the above is a Conference proceedings. I have written to the professor to see whether she has publsihed it anywhere else also Thanks Taprobanus

18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are usually published by someone reliable (although sometimes professional organisations, rather than publishing houses.) WilyD 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful. Not all conferences are peer reviewed. Quite a lot accept papaers based on abstract and are therefore less reliable, however they are published afterwards. Reliable source for what happened at the conference yes, reliable science may be less so. --BozMo talk 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I point to them being published by someone reliable. Conference Proceedings published by American Astronomical Society probably are reliable. Conference proceedings published by West Upstairs Hollywood Herbal Medicine Association probably aren't. Look at who's publishing ... WilyD 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a note, depending on context, a conference proceeding may or may not be peer reviewed. Some conferences are very selective about what goes in proceedings, while others will accept anything for a fee and are essentially no better than self-published. You'd have to look closer to know which this is. Dragons flight 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So if Prof. Margret's paper is considred self published then it can be used in the article with attribution per this. Am I correct in my reading of self published ? ThanksTaprobanus 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can call Prof. Trawick's paper "self published"... I suppose you could make the argument that the "Accademic Society of Tamil Students" (who seemed to have sponcered the conference) are the publishers, but not Prof. Trawick. Blueboar 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Her bio page says 1999 “Lessons from Kokkaddichcholai.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Tamil Nationhood and the Search for Peace in Sri Lanka, Ottawa: The Academic Society of Tamil Students. Pages 17-49. that means unless the material is used somewhere else or published by a reliable source, we cannot use it ? Taprobanus 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Though the material is not self-published in the literal sense, I think similar considerations as used for

WP:RSN, not here.) Raymond Arritt

21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the same information is in Trawick, Margaret (

ISBN 0520245164. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). I wil use that instead. Thansk for all your helpTaprobanus

15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was resolved but the book has been reverted without any comments ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone doubt that Enemy Lines is clearly a reliable source under our rules? I have a feeling that what you are dealing with now is a POV content dispute issue and that it should be raised at

WP:NPOV. Blueboar

16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hipgnosis

Hello, Administrator, I have the following situation:

I have been editing the article on

Dark Side of the Moon