Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102

We just had a similar discussion on DRN, turns out that See also entries are not required to be sourceable in the same way as material in the article body, and I would argue the same holds for external links. WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy. I believe that that appropriate criteria is whether the link is would be reasonable interest to readers of the article. I have not looked at the link targets, so I cannot comment on the relative spamminess of the links. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The page (linked here) is just an advertisement for the book and other books. I'd think that was spammy enough to get Vikings chanting. And again, I've pointed out that the book does not meet the other qualifications that WP:Further reading gives (historically important works, seminal but outdated scientific works, creative or primary works that the article is the subject of); and it fails WP:ELNO #5 and #11. While they are guidelines instead of policies, reasoning based on the guidelines is more in line with overall site concensus than going against guidelines because an editor feels my actions are "robotic" based on ill-investigated assumptions that lead him to call me an SPA (again, despite working on a variety of topics here for five years). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do hear the vikings singing, and I'll have spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam, but easy on the eggs. I'm not sure this is the right venue, however. Do we have a spam related noticeboard? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the original reason behind this was that the book is being included in two Further Reading sections, and the closest thing for that was this board. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the book relevant? It's a relevant text on some aspects of neo-Victorian life, specifically the wearing of corsets and "traditional" Victorian costume in everyday life., same as it was further up the page, same as it was when you first deleted it.

"the original reason" was that you dislike Weebly as a web platform (check your contributions history). Since then you've changed your reason every time you post to a different page looking for support. Now you still haven't heard the answer you wanted, so you've switched to edit-warring.

This book is a good source in relation to neo-Victorian costume. I wouldn't see it as adequately valuable for Victorian fashion. (you do realise there's a difference?) If other editors think that it's not relevant to the articles it's still in, then I'd have to recognise that we work by consensus here, but I'm not hearing that anyone else (Has anyone else actually read it?) thinks this. Your "reasons" though flip around every time you post. Incidentally, if you think that I'm just "Soft on Spam", then take a look at my contribs history. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the book being referenced, or the web site where the book is being sold? We do not have to include a link to the latter to reference the former. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two reasons to include the web site - whether you're not going to buy the book, or whether your are. This is a rare book, so few people will have bought a copy. The web site gives them some idea of the content, if they're not going to have it. As it's self-published, this is also the only source to buy the book, if you do want to buy it.

As an aside, the "standard reference" for women's costume, especially for this time, would be Norah Waugh's book. This is out of print, rare, highly sought after, and sells S/H for around six times what this "rather expensive" hand-bound book does. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The book is not being referenced in either article, and it is inaccurate misrepresentation to pretend otherwise. It is only in a "further reading" list. The whole thing is bookspam, which is just one more reason (not a different reason, but an additional reason) not to include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know -- any cite of any book is liable to possibly lead people to buy it, if it's in print, so is inherently promotional. I guess one question would be, is the book a piece of crap that a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about wrote off the top of his head and mimeographed, or is it any good, or at least arguably any good? If it's any good, why not include it? If there are better books that the plaintiff can point to, that's different and we can talk about including them instead (or maybe in addition, unless it's a matter of the list being too long). Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that (as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread) the book IS NOT BEING CITED. It is only being included on the grounds of "if you're interested in this topic, you should buy this book." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

NOT BEING CITED (in the Wikipedia article) is not by itself a sufficient reason to remove a book from

WP:COMPETENCE to answer that part, but those who apparently know about this should focus the discussion on that issue. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 04:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, although I happen to agree with you, we are SOL because Wikipedia does not have a coherent policy on this issue, unfortunately. In the absence of a policy pretty much anything goes in the "Further Reading" section provided that the author/publisher is not also an editor of the article. Brmull (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about linking to the book, we're talking about linking to a web site promoting the book. What requires us to provide a link to where the book is sold, rather than simply listing the book without a link. There seems to be nothing of informational value on the web site in regard to the article topics, and including the link seems to violate the guideline

WP:LINKSPAM

. I would propose that we simply list the book, and drop the link.

Also, FuFoFuEd raises a good point, I would also suggest that unless an editor has the book itself in hand, adding the book as a further reading entry is inappropriate, as without having read it, there's no way an editor could have evaluated whether or not it has value. For all I know, the book could be excellent, or a steaming pile. Or do we judge book's by their covers? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's cited/referenced/recommended by other reliable works (potentially more accessible) is a good criteria. (See section below for a counterexample.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Other works that mentioned the book are not in the article. The only information the mention of the book is adding to the article is "you can buy this," which is advertising, plain and simple. The only information the book would be adding to the article is "Sarah Chrisman wore a corset and people thought she was weird or neat." The website (which I've provided links to twice in this discussion) does not give any information about the subject appropriate subjects except that you can buy this book (about this woman's day to day life while she happened to wear Victorian fashion) and other completely unrelated books.

According to the site: "Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live a Victorian life in modern-day surroundings? What is it really like to wear a corset twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week? How do modern people react to finding a "time-traveler" in their midst? Waisted Curves: My Transformation Into A Victorian Lady is the fascinating, true account of a twenty-first century woman learning to live a Victorian life."

It is not a scholarly source about neo-victorian fashion, but an autobiography. It is not a reference work, but entertainment. We might as well link to Star Trek fanfiction in articles about individual planets and stars. The articles are not about the author, so it is inappropriate (for these reasons as well) to include this book. That I have to point this out makes me wonder how many people in this discussion have actually looked at the link (again, here it is).

This is partly why I began to remove Weebly sites: I've found in the past that like many self-published sources they are often either promotional when they aren't unreliable (in the case of other links I've removed) or uninformative (as was the case here as well).

As for it being self-published, that means there was no editorial oversight, noone worried about taking the fall for an inaccurate book being published. That is the another rationale I've seen behind removing self-published works. Despite the (pointless) accusation of me constantly changing my reasons, listing multiple reasons does not mean that I am changing my reasons, but elaborating on past ones and adding additional ones. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"unless an editor has the book itself in hand"

As mentioned before, unfortunately I don't have it to hand right this moment, as when I bought it some time ago it was as a gift for someone else. However as someone who does have a certain degree of real-world interest in neo-Victorian fashion and Steampunk (I organise festivals about it, I sew, I even sew corsets), I would hope that my opnion might count for something more than just pattern-matching the URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that I'm not just pattern matching the URL, as I've already shown you. It matched the MO of other inappropriate links in other articles I've worked on over the years.

You may want to read User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials, Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant, and Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. Your personal interest means squat diddly, and it is pompous to assume that you having enjoyed the book justifies spamming a work sold as an autobiography, not a reference work, which has no editorial oversight. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at the link. It starts off with a paragraph about how well made the publisher's book are, then the rest of the page is selling the book itself and other books. "Now available, exclusively from Aegis & Owl Press! Order your copy today, hand-bound in your choice of cloth, silk or leather!" We should not be linking to a page whose obvious purpose is to sell the book (and other books, as I said).

talk

) 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my concern as well. Andy Dingley, I am glad to hear that you have had the book in hand. I still believe that linking to the sale site for the book is inappropriate, since there's basically no information on that site about the topic. Ian.thomson has a point that the work is basically autobiographical and that none of our own experiences and knowledge are reliable source, even if the thought is expressed more harshly than

one would wish in a cooperative effort. That being said, I think a link to the book alone is allowable under our policies and guidelines. But I would ask if there are not better resources we could point to, perhaps this, which do provide direct access to a significant amount of data on the topic? I found that particularly interesting as I did not realize that I was engaging in a neo-victorian activity by shaving with my grandfather's straight razor these last 35 years... --Nuujinn (talk

) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Found something: The book was originally added by the user Sorcha Ban, whose only actions were to add the book repeatedly. As we see here, "Sorcha" is another username for the author. This was a case of spam by a real SPA, nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. If the book was added by someone who is connected to the author or the publisher it's definitely not appropriate, and this evidence you presented is pretty convincing. Brmull (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed this issue ended up at

talk

) 06:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a problem at User talk:Nathan2055/Archive 1#Sir. I'm not sure whether army publications are a reliable source in this case. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - review} 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of Army publication? Assuming this is not a NPOV/notability issue, are we talking about publication from the unit itself, or publications from

Center of Military History or the Pentagon? If it is from the unit itself, then it is a limited used primary source. If it is the latter two cases then it is definitely reliable (if you discount the POV issues). Jim101 (talk

) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer is: it depends. Please provide adequate details as requested at the top of this page. (I can give you an example where the answer is "no, not really".) FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The publications are from other sources (Institute of Heraldry, US Army Center of Military History, Fort Drum Garrison Website, Bagram Airbase, etc.). I think that it's reliable. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - review} 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent

. Also, credible gov't organizations (as opposed to private groups claiming to be part of the gov't) usually effectively auto-qualify for notability (or so I was told when I used to tag new articles for deletion).

I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on

Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into

Berthe von Rönge. Berthe suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name. All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge. All these articles sources have been removed in the current version. This includes several two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource. His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him. This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource. When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript. I corrected the article, maybe twice, and fixed Wikisource once. I don't plan to make another attempt. I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. From my point of view, this is just sophisticated vandalism. Bob Burkhardt (talk

) 8 and 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, how to we fix it? If no one here knows, we can take it up at the move board. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not an easy fix. A move is not the thing to do as I think the old

Johannes von Ronge back into a redirect. Preserving histories is a lost cause at this point. There are just two parallel ones. The talk page is still OK that I can see. Bob Burkhardt (talk

) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think where involvement by an administrator is necessary is to protect the page from vandalism, as it seems to be a target, but that would exclude IP edits, although suggestions could still be left by an IP on the talk page for desirable edits. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I can move all of the data to

Johannes von Ronge's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk

) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of

Appears to be user-generated content, which isn't allowed. That pages's author is refered to as a "user" by the site, not "author" or "writer." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the author is identified by the site as an "editor", and this does appear to be a professional blog. What's going on in the comments section does not affect whether the source is reliable. Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to his page, he is a published novelist that became an editor for After Elton in 2005. That doesn't sound like a "user" to me. Silverseren^C 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally the WP article we're talking about is
  Luke Evans (actor). Brmull (talk
  ) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. Michael Jensen is not a particularly successful author - "Frontiers" ranks at #1,174,130 which is not exactly indicative of a major author. 'Firelands" is not as popular. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We're not discussing writing an article about Michael Jensen. Silverseren^C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that we're not quoting the writer's opinion, we're quoting the comment he received from Evans' publisher, which is notable. Silverseren^C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to our own article (

Those thinking about wading into this should be aware of the frighteningly big debate at BLP/N. This doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved, but bring a flack jacket if you do.BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The question to this Noticeboard was if this blog is a RS for a quote from Evan's publicist, and I think it is. Brmull (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether afterelton.com is generally reliable, it is certainly reliable for simply passing on what the publicist has said. The quote does not appear to have been twisted or edited in any way. Delicious carbuncle is right to advise would-be polemicists on both sides to roll up their banners. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have purposefully not read the article or the talk page discussions yet. The site seems reliable to me for a limited purpose, although I note that the blog mentions WP, so extreme care should be taken to avoid a loop there. But as SilverSeren and DC note, the author seems to have been an editor there since 2005 (In 2005, I became editor of AfterElton.com and one of the contributing editors for The Big Gay Picture.). The site does not appear to be open to just anyone, they appear to have a staff, and the author's statements seem neutrally presented. I think Viacom's ownership is, however, irrelevant, but Logo seems directly involved in the site, and that seems to support the notion of general reliability.

That being said, we need to observe

WP:BLPGOSSIP. The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management. We have the advocate and walesonline directly, so while we can cite the source in question to say that the advocate and walesonline said what they said, that does not really add anything beyond what they said. The rest of the article, including the issue of Evans's possible bisexuality, seems to be purely speculation on the authors part, and I do not think the author is notable enough that we should include his opinions or speculations in a BLP. Clearly referencing anything in the comments is right out. I'm not aware of any policy that says we cannot link to a page that has reader comments, even for a BLP, so I do not think that is a valid objection (but if there is such a policy, please let me know). But using this to reference Evans's management's statement seems fine to me. --Nuujinn (talk

) 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management." That's exactly what it was being used for before it was removed. The consensus seems to be for including it as a source for the publicist's statement, so I'll put it back in. AlbionBT (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My comments here were prompted by what I saw as a distorted portrayal of the source in question. While there seems to be consensus here that the source is reliable, that should not be taken as an endorsement to include the content in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How so if the reference is limited to what Evans's management said when contacted by the author? The author directly quotes statement from Evans's management, and if we reference that quotation, I see no issue with reliability. Do we have any reason to suppose that the author is misquoting Evans's management? The statement itself does not seem controversial to me, since all the quote contains is a "no comment" statement, and a statement that Evans once did talk about his personal life, which was already known from the interview in another source. As I said, I do not support inclusion of any of the speculation and opinions of the author, but the quotation itself seems fine. And I concur with DC that just because the source is reliable for this one statement, that does not mean it must be included in the article, that's an issue for another venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have edited an article about

What is the article being used, and to support what content? Generally, it is my present view that the Daily Mail is a reliable source; it is published, and has editorial oversight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail is published, and yes, has editorial oversight. It also has a reputation for making crap up. A tabloid newspaper, with pretensions to be otherwise. I'd be very wary of using it as a source for anything contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states that the publication is the second most purchased paper in th UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no automatic correlation between popularity and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope opposition to this source is not because the paper is right of center, as indiciated in the wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also per the article Tabloid, the meaning is meant for the size of the paper used. How does that impact the reliability of the content? The tabloid article list the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Francisco Examiner as prominent tabloids in the United States. Does this mean that their content is less then reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an intersting word. It has two distinct, but historically connected meanings. The second sentence of the lead of Tabloid says ""tabloid journalism", which tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, and TV and celebrity gossip is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers". That's what's being discussed here, a greater interest in popular (not necessarily accurate) content, rather than factual, in depth news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid is frequently shorthand for a paper that reports on stuff we don't consider important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So this example is something that "we don't consider important"? Sure the way it is presented maybe be more glammed up, but that doesn't mean that within it isn't some useful information that can be used to support content within a wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is 'important', it will also be reported in sources with a better reputation for objectivity. Why use a tabloid (in the 'sensationalist' sense) when you can find better ones? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting that example. I have big problems even with the headline, especially the first and fourth words. It unnecessarily sensationalises stuff. I also wonder what the third paragraph (and do note the tabloid rule that one paragraph equals one sentence) has to do with this item as news. It provides added colour, but is also blatantly guiding the reader in how to think about this. It's a lot more than news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage supported is "When younger he was known as 'Andy' and was proud of his Pakistani origin".[25] I would question whether a newspaper, especially one that is middle market, is a good source for a

WP:BLP for events that happened thirty years ago. And something that does not make the quality papers is probably not weighty enough for inclusion. TFD (talk

) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, here is the 'Daily Mail' source being cited: [26]. Rabble-rousing bigotry of the worst sort, full of weasel-words and insinuations - so entirely consistant with the Daily Mail's usual standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, swilling and leering are not really objective words. I also love the line "He also mixed with hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza..." That's a gem, straight out of the tabloid journalism textbook. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the Daily Mail is right-wing; you'd get few left-wing British wikipedians seriously challenging The Times as RS. It's that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid, whatever else its pretentions might be. Best to be avoided if at all possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per

It's reliable. Like I said, editors wish it wasn't, because it covers subjects they don't feel worthy of an encyclopedia. That said, it is sensationalist, and shouldn't be used for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine, you seem to be saying some people don't like it because it covers sensationalist topics, which you yourself admit it doesn't cover so reliably.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Peregrine Fisher's point is that the Daily Mail falls under our policy as a reliable source, but that it is also sensationalist. As such we should not use it for BLPs for anything that is controversially. I agree with that, and I agree with Andy the Grump evaluation of this particular article. I note that the article contains a wide variety of statements that are inflammatory and the tone is very far from objective. For the purposes suggested by the OP, I think this article does not meet our standards of reliability, and we shouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the approach we should be taking. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail where it comes to anything contentious about BLPs and even more so if we can't find a reliable source saying the same thing. (I'll also note that I wouldn't trust some of its stuff on Atlantis, etc either, someone there seems in love with that sort of cult archaeology stuff). There are times even with the most reliable sources that we have to take a more finely grained approach and focus on a specific article or writer.

talk

) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mail doesn't make everything up, of course. It's just that if you can't source something controversial in the Mail to somewhere better, you should always be a little concerned, especially where it concerns immigration or science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Second most purchased paper in the UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content." Ha! You clearly don't read the Daily Mail or live in the UK.

talk

) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a very good source for what the Daily Mail has said and that is about it. Even then, its notability is debatable if it doesn't appear anywhere else. To reiterate a point made above, very few Wikipedia editors will argue against quality right wing British Newspapers like the

Daily Telegraph, who tend to check facts and separate leaders and columns from news. The Mail may stay the right side of the law and the now obviously flawed watchdogs most of the time, but their position on race and other issues is well known. For the benefit of US editors it is usually said that in the US newspapers strive for neutrality and TV news is often partisan and that in the UK it is the other way around (not entirely true but it is useful), so imagine the Daily Mail as having the same veracity as say an opinion piece on Fox News. Although that may be unfair to Fox.--SabreBD (talk

) 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope the above statement by Spanglej is not a personal attack, for now I shall assume good faith.

Perusing these page particularly, I have seen multiple attacks against Fox News, and Wall Street Journal, and other right of center leaning in their opinion content, stating that they are not reliable sources within their news content. Those attacks very much are, IMHO, part of IDONTLIKEIT.

Imagine if editors were out to say that the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and New York Times were not reliable sources because their commentary/editorial content were left of center. The community would not stand for it; so it shocks me when it is allowed to continue against right of center reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this board is to determine a consensus of editors whether a source is a reliable source. One does not need to source whether a source is a reliable source. Here we are to look at a source, match it up against the guideline of what makes up a reliable source, and form the consensus.

Would it matter if Blog X had hundreds of other blogs saying that it is a reliable source, or one strongly political leaning journalism professor?

No, not really.

That being said, on contentious BLP articles it's always best to find multiple reliable sources on contentious content. Therefore, the question that should be raised in the article in question's talk page is, is the content supported by more than one reliable source, that isn't a reproduction of the same source (i.e. multiple papers posting an AP article)?

If the answer is yes, then it should be kept; if the answer is no, then per BLP the content should be flagged, or removed until it can otherwise be supported by multiple reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are merely asserting that the Mail meets

WP:BLP policy is clear - in such circumstances, the material should not be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand BLP policy, and please re-read my last posting. I stated quiet clearly, that per BLP policy that contentious content should be supported by multiple reliable sources to ensure accuracy.

That does not mean that the Daily Mail is any less a reliable sources even if the wording is inflammatory or sensationalized; even if this opinion is in the minority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that in this particular area (race/immigration) the Mail has been shown to pervert its sources to suit its political ideals, so it should not be considered a reliable source for this type of reporting. Since the tidbit in the article in question is precisely one of this kind, it follows that another, less politically biased source must be found. (And heaven forbid we cite any of their columnists as sources of facts, see Melanie Phillips, for a sample). FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is perfectly fine for factual matters. I know some "dontlikeit" but the fact is that the number of libel suits against it is similar to the other UK papers -- even The Times errs. As for adjectives used? All the UK papers use stronger adjectives than Wikipedia likes. Opinion columns should be treated like opinion columns from any source, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Mail is not 'fine for factual matters'. They frequently report things as facts that aren't. Hoary has already linked this [27]. Have you read it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. It depends a lot what the facts are about. See the article in New Statesman linked by Hoary at the end of his post above for some shocking examples of "fact reporting" in the Mail in the area of immigration. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not directly related to the area under discussion at hand here, but the Mail's Phillips on evolution: "For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far -- not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory. To go even further, as some scientists do, and make the leap from evolutionary theory to the claim that this somehow explains the origin of life itself clearly fails the test of logic. [...] Scientific knowledge may have dealt a serious blow to religious belief, but science does not fill the gaps in our understanding of existence. It does not explain the irreducible complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together." Note the "subtle" writing that starts with "For many" but then 99% endorses that view, leaving 1% for plausible deniability of merely being "journalistic" reporting of others' ideas. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The DM has come up UMPTEEN times before, to be more specific there are 24 results if you search in the archives of this page. So we have a consensus. The DM is sometimes OK, for some things. Usually not the best source for contentious matters. This is contentious, and a BLP question. Newspapers are never OK for tittle-tattle, and what someone's nickname was in their university days is tittle-tattle if anything is. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There are more substantive matters sourced from DM like his drinking and dating habits. The only thing that makes these issues substantive is the ideology he later espoused condemning them fiercely. In a different biography, I'd wholeheartedly agree to remove them without second thought. By the way, substantively the same content is addressed by the other tabloid below, and reproduced in a non-tabloid article that unfortunately has its own issue. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard

The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it: [28]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, seems to have copied stuff from the Daily Mail before [29]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is

I don't read it, but based on its reasonably well sourced Wikipedia article, I would say yes. Did they publish something specific you find questionable? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find anything questionable. I just used it as a reference in a software article that I started. The website is referred to as a blog so I wasn't sure about reliability.

talk

) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifehacker is fairly respected among software engineers. Many refer to it daily. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead to Transcendental Meditation movement includes the following phrase: "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests." The source for that is a book titled The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart .

This is what the source says:

Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.

The source says nothing about the TM movement beyond this single sentence, gives no evidence, quotes, citations or anything to support this passing assertion which is taken out of context. Given that the assertion is unsupported and taken out of context, is this book a reliable source, as used? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the statement is reliably sourced, and I think that's dubious, it should be removed from the lede because it is not discussed further in the article. The reader has no idea what this ominous-sounding statement is referring to. Brmull (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have been the editor who wrote that. The material can certainly be expanded on in the text if that's the problem.

• ...the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests...
• ...with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.

That's a reasonably close paraphrase. I don't see any assertion that McTaggart is not a reliable source. I'm not sure why this noticeboard was chosen, but I don't see the sourcing problem.   Will Beback  talk  09:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The

lead should be a brief introductory to the article. This information fails to meet that criteria. I think its unconvincing. --Freknsay (talk

) 10:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's no reason to delete text, just to move it.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly a book that purports to give "a compelling presentation of the theory that there is a measurable life force in the universe" strikes me as unreliable for any purpose outside an article about itself or its author, Lynne McTaggart. Or maybe Jedis exist? FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

An article in the

Sunday Times described [30] the book as "a triumph of pseudoscience" and clarified that "about the only thing experts agree on is that quantum effects do not support homeopathy, extrasensory perception or any of the other nonsense in The Field." If there are any worthy facts in that book, I'm sure other more reliable sources have them as well. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a Google News search for "Maharishi" and "scam" easily find less dubious and less vague sources you could cite instead [31] (Statesman Journal) "Many TM teachers and students claim the technique has changed their lives, yet some scientists, scholars and former TM practitioners criticize TM as a deceitful money-making scam." FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular sentence is unreliable because it is an anomaly. The paragraph is about something entirely different and that isolated phrase is an unsubstantiated statement by the author. Thus,the source is unreliable in the way it is being used. As, I think, Brmulls says, the sentence is just left dangling there. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to have footnotes. I've never heard of the theory that a passage in a source can be unreliable because it is an "anomaly". Are you saying that no one else ever accused the Maharishi of having interest in personal gain? If so, that's incorrect. That's one of the reasons why the Beatles and the Kaplan brothers broke with him.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

McTaggart is also used as a source in another TM-related article,

• In regard to "Super Radiance", author Lynne McTaggert wrote in her 2003 book, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, says that despite ridicule "largely because of the Maharishi's own personal interests, the sheer weight of the data is compelling." She also said that "Many of the studies have been published in impressive journals such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures".

If we're going to consider tossing out McTaggart than this passage should probably go too.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a good idea. It's ironic that a slightly negative opinion of hers was cited in opening statement here. Overall, she's endorsing much of this pseudoscience. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

They are two different articles and the source is used in differently in each, so I suggest we stick with the subject at hand. This thread is about an unsubstantiated single sentence in the lead of the TMM article. As far as I can read, most people feel it is not appropriately placed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the same topic, the same source, even the same paragraph. As for whether there is sufficient material in the body of the article to support inclusion in the lead, that can be fixed by adding more material to the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the assertion is only supported by a passing comment in a dependent clause without any further evidence. In regard to Super Radiance, the supporting material in the source covers a page and a half and references a number of studies. In one case the assertion is taken out of context and is unsupported; in the other, there's the sort of evidence and corroboration that one looks for in a secondary source. The material on Super Radiance is also clearly set in the larger context of a discussion of a unified field, and the chapter goes on to corroborate the TM-related assertions with similar studies. Based on the feedback of uninvolved editors, it appears that this source isn't compliant in this context in the TM movement article. You'd need support here from uninvolved editors to remove it from the TM-Sidhi article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus of those who participated in the discussion is that the sentence in question does not belong in the lead of the article. I will therefore remove it, and thanks to everyone who took the time to help with this. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just don't remove it from the article. Find an appropriate location for it. There's no consensus that the source itself is unreliable.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Further input invited on the general issue

Similar instances arise here at RSN, and I'd appreciate clarification on the general issue: Is a passing, unsupported assertion in a book a reliable source? The above is a good example. The source says: "Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling." This is the ONLY mention of the TM organization in the book. There are no facts or examples or quotes or evidence of any kind to support the assertions regarding the TM organization. In instances like this, in which the source is being used in Wikipedia to state the assertion as fact, is the book a reliable source for the particular assertion? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of

Appears to be user-generated content, which isn't allowed. That pages's author is refered to as a "user" by the site, not "author" or "writer." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the author is identified by the site as an "editor", and this does appear to be a professional blog. What's going on in the comments section does not affect whether the source is reliable. Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to his page, he is a published novelist that became an editor for After Elton in 2005. That doesn't sound like a "user" to me. Silverseren^C 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally the WP article we're talking about is
  Luke Evans (actor). Brmull (talk
  ) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. Michael Jensen is not a particularly successful author - "Frontiers" ranks at #1,174,130 which is not exactly indicative of a major author. 'Firelands" is not as popular. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We're not discussing writing an article about Michael Jensen. Silverseren^C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that we're not quoting the writer's opinion, we're quoting the comment he received from Evans' publisher, which is notable. Silverseren^C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to our own article (

Those thinking about wading into this should be aware of the frighteningly big debate at BLP/N. This doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved, but bring a flack jacket if you do.BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The question to this Noticeboard was if this blog is a RS for a quote from Evan's publicist, and I think it is. Brmull (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether afterelton.com is generally reliable, it is certainly reliable for simply passing on what the publicist has said. The quote does not appear to have been twisted or edited in any way. Delicious carbuncle is right to advise would-be polemicists on both sides to roll up their banners. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have purposefully not read the article or the talk page discussions yet. The site seems reliable to me for a limited purpose, although I note that the blog mentions WP, so extreme care should be taken to avoid a loop there. But as SilverSeren and DC note, the author seems to have been an editor there since 2005 (In 2005, I became editor of AfterElton.com and one of the contributing editors for The Big Gay Picture.). The site does not appear to be open to just anyone, they appear to have a staff, and the author's statements seem neutrally presented. I think Viacom's ownership is, however, irrelevant, but Logo seems directly involved in the site, and that seems to support the notion of general reliability.

That being said, we need to observe

WP:BLPGOSSIP. The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management. We have the advocate and walesonline directly, so while we can cite the source in question to say that the advocate and walesonline said what they said, that does not really add anything beyond what they said. The rest of the article, including the issue of Evans's possible bisexuality, seems to be purely speculation on the authors part, and I do not think the author is notable enough that we should include his opinions or speculations in a BLP. Clearly referencing anything in the comments is right out. I'm not aware of any policy that says we cannot link to a page that has reader comments, even for a BLP, so I do not think that is a valid objection (but if there is such a policy, please let me know). But using this to reference Evans's management's statement seems fine to me. --Nuujinn (talk

) 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management." That's exactly what it was being used for before it was removed. The consensus seems to be for including it as a source for the publicist's statement, so I'll put it back in. AlbionBT (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My comments here were prompted by what I saw as a distorted portrayal of the source in question. While there seems to be consensus here that the source is reliable, that should not be taken as an endorsement to include the content in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How so if the reference is limited to what Evans's management said when contacted by the author? The author directly quotes statement from Evans's management, and if we reference that quotation, I see no issue with reliability. Do we have any reason to suppose that the author is misquoting Evans's management? The statement itself does not seem controversial to me, since all the quote contains is a "no comment" statement, and a statement that Evans once did talk about his personal life, which was already known from the interview in another source. As I said, I do not support inclusion of any of the speculation and opinions of the author, but the quotation itself seems fine. And I concur with DC that just because the source is reliable for this one statement, that does not mean it must be included in the article, that's an issue for another venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Would Soapdom.com be considered a reliable source for information on

Is there a specific edit you want to do? I have some serious concerns about the editorial control just looking at the founder's page. She has given herself a bunch of titles including Queen, CEO and SVP. Is this real, or is she playing businesswoman? Also her filmography doesn't jibe with her IMDB page. Maybe this is all supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but I would say the site is possibly reliable for interviews, doubtful for anything else. Brmull (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

An RfC has been initiated raising the question of whether or not a given dog-fancier web site is an acceptable source for dog-oriented WP articles. Editors with experience in RS issues would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

9X19mm is .380 ACP or .380 auto (in Europe - 9mm kurz - kurz means short) 9X21mm is 9mm Parabellum (9mm Luger) Ask anyone who knows firearms.

How bout, "No". 9mm Luger/9mm Parabellum are 9X19mm, whereas.380 ACP or 9mm Kurtz is actually 9X17mm.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What source are you objecting too?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I had asked the editors to give their opinion about as under contents but I am still waiting for it.Can you spare the time to make any review please?.

Urdutoday.com a website or forum/blog?.I would like to bring this matter to the experienced editors to decide that,that Urdutoday.com is a website or a just forum.In my opinion it is a standard website consist of editorial board,chief editor and administrator,see,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions in enlish and urdu.Please be fair clear and bold to give your opinion regardless any language. Please see Talk:page or article discussion Ehsan Sehgal.I hope editors who know the Urdu may take part in this discussion.If it is not a website,can be used as a external link?.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the key phrase: Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing. Its content is still user submitted even though there is a level of editorial oversight, in much the same way IMDB is and we don't accept that as a RS. Unless there are areas of the site that are published strictly by professional staff I'd have to say it isn't a RS. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What are the specific statements and references to be assessed? And where doe Ehsan Sehgal want to use it? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well,fine,that you have paid attention to my request.Dear User:Nuujinn my question is not a particular statement or reference,but whole website,urdutoday.com,that its contents (submissions) are,or can be referenced as reliable source or not?.

As the matter of fact,User:Biker Biker has rejected urdutoday as a reliable source,therefore, article of the subject has been edited by multiple editors,and some sections and many phrases have been removed from the article, in result,the article's contents are not accord with,what should be.

On my request,User:LadyofShalott and User:Drmies have helped me a great to expanding the article,but it still needed more,that's why I need the reliability of urdutoday.com,sothat it can be used as a reliable source,if not then,can it be used as a external links?. Please take a look at article

Ok. It appears that they have some editorial oversight, so in that respect they might qualify. On the other hand, I see something like th isand it seems more like a social networking site, and thus not reliable. And I take it that you are Ehsan Sehgal (otherwise you're in violation of our username policy), working on an article about yourself (which we strongly recommend against). On the site there is this short bio, but the author is "admin", which could be anyone really, and most reliable sources give the name of the author of the piece. Also, see [32], [33], and [34], which are reproductions of material that one would assume have some form of copyright, and we're not supposed to link to copyright violations. So on the whole, I would say it does not in general appear to be reliable or high quality. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's amazing,ok,first of all,that,that noticeboard is to assess the reliability of the sources,

and I have asked that.Just a short reply to your this point that"violation of username policy",I am not expertise,but what I know a little,that,well it is strongly discouraged,but not forbidden.

• As you say,urdytoday.com seems more like a social working site.this

I think mostly websites have many sections,as like,Culture,Literature,Article,Poetry,Politics, religion,discussion page,blogs,forums and etc,similarly,many daily newspapers include that all. Your assessment is weak and poor,you did not see the homepage,Urdutoday.com, with this Urdu poetry, Article,Literature,Afsana (in english) and 11 sections,(in urdu).

• You say,"On the site there is this short bio, but the author is "admin", which could be anyone really, and most reliable sources give the name of the author of the piece."

• I say,in daily newspapers,editors and reporters mostly do not mention their names in news and writings,but those are considered as reliable sources.Ok,leave it,and see this,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/premiumpaid-membership ,here is the name of administrator,

and see also this,http://www.urdutoday.com/users/c-editor name and photo of chief editor. and see this,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions, specially this sentence, "Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing."

Tell me please what is the more reliability,and high quality of any website,you are looking for and searching?. you should not ignore intirely the reliability of urdutoday.com. I am looking towards other editors opinion in this regard.Thanks.

• I have found this one too,see,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/administration-structure-new-urdutoday .I have problem with this page,I find at home page but here happing error,I try again. see, http://www.urdutoday.com/users/c-editor
  talk
  ) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the username policy, there's nothing wrong with your using Ehsan Sehgal if you are Ehsan Sehgal. But if you are him, and you're working on Ehsan Sehgal, you would seem to have a conflict of interest. In regard to sourcing, I cannot give you any further assessment because I do not know what statements you wish to source, or what part of the web site you wish to use as a reference. I disagree with your assessment in regard to daily newspapers, as most editors and reporters do use their names, that's what a byline is. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• My question is obvious,reliability of urdutoday.com.In regard to daily newspapers you disagree,

I have no any objection,but what you have referred Byline it does not cite any references or sources,thus not reliable,and you did not see Anonymity this also needs additional citations for verification.I have not said that all editors don't use their name.In our part of the world mostly do not use name in news items and editorials,though in exclusive news they do.Anyway thanks for your review I am learning much in this regard.

Some sources are problematic not due to offensive, or restricted material but due to its technical content and information, while most people who use these sites are mature and know the difference between right and wrong, there is the small population that who giving specific content would be like giving a 4 year old a loaded gun, while the kid can use it, is it really safe or sane to give it to them? Should some posts be excluded from sourcing or citing information as part of its content? A classic example would be "How to split the world in two halfs like a knife through a apple" as referenced in the book Tesla a man out of time by margaret cheney Is it right to make reference and links to tesla's theory when writting about new types of high explosives, even though the linked subjects are necessary in the explination, description (process) or danger, even with all contents for each subject being freely available? Crackpot1234 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Er.....if it is in the article, and the source is reliable, then the content should be sourced to the source. There isn;t a get-out on that one. I'm not sure that Nicolai Tesla really did come up with what you might call a practical solution for blowing the world to bits, but I believe we feature the chemical formula for it in the article on LSD, and one of the sources probably tells you how to make it in your kitchen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

David Tatham (1 June 2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham.

I suggest it is not a "reliable source" as a result, but would appreciate input from others here or at the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6136120 "published by editor" its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it and you know it, but one editor insists it is RS and not self-published at all <g>. The review makes clear that he compiled a group of autobiographies and the like, and even had to have some "embellished" <g>. One editor gave me a 3RR notice after 1RR <g> and I would prefer to have others also point out to him that his views may be errant here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

When the publisher matches the author name, that is a definite red flag. Not RS, unless someone claims that the SPS is from a recognized expert in the field, which is one of the exceptions of SPS (if memory serves me at this time)(and even then to be used with caution). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish it to be noted that I was not made aware of this thread and only found out by a comment he placed on another users talk page see [35]. [36] Tatham is the editor, there are a myriad of contributors and it is not a self-published source. The book was the result of a project to create a definitive biography of the people of the Falkland Islands. Its well researched, impeccable for its fact checking and has a number of noted contributors. I got my copy from the Falkland Islands Government Office in London. For the record I didn't give a 3RR notice and I'm still waiting for the editor who started this thread to name his sources and have asked him to do so three times now.

Further read the very review you cite [37] A remarkable compilation of facts that will not only act as a reference volume for all time but one from which a great deal of instruction and even entertainment may be derived.

Further I don't accept this is the accepted definition of an SPS as it is neither a personal web page or a book which the author paid to have published. It reflects neither criteria and anyway per

WP:RS and should not be excluded as the editor demands. Rather than providing the sources for his own edit, he is trying to negate a well researched reference work that is absolutely invaluable for anyone writing on Falkland Islands history. Wee Curry Monster talk

19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote in the article's talk page, David Tatham is the chair of the editorial board of that book not its author. And the book is a reliable source, reviewed by the Polar Record Journal as linked above. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The review makes clear that it is self-published. That the articles were autobiographies of islanders which were then "embellished." The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa <g>. The "editorial board" exists only with regard to the book - making use of it as somehow increasing his notability rather outre. The editor of a book is perforce the head of the "editorial board" for the book. So scratch that one. <g>. By the way, being Her Majesty's Governor does not make one an historian of any great repute. As for the 3RR notice:

===3RR===

Do I have to resort to a formal 3RR warning for an established editor? You did not even read my talk page reply before reverting. Siding with editors who resort to disruptive editing to get their own way, will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. The wording reflects the source and is neutral in content. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a 3RR notice by any standards I have ever seen. I take it that the big "3RR" at the top refers to the three main railroads in the Falklands? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading history does not make you an expert, nor does holding a govenment possition make you an expert. Where did these artciels appear? As editor Mt Latham published his own book, its an SPS. Also a review does ot establish its RS, nor thats its not SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands is very much a niche topic in the English language and as such sources are rather difficult to obtain. It has taken me years to track down the 1960 copy of Mary Cawkell's The Falkland Islands for example. But on this occasion that claim is utter nonsense, the work is readily available [38] albeit expensive. You don't have to go to Germany or South Africa, there is a copy in the British Library, which means you can obtain a copy from any public library upon request. You simply fill in an inter-library loan request, the fee is around £25. Similarly there is more to Tatham's qualifications that his service as the Falkland Islands Governor, yet you seem hell bent on ignoring that to launch attacks on his integrity and credibility. Really you have lost your sense of perspective when you have to resort to such hyperbole in order to rubbish a source in this manner. Finally, that was not intended as a 3RR warning, if you take it as such that is your problem not mine. Pointedly I was trying to initiate a discussion and to stop your edit warring to impose a change claiming a consensus that doesn't in fact exist. The alleged consensus you refer to was disruptive editors who have plagued the page for months, including the prodigious use of sock puppets and these are the editors you've chosen to back. You have seriously lost the perspective here. As regards Tathams use in reliable 3rd party sources, cited here [39], Google Scholar turns up plenty [40], [41],[42],[43], [44] it is regularly cited in works related to the Falkland Islands. It is a

Contributors include, for example Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon). Those are just a brief sample. This is a reliable source. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Board of Editors" != "contributors." "Oxford graduate" != notable historian "Published by self" = "self-published." "3RR" != "three railroads in the Falklands." Stating a source which is self-published is self-published is not an attack on anyone's "integrity and credibility." The project name is "Wikipedia" and editors are expected to know that articles must meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Attacking the messager is quite rarely a good idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would WP policies and guidelines include

WP:RS seeing as the last time I looked Websters was not considered an authority on the history of the Falkland Islands. But you named it as the source of your edits. I've just named a list of contributors who are all noted academics, the book is a reliable source and meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines but you don't wish to listen when this is pointed out to you. You try and pick at minor points, but this doesn't detract from the main point that it is a reliable source cited in reliable third party citations. Wee Curry Monster talk

21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As I repeatedly stated Websters is good for noting that "claimed" has several distinct meanings, and that the use to which it was being put (Vernet claimed a settlement was burned) was better answered by using the common word "said." Please avoid such straw man arguments. The "contributors" are listed as a board of editors, and the review states specifically that the subjects of the book wrote their own biographies. Meanwhile, you state you found some actual third-party reliable sources for verifying some of the material? And you can show that D. Tatham is not D. Tatham the publisher? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked you what the source was for your edit and you said "Websters" repeatedly. My comments reflected your reply to my request to name a source for your edit, no strawman, just an accurate reflection of your conduct today. I've shown this to be a reliable source, repeatedly used by 3rd parties in citations above and don't feel the need to repeat myself. The source meets the requirements of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your conduct is now bordering on hounding. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I stated exactly as follows:

Consensus. And Webster. Vernet may have filed a "claim" (formal claim) against a government, but he "said" the settlement was destroyed. [8] note that the "statement" is different from "Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader." Understand the difference?

Which I regarded as a civil answer.

Your response was precisely:

Which SOURCE says that? Which SOURCE did you use?

To which I replied civilly:

Webster. Your source is not available for anyone to check, is self-published, and not written by an expert on Falkland history - it was based on solicited autobiographies from islanders. I think you will note the outcome of the RS/N discussion. Cheers

Which I rather feel was cordially worded. I do not see how any of my posts can conceivably be treated as "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Where and in which source is the statement "Vernet said" and which historical work did you base your edit on? Your reply was "Websters". Could you also go back and add the sly little digs with the <g> emoticon and your remarks about your "magic 8 ball". You claim to have gone out of your way to be civil, when clearly you haven't. As for hounding you follow me to a friends talk page when I ask for a little sanity and every time I edit you're there within seconds. You ask again for material already provided and some of your arguments are frankly ridiculous. Yes you're hounding me and I'm rapidly tiring of it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommend you stop dodging the question, which is - is this a collection of autobiographies published by the chap who collected them? If they were 'embellished', do we even know if the contributors approve of their contributions? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which question I am supposedly dodging? I do not believe the question of "embellishment" has arisen. I've already answered a number of allegations including the claim it was only available in Germany and South Africa, not readily available and not used in 3rd party citations - all false. I've even seen it claimed that its use in 3rd party citations detracts from its use as a

WP:RS

.

The book is a collection of essays, some are written by the descendants of individuals as it was in part an attempt to capture history that was only available orally. Where content was short the article was asked to be expanded by 3rd parties and yes approval was obtained. The biographies of noted people like Vernet are the work of scholars such as Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe who are acknoweldged experts on Falkland Islands history and on Vernet in particular. It has a list of noted academic contributors, an editorial board that vetted content and peer review before publication. It is regularly cited by 3rd parties and the reviews cited above note the accuracy of its content. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The review uses the word "embellish" and this was stated above. The library search I made only showed one library in Germany and one in South Africa having it - I never said it was only available there, and the price on Amazon is from outside sources offering it for over $200 a copy, not from Amazon.com [45] a total of a single seller at this point). The review made no claim of the book being "peer reviewed" by the way, and no outside cites are found in academic papers according to Google Scholar, so it is not "regularly cited" by a mile. . Meanwhile, the issue of self-published is now fully established as correct. Cheers. I leave this in the hands of the others here lest you post more errant claims about my posts. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK a review of this thread

A) Availability in libraries. See [46] Copy is available in the British Library, any public libary in the UK can obtain a loan via a BL request.
B) Availability: see [47],[48]. It is available new and second hand from Amazon UK and it seems Amazon US. Its covering a niche topic so the fact it is only available from specialists is not significant.
C) It is claimed again that it is not widely cited in 3rd party sources. See [49], Google Scholar turns up plenty [50], [51],[52],[53], [54]. I would point out that constructing an academic search with the format '"David Tatham" Falkland Islands' would bring up significantly less hits as most academics use

The start of this thread was misleading as to the availability of the book, how it was published, the compilation process. Nor it is extensively used for cites it is used for 4 of 126.

Further,

It's not an ideal source but I'd support it's use in the article with some conditions.

Given the nature of the article and where controversial topics within the article are dealt with I think ideally only the best and most authoritative sources should be referenced.

This is a problematic source for a number of reasons and I don't think that it is wise to give it the same weight as an "academic" source and by all indications it was not intended as an academic text. This is evident in the absence of citations in the text and the solicitation in many instances of articles from people with personal connections to the subject matter rather than expertise.

Other difficulties with the text are that: 1) It hasn't been published by an academic press. 2) It has clearly been published by David Tatham, the editor of the collection, a major contributor to the collection and founder of one of the funding bodies for this and related projects. 3) The quality of the editorial board is mixed and, while not without expertise, they may lack authority in the historical areas that are contentious in the article. The board includes: David Tatham; Malcolm Barton who has published a book on the stamps of the Falkland Islands; Graham Bound, editor of a Falkland Islands newspaper; Jim McAdam, a published expert on the plant types in the Falkland Islands; Frank Mitchell, another philatelist; Ann Savours Shirley, a widely published authority on the history of polar expeditions; and Ronnie Spafford, an eccentric ex-soldier.

It should be kept in mind that the text in certain instances has been crafted to address and counter specific claims regarding the history of the islands as relevant to the Argentine claims of sovereignty. Given Tatham's http://www.falklands.info/factfile/fiassociationlatest.html own position] it would be naive to regard this as a disinterested source. This point is particular relevant for the contribution by Pascoe and Pepper which was presented to the U.N.'s decolonisation committee in the annual debate about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Given that this is a collective work, involving diverse bodies and persons, I don't think that it meets the criteria of a self-published work.

The Dictionary does have a presence in the scholarly literature but it is extremely limited - at least two instances are by a contributor to the dictionary who is citing his own work. Also, given the diversity of the collection in terms of topics covered it would have been helpful if, say, Pascoe and Pepper's article had been cited.

If it's to be used I'd like a proper citation that contains the author of the article. This is necessary to judge the authority of any given article. I'd exclude all articles written by the subject of an article (not used in here in any case, I think). In fact, I'd ultimately favour establishing whether a given article in the collection meets acceptable rs standards rather than for the collection as a whole.

I think where this source is used to support a contentious historical point with implications for the sovereignty debate it should either be supported by another more authoritative source or, where the point is contested, alternative sources should be introduced to represent alternative points of view.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly agreeing with Byrne up above, but would like to note additional concerns with

WP:PRIMARY as an autobiography is. That being the case I do support its use in a more limited fashion within the article, so long as it is reasonably handled. I would like to say to Collect above that comments such as these, "The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa <g>." are not helpful. Not only have both been subsequently disproved, but your use of the grinning emoticon each time you make a point comes across poorly. I am not sure what you are doing to look for libraries, but a simple world cat search

returns 508 libraries with possession of a copy.

More importantly, in the time since its original publication it appears this work has been republished by Polar Record which is a reliable source. It's current citation thus reads:

Tatham, D, and I.R Stone. "The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (including South Georgia): from Discovery Up to 1981." Polar Record. (2009): 384. Print.

AerobicFox (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

More than 10% of the "work" was written by the editor. That much is "self-published." The autobiographies were "embellished" which reduces any reliablilty further. ThePolar Record use is for the review - it is not a reprint of the work -- in fact the review is on page 384 <g>. Sorry - this does not establish the work as being anything more than what ist is - a collection of embellished autobiographies supplemented by 50 biographies written by Tatham <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that AerobicFox, that is most helpful. So it is a reliable source . In answer to the two latest comments, it use is limited in the article (4 of 126 inline citations). Am I also right in thinking that where an article is written based on research from 3rd party sources,

WP:PRIMARY would not be of consideration? I am thinking specifically of the Vernet article that was written by Pepper and Pascoe. Responding specifically to Byrne, if you could suggest a better way of formatting the cite to include the author names I would be most grateful. Although I am an experienced editor I struggled to find the best way of doing it. BTW Ironically the point that was supported is actually in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim, repeating the Argentine position the settlement was destroyed in 1831. Wee Curry Monster talk

09:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Try this for the citation <ref>{{cite book|last=Foo|first=General Eustace|title=Dictionary of the Falklands|year=1981|publisher=Polar news|editor=David Tatham|chapter=2: Dont mention the war}}</ref>[6]