Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 109

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi all,

as part of a discussion at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies we're having a reliable sources question (and we probably want high value sources because we're also discussing an FA nomination).

Central question is - are the proceedings of a peer-reviewed conference article (computer science conference) a reliable source? and there's a broader supplemental question which would be - in the field of computer science is there an unusual number of prestigious conferences compared to other fields, and does this affect the relative weight of conferences and journals. The added text specific to the discussion is [1]

Thank you in advance,

Whoops, having done a search - it turns out this question comes up a lot and I've taken some links back to the talk page... thank you all!

talk

) 08:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tucker454 is unable to see that what he has written on the page under the section "Police scandal" are his opinions and not FACTS that he can attribute to reliable (or any) sources. The comments are libelous.

I have deleted the section three times now. I have asked him to provide attributions. He does not understand what an attribution is.

Perhaps someone else is willing to take a shot at it.

The section refers to use some mainstream news sources. It needs rewriting to ensure that only information in those news sources is presented. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are Wrestleview.com or LordsofPain.net reliable sources regarding wrestlers? Could they be used for

According to style guide at

WP:PW Lordsofpain is not reliable and that wrestleview is marginally reliable and should only be used for television and Pay Per view results. Based on that the only BLP info I can see being added with these sources would be something like Rey Mysterio won the World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania 22 in a triple threat match against Randy Orton and Kurt Angle.--70.24.209.180 (talk

) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Does anyone else have any supporting (or opposing) views on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is a guideline regarding the use of fan sites to source information in articles. I am currently reviewing an article (

As long as there is no real doubt that the fansite interview is legit, it should be usable under

WP:PRIMARY since it's from the publisher. Siawase (talk

) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Should the interview be attributed in text to the fan site (i.e. "In an interview with Game of Thrones fan site westerios.org Bryan Cogman said ....") or can it just be displayed within the reference at the end of the page? AIRcorn (talk)

Just cite it directly to Cogman, since in this case he is the primary source. In-line attributions are mostly given to establish to the reader the source of an opinion/point of view. If in-line attribution needs to be given as a sort of disclaimer because it cannot be reasonably established that the fansite actually interviewed the subject, then it should just be excluded, for

WP:BLP concerns if nothing else. Siawase (talk

) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fansites are a funny business (disclaimer: I'm the GA nominator for these issues)--We have sites like The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 that have themselves become notable sources, to the trivial and ephemeral. The bottom line question, as far as I can see it is this: if we have an uncontested fact reported only by non-RSes, can that continue to exist in a GA, or must it be excised in order to achieve that status? Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought the more relevant question is does anything that only appears in a fansite satisfy

Dmcq (talk

) 10:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's important to separate a fansite being notable from it being reliable. There is a difference between reliable sourcing writing about a fansite and them using it as a source. The former might make it notable, while the latter might make it reliable.

Re: "reported only by non-RSes" if the fansites are indeed not possible to identify as reliable sources per

WP:RS

they should not be used at all, and information only found there should not be included in Wikipedia. Most often fansites function as any other self published source and should not be used at all.

But if an author on the fansite is an established expert on the subject, ie has had articles and/or books published on the subject (by reputable publishers, not self-published.) In that case a fansite could possibly be used with

WP:SPS

concerns.

One problem with fansites is that they are often very close to the subject. Wikipedia articles should primarily use

WP:FRINGE

concerns.

tl;dr: Basically, some information found on fansites might be usable in some very limited circumstances, but there are a myriad of concerns and they should only be used very sparingly. At the very least, other more independent sources should dominate the article. Siawase (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the

19th century books of lyrical poetry are never reliable sources for history on wikipedia. History articles should never use primary sources to substantiate facts. See

WP:HISTRS for details on what sources are reliable for history: scholarly books published by academic or professional historians should comprise the core of a history article's sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk

) 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Would that include articles like book burning?--69.232.73.16 (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. How is Goethe's book relevant to that page? Andrew Dalby 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Goethe claims in that book -where he talks about Persian poetry- that Arabs destroyed/burned a lot of Persian books during their conquest of Persia. I wonder if I could use his quote in the book burning article.--69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not as a reliable source. It could go into a "cultural references" section or something, but Goethe, while a brilliant mind, is simply 200 years from current scholarship. Moreover, the

West-östlicher Diwan is a collection of poetry, not a scientific or historical source. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 13:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

- Noten und Abhandlungen zu besserem Verständnis des West-östlichen Divans - [Kalifen] - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You see, it is not only a collection of poetry. It has a quite magnificent "Notes and Clarifications" section which is the fruit of years of studying Persian history and literature by Goethe. --94.182.109.155 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it is still 200 years old scholarship. For this kind of thing it would be best to apply modern academical sources. Since Goethe is a notable figure it could perhaps be used as a primary source to source his view on things in a historiographical section, but it can't be used as a general source for the facts of the matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:69.232.73.16 wants to abuse this discussion to delete all historical sources which show the burning of books by Arabs in the respected article of Persian Wikipedia. Of course Goethe is notable enough to be cited in any matter regarding the history of literature and specially the Persian literature. He has done a lot of research in the fields of Islamic, Arabian and Persian literature and history. There is no doubt that he can be quoted in any article about these subjects. It is also interesting to mention that the very same IP has added revisionist texts to the "Book Burning" article of Persian Wikipedia to show that Arabs didn't burn or destroy any books and his sources are Islamic fundamentalists and Mullahs! One is his RELIABLE sources is Morteza Motahhari!--Raptor2002 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And whatever

the right side. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 20:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, whether this particular piece of text stems from essay or poetry by Goethe in neither case it is an acceptable source for historic statements. Even if Goethe were an eminent historic scholar of his time (which he was not), his 200 year old claim would not be considered a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I concurr with Kmhkmh and Stephan Schulz that the source is not reliable for book burning:

• Goethe was not working as a historian, or publishing as a historian, for a community of historians
• To the extent that he conducted valid scholarship outside of the poetry, scholarship from Goethe's time is not considered acceptable by the current community of historians for demonstrating history
• Seek modern histories of the book and book burning. Martyn Lyons is a historian of the book, you might like to check the footnotes and bibliography in his works on literary culture. Consider, for example, this chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Parity section of the

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the

I was looking at the article about Ellie Nesler. There are some factual errors I would like to correct. I have in my personal/professional archives a rather complete set of the actual Court documents. I testified in the matter as an expert. Most of these materials became public during the trial. They are not published anywhere (this was before the www). Is it ok to cite a personal collection or professional archive as a source? There are news accounts, but many are themselves inaccurate ... it was complicated. The primary correction I want to make has to do with the trial outcome and the decision on appeal. Pgm8693 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say not. Else everyone will start publishing items in their basement/garage in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but would add if you have good interesting material, you may be able to get it published in a reliable source--then we could use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

With the consent of other editors through talkpage discussions, I think these materials could potentially be used to facilitate the removal of information in the article if it is clearly and demonstrably wrong. But they should not be used to add new material. This is because they are

primary sources. The materials would need to be verifiable (i.e. other editors need to be able to check them). I would say that uploading to Docstoc or something would be okay in order to satisfy this requirement, but other editors might disagree, so that could be a hurdle.--FormerIP (talk

) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that will open the door to

WP:OR on those documents, the need to verify them, etc. Big time publications have been fooled that way... We have enough complaints about junk floating in Wikipedia, no need to add to them by someone finding Jimmy Hoffas diary in their basement, 3 Wikipedians verifying it and making news... etc. History2007 (talk

) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

primary source. Ian.thomson (talk

) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That is right. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between presenting a source for the inclusion of material in an article in an article (which I don't think can be done here) and merely presenting it for the purposes of discussion on a talk page. In that case, the core policies of OR and V are not applicable. I'll accept that it's not at all a straightforward matter. Pgm is nowhere if the veracity of the documents is contested by other editors, and there may well be a

WP:COI

issue as well.

To give a hypothetical example. Our article currently says - and this is completely unsourced - that Nesler "fired five shots into Driver's head". Let's say that Pgm is able to provide documents showing that the number of shots was four and only two of those were to the head. Documents showing this beyond any reasonable query and showing that it is something factually accepted by the court, the prosecution and the defence. Surely we should at least consider removing the incorrect information from the article? --FormerIP (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be a way to deal with this within our rules. Taking your hypothesis. If the current statement is unsourced, and the talk page shows it is controversial, it should be tagged "citation needed". Then: (a) If the only available "reliable" source confirms it (though we think from the documents that it is false) we could (a.1) still remove it -- we don't have to repeat every word that reliable sources say -- or (a.2) retain it, but add an attribution to the source in the text. Which is the normal signal that we don't stand by the assertion. Or (b) if no reliable source confirms our current statement, then of course we remove the detail altogether until we do have such a source.

Between choices (a.1) and (a.2) I would go for (a.2) in cases where there is significant current interest, because, if the detail is simply removed, someone else is pretty sure to re-insert it. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to attribute incorrect information. We can just delete it. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nesler "fired five shots into Driver's head", that's sourceable to the MSNBC article, but if it weren't sourceable, the simple solution would be to remove it, since anything not sourced is fair game for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's sourceable, Nuujinn. That's because my scenario in which it is false was totally made up. The point is that information which editors are reasonably able conclude is false should be removed from Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter what process is gone through in order to reach that conclusion. It could very easily be based on looking at court documents that contradict news reports. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We may use primary sources to correct simple errors, e.g., a direct quote, the spelling of a name, the length of a sentence, but cannot interpret those sources, even if the secondary source's interpretation is wrong. The correct approach then is to approach the publisher of the secondary source. Also, we may provide links to court documents. TFD (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia discourages links to primary sources such as court documents.

The applicable section is

WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event. The article should be re-named and links to court documents for articles that are about crime stories are appropriate. (Read the article.) It is of course inappropriate to link to court documents for a person whose claim to notability is not their involvement in a legal proceeding. TFD (talk

) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Thanks! to everybody who discussed this. It was useful and interesting, and I think History2007 nailed the answer in the first response: If you let me cite some old Court documents, I'm going to want to reference the letter J. Edgar Hoover sent me about the Occupy Wall Street movement's connection to Occupy Sesame Street agitators. What I realized is that I should just raise the issues on the talk page and see if someone wants to source it. Or I can wait until I have time myself. --Pgm8693 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Senra (Talk) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Letters, Samantha (2010) Online Gazetteer of Markets in England and Wales to 1516 a reliable source (as I suspect it is)? This Centre for Metropolitan History web site is linked to by the National Archives in the Markets and Fairs section --Senra (Talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean reliable for a statement such as "Ely has had a market since at least 1224 and fairs were granted from as early as 1189" --Senra (Talk) 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it meets the guidelines. It discusses the underlying sources used, it accepts corrections, it's been cited by other academic historians, NA seem to think it's a good source, ...bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have purchased software that I'm trying to re download to a new computer. My code key won't register. I lost all software with the exception of email confirmation. --74.175.98.99 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't the place for software advice - you may consider contacting the company directly. We're not them. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions:

• 1. Is Dan Barker's book, "Godless", considered a reliable source at Wikipedia? Some editors are pointing to his lack of an advanced degree, but not addressing the work itself or the publisher as outlined in WP:RS. Dan Barker, (2008) Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, Berkeley: Ulysses Press. ISBN:978-1-56975-677-5.
• 2. If this is arguable, can his book be used to report direct quotations by reliable sources? For example, is a direct quote in Barker's book from a professor of Theology at Oxford University, a collective statement by the Bible scholars at the Westar Institute, etc. allowable on Wikipedia if it is related to the article? There is some question about whether the "source" in that case is Barker or the person he is quoting.

Hopefully I explained sufficiently. If not, the discussion thread is here, and the diff in question is here. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-expert writer published by non-academic press = citable as his own opinion only, and only to the extent that his opinion is notable. Certainly not usable for more than a sentence I suspect. Amazon "rave reviews" (Loftus et al.) are from people who are generally associated with atheism <g> making them not very strong in showing notability of the book. Unless some outside source shows the book to be notable, I fear my psotiion is that it could be used for a single sentence of opinion only. Dan Barker, AFAICT, is specifically "not notable" by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That addresses my first question, but not necessarily the second, which is a broader question that I'm sure has been asked here before. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

First,

WP:RS. I'm all in favor of treating popular books with caution, but there is no obvious red flag here. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He self-identifiea as a fundamentalist Quaker associate pastor. If you were familiar with Quakers <g> I think a "red flag" would show. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've eaten their oats, and it seems fine, if a bit overpriced.... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he was an evangelical pastor for 19 years before he "converted" to atheism. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And you know of how many Quaker fundamentalist evangelical Christians who have a pastor in their church? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Barker's book would be a reliable source for his own opinion, or for some elements of his biography. It would not be a reliable source for "Christians believe..." or "atheists believe..." or "Jesus rose from the dead" or "Jesus did not rise from the dead" or "historians conclude..." As far as the quotations from the professor of Theology and the Bible scholars, if these are otherwise published then that other source should be used, if it's reliable itself and otherwise suitable. If they aren't otherwise published, for instance if they come from non-published correspondence or an interview, I don't think we should rely on them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tom Harrison above. The book would be a reliable source for information about the subject himself, the book itself, if it is sufficiently notable for a separate article, and, if the material is noncontroversial, maybe for noncontroversial material about his church, individual churches he might have served at, perhaps other people in the book about whom noncontroversial material is presented, etc. And I suppose if there is an article out there which has material like "some atheists believe", maybe it could be used there as well. But the author does not seem to have the qualifications necessary for him to be presented as any sort of generally reliable source regarding either Christian or atheistic thought. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why if someone interviews a reliable source, their report on what that reliable source said isn't generally reliable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because they could be lying. Or sloppy. If their work appears in a magazine where a fact-checker will have called up the subject to ask "just checking, did you say such-and-such?" (as good magazines do), then it's pretty reliable. If it's a good newspaper where the reporter is expected to get things rights and his notes are subject to review at need, it's somewhat reliable. Otherwise, not. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion in Talk about linking to RSN in citations, for sources which have been challenged and passed by RSN. Discuss there, please. --Lexein (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Under dispute is this sentence:

"Although accepted by the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, a minority does not endorse this doctrine. [ref:] Lee Elder, The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, "Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy", Journal of Medical Ethics, 2000, Vol 26, pages 375-380.[/ref]"

At the article's talk page, one side claims that "The source is a peer-reviewed medical journal, which meets Wikipedia standards as a

A medical ethics journal would certainly seem to be reliable for sourcing on issues of medical ethics, such as blood transfusions practices of certain religions. Yobol (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol. I can't think of a better source, in fact. A peer-reviewed medical ethics journal is a very reliable source when it comes to medicine-related religious beliefs. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My point (stated on the talk page) was that in a religion of seven million, it is not an incredible or outrageous claim that a minority of members would disagree with what is probably the most controversial of the religion's beliefs. There is therefore nothing to suggest that the author of the article in the medical ethics journal had his facts wrong. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fundamental misconception here is that what makes the (apparently undisputed?) fact worth mentioning is the percentage of dissenting Witnesses. That's not how Wikipedia works. What makes the fact worth mentioning is the emphasis that the sources give to this. Even if only one single member out of the millions disagreed, if the reliable sources talked a lot about that one person, then including that fact that one person dissented would actually be

WP:DUE

.

There are, BTW, other sources that talk about dissension and diversity of interpretations on this point, so the factual claim here can hardly be dismissed as merely one person's opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed journal like this one is one of the best kinds of reference. My question is that the reference is written by a member of this minority. Even if it is worth keeping mention of the minority, is it worth keeping a specific reference to the specific organization AJWRB since the only reference for it is written by the main person of that organization? StandFirm (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to echo what other editors have said above about the source being both reliable and relevant while also stating that if the journal's editorial staff was unable to adequately review a specific part of an article they would almost certainly find an expert(from their college/association/etc or another) to review that part. As for your question, it is an original analysis of the source, unless another source has commented on the authorship of the source such considerations should be deferred to the publisher who has clearly felt that the source deserves weight by publishing it.AerobicFox (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This book: Dempsey, Daniel V, A Tradition of Excellence - Canada's Airshow Team Heritage, High Flight Enterprises, Victoria, BC, 2007,

At first glance the book looks reliable. It is over 750 pages long and has over 1800 photos and obviously took a lot of work to compile as it weighs about 20 lbs, being printed on clay paper in full colour. The author was a two-tour pilot with the

The book contains ringing jacket endorsements from such people as Christopher Terry, President and CEO of the Canadian Science and Technology Museums Corporation, James Boutilier, Professor of Military History and a forward by Fred Sutherland, LGEN (retired), former head of Canada's Air Force and Honorary Colonel of the Snowbirds.

Overall, while this is a very large, and obviously passionately-written book, I am not at all convinced that it meets

If he was the commanding officer of the Snowbirds, wouldn't that be a pretty good claim for being an established expert on the subject? --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but he hasn't been published anywhere before that I can tell, as required to establish writing and researching credentials as per

WP:USERGENERATED. Also more than half the book is about earlier teams, many of which are from before he was born, like Siskins, so it isn't like it is all written from personal experience. - Ahunt (talk

) 17:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Without going into the "back story" of this book and intimating personal knowledge, it was originally intended to be published as an authoritative and heavily researched/cited historical work but the economics of the book publishing industry gravitated against this approach in the period in which the manuscript was being created. Other massive failures of the coffee table weight "desk reference" books were testament to a very bleak outlook for the work. With no publishing house behind the book, and with a reluctance to pare it down for a more popular audience in order to find a sympathetic publisher, the heady decision to go into a self-publishing venture was the result. The effort to provide a substantive work met head-on with the economics of producing a massive tone and finding any receptive market/audience. Despite some of the concerns mentioned above, the research that was done was consistent with that of any authoritative work, the author having access to source material that was both unique and reliable. I consider A Tradition of Excellence as a valuable resource and have found it accurate in the limited field in which I work, as all statements that were scrutinized, after comparison, were found to be verifiable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks

WP:SPS, just make an exception because the author couldn't find a publisher? Wouldn't this set a poor precedent on accepting self-published works across Wikipedia? - Ahunt (talk

) 17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The author is also Team Historian for Hawk One and in that position, has been published in various aviation trade journals including AviNation as well as more popular aviation-themed magazines. For example, I have this electronic source: <http://history.aviation.ca/content/view/475/75/> . FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that helps! - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He has also spoken extensively at aviation historical events, including at least two conferences in which I have attended. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I know he has done public speaking, but

WP:SPS doesn't account for that. - Ahunt (talk

) 18:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The material that was being presented on the topic of Canada's military over 100 years of aviation, was "vetted" from the Forces, and was prepared exclusively for the topic and audience. It clearly fell into the gray area of an "electronic paper" but was not published in any other form. Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

All good points. I think we have to go back to the intent of not using SPS's. As I see it, the main rationale is meant to minimize problems associated with information accuracy, deception, and POV. Definitely there is a POV issue as you describe (the "lobbying" toward the end of the book), but in general, I would say the book is accurate in the information that's presented, and does not deceive. No doubt there is information left out, such as several accidents, but I don't think this minimizing was intentional. Major crashes are indeed described, however. Most of the book consists of first-hand accounts related by former team members - Dempsey compiled the information - and they seem to remember what they feel is relevant and important to them. Dempsey does not fill in the information gaps except for the historical context (mostly at the beginning of the book). If he did, this tome would not be able to be lifted. Much of the information included in the book is not available elsewhere, and I have to hand it to Dan for the work that he did do. Yes, it has shortcomings, but what book doesn't. Indeed no sources are given except for a long list of acknowledgements, but very few books do, unless they are of a "scholarly" nature. Another point is that, although it is self-published, it is of a quality that it could easily have been published elsewhere. No doubt if the book was published by a publisher other than High Flight Enterprises, it would probably have cut back on the POV issue, but all-in-all I think it is close to a quality that could have been published by a third-party publisher.

So, my opinion is that, yes it is a SPS, but we have to look beyond WP:SPS and look at the intent of the book. It was not written to deceive; it was written to inform and educate, and indeed, most of the book is a compilation of memories provided by others rather than Dempsey himself.

There are lots of authors who are "established experts" who have not previously had their work published by "reliable third-party publications". Should they be penalized?

Just some food for thought.- BC  _{talk to me} 19:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Brian: Thanks for your input here, I think you have hit just about all the key issues. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the comments above;

WP:IAR - a self-published source can be very accurate, while a "reputable" one can not be (look at most books about Soviet aircraft published prior to 1992, for instance!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

19:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For at least two of the articles, that are military history as opposed to militaria / operational, I'd suggest that you seek out reviews of the work in the scholarly sources as suggested at the beta advice

WP:HISTRS. If the work is reviewed favourably by historians, feel free. I'd be suspicious though. I don't know if Canada has the centralised official war history apparatus that Australia does; but, I'd suggest that this work falls more than a few degrees short of the standards of Official history. (I am not at all hopeful given the absence of sourcing and footnoting for claims). Fifelfoo (talk

) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is "official" history or not of Canada's air demonstration teams, the book remains a very valuable resource and is unmatched by any other resource available. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

• Review Review" “There is NOTHING like this in existence. Anywhere. Period … An absolutely magnificent accomplishment …”Christopher J. Terry, President & CEO Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation.
  • The first link isn't a review, it is a bunch of snippets on the author's website. The PDF file it contains is similarly not a review. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The second link isn't a review, it is a bunch of snippets pasted into a section anybody can edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "By far the grandest, most in-depth and magnificently-produced Canadian aviation book ever published." Larry Milberry, Historian, Member of Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame.
  • This is a genuine review, of a non-scholarly nature. The opinion of this publisher of militaria, "this is a treasure that deserves a place of honour in any aviation fan's library" goes towards the reliability/expertise for the militaria aspects of the book. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "This is not just a splendid book, it is a spectacular one ... It can only be described as a labour of love, a fastidiously researched and profusely illustrated account of the history of Canadian air force and navy aerobatic teams over the years ..." James A. Boutilier, Professor of Military History, Veritas Magazine, RMC Club of Canada.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "I feel confident stating that this book has resulted in the most complete history ever written on Canada's airshow teams." Mark Proulx, Canadian Aviation Historical Society.
  • Mark Proulx, the reviewer, regularly reviews aviation works. Proulx reviewed it primarily for three criteria: use for modellers (not relevant); militaria (relevant); military history (relevant). Proulx's work is favourable for expertise on militaria. It is not favourable for use as military history; in fact, it speaks very strongly against this use, "To ensure total historical accuracy sources were contacted throughout Canada, the United States and Europe. Countless hours were spent gathering photos, locating and interviewing dozens of former team members about their experiences." which indicates that this is very much in the line of non-professional and non-academic history (not particularly the absence of the words "archives" or "oral history" and instead "sources were contacted" and "interview"). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Wow" ... I knew it was going to be good but this masterpiece is wonderful by each and every standard. It's such a superb effort ... in keeping with your own "tradition of excellence." Col Terry Leversedge, Historian, Author, RCAF.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "A Tradition of Excellence is a well-researched, well-written, beautifully illustrated book." Bob Merrick, reviewer COPA (Canadian Owners' and Pilots' Association) magazine.
  • This isn't a book review, it is a publisher's list of snippets on a selling site. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Without a doubt, one of the finest works of aviation histories ever put together!" Captain Dale Hackett, former Snowbirds pilot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Hackett's review is limited (4 sentences), and he doesn't have competence to judge if this is a history or not. He is enthusiastic about the book, and as an expert aviator, I think it means we can trust the aviation in this book. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "In a year of outstanding aviation books, this one stands out most strongly - but don't waste time in obtaining one, because it is not likely to ever be found on a "remainders" table and is surely destined to become a collector "s item." Don Connolly - Aerial Views Canadian Aviation Artists" Association.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Rich in spectacular photography, wonderful illustrations, and detailed research, the book is exceptional in every way." Gord McNulty, Historian, CAHS, The Hamilton Spectator Reviewer.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "I'm totally blown away at the whole book ... Brilliant effort!" Graham Wragg, Historian, CAHS.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Wow! What a fantastic book ... It took a few evenings just to work through the pictures. Now I am starting on the narrative. It is obvious so far that it was a labour of love for you." Kevin Psutka , CEO, Canadian Owners' and Pilots' Association.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)**There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "... this valuable resource which you have so cleverly and beautifully put together. Every aviation enthusiast must have this marvellous book. Congratulations ..." Rich & Jay Thistle; Rich is an aviation historian and artist.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Canada's Aviation Blockbuster of the Year - A Spectacular Presentation ..." Airforce Magazine.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "The quality of Dempsey "s book lives up to the Snowbirds" tradition of excellence ... A monumental book sure to gladden the heart of any aircraft buff ... Sidney Allinson, Victoria Times Colonist.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Former Snowbird Lieutenant Colonel Dan Dempsey's thorough compilation of the history of Canadian air military and civilian teams is collected in 700 pages that are rich in detail of text and enlivened with 1,700 fabulous photographs that make this hefty book a page turner as well as a collector's item ..." The Globe and Mail Book Review.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "This book is unarguably the definitive history of Canada's airshow demonstration teams ... Dempsey has left no stone unturned researching this book." Aviator magazine.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Review "Magnificent ... Clearly a labour of love ..." Mary Lou Finlay As it Happens - CBC Radio.
  • There's no indication that this was published, could you provide a citation. Random chinese document sites aren't reliable for indicating that the text was published as is. (and it is unreadable). This appears to be a translation into Chinese of the word document contained on the publisher's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Care to provide the full reviews (citations are fine) which these quotes came from, or are they simply back of dustcover endorsements? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Many many thanks for providing links to the reviews, I'm not able to examine them in the light of
    HISTRS now, but I will do so in the next 24 hours. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk
    ) 06:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Due to the number and density I have replied in an interspersed fashion regarding each source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Currently I'd consider the SPS expert exemption established for matters of militaria (orgs, specs, etc.); but not matters of military history (judgement, weight, evaluation, advocacy, complex evaluation of sources and judgements outside of org tables, specs, etc.). I'm waiting on proper links to the other reviews; I do not trust Chinese text dumps, that appear to be no more than the author's own collection of snippets. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since this material was found originally on the High Flight Enterprises website and no longer exists, all I have is an archival copy of the 2002 reviews and testimonials that accompany the release of the first edition and a fraction of the same for the revised 2007 edition. In perusing the statements, you will note that many were published in other sources such as newspapers, media outlets and websites which I have highlighted. Nonetheless, here is the translated document:

This is the text from the site that provides a number of testimonials regarding the book: A Tradition of Excellence ..."'

Book Reviews & Testimonials A Tradition of Excellence - Canada's Airshow Team Heritage Second Edition - the first reviews are in ...

♦ Amazing stuff, Dan, and congratulations hardly begin to give you the recognition you deserve for this accomplishment. It is magnificent, all the way. Your first 27 pages (of the updated section) just blow me away. Don't miss this one! Former Snowbird Lead, Dan Dempsey, has revised his world-class book A Tradition of Excellence: Canada's Airshow Team Heritage. By far the grandest, most in-depth and magnificently-produced Canadian aviation book ever published, this is a treasure that deserves a place of honour in any aviation fan's library. Full coverage 1918 to 2007 of such great Canadian teams as the Siskins of 1930, the Blue Devils of 1950, such later teams as Gray Ghosts, Golden Hawks and Golden Centennaires, and today's Snowbirds. Many other teams fly across the pages of this astounding publication, whether Canadian or such visitors from abroad as the Red Arrows, Frecci Tricolori, Blue Angels or Thunderbirds. Airshow planes covered include everything from the WWI Fokker D.VII to the Siskin, Seafire, Harvard, Mustang, Vampire, Banshee, Sabre, T-33, CF-100, CF-101, CF-104, Tutor, Musketeer, CF-5, CF-18, Kiowa, even the Argus, Neptune, Tracker and Sea King! Many warbirds (Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, etc.) and other civilian types also pop up as you turn the pages of this masterpiece. Stunning original paintings by the great Peter Mossman and other artists complement the photos, many of which are from the lenses of the world's top aviation photographers. With 1000s of photos and weighing 4 kg, you'll need a sturdy coffee table for this beauty, but you'll revel in every page. Publishing perfectionist that he is, author Dempsey has been sure to include a full appendix, bibliography and index. 766pp, hc, 9.5x12 in. $125.00 CANAV Price $110.00 + $8.50 shipping + GST. (USA US$135pp, Overseas US$165.00pp)Larry Milberry CANAV Books Review August 4, 2007

♦ I would like to congratulate you on your book release ... Great job! The book is interesting and filled with fantastic photographs. Paul Houle Toronto , Ontario September 8, 2007 We've received our book and WOW!! It is definitely going to be one of the most enjoyable reads and keepsakes in our household. My husband is a helicopter pilot and an avid aviation buff. I haven't seen him since the book arrived but know he's hunkered down somewhere in the house. He'll surface every once in a while to show me some pictures and very excitedly explain what he just read. The detail, the history, the pictures! Thanks for sharing this remarkable, well written, well researched documentation of Canadian aerobatics history. Vicki & Phil Clay October 5, 2007

♦ It is a tome of extraordinary information, well written and presented ... it is one of my treasures ... Gerry Gelley Florida October 17, 2007 Wow, what a book! Mark Tibbetts Puslinch, Ontario October 16, 2007

HIGH FLIGHT ENTERPRISES LTD. _________________________________________________ 2 The following book reviews and testimonial messages were received following the publication of the first edition of A Tradition of Excellence - Canada's Airshow Team Heritage: Media Reviews

♦ This is not just a splendid book, it is a spectacular one ... It can only be described as a labour of love, a fastidiously researched and profusely illustrated account of the history of Canadian air force and navy aerobatic teams over the years ... Dr . James A. Boutilier Professor of Military History Veritas Magazine, RMC Club of Canada

♦ Canada's Aviation Blockbuster of the Year - A Spectacular Presentation ... Airforce Magazine ♦ The quality of Dempsey "s book lives up to the Snowbirds" tradition of excellence ... A monumental book sure to gladden the heart of any aircraft buff ... Sidney Allinson, Victoria Times Colonist

♦ Magnificent ... Clearly a labour of love ... Mary Lou Finlay As it Happens - CBC Radio

♦ For aviation enthusiasts, nothing matches the thrill of an airshow: the precision flying, the daring aerobatic manoeuvres and the powerful machinery have drawn thousands of people to Canada's airshows for over 80 years. Of course, the Snowbirds are a household name, but their excellence is drawn from a long tradition of other Canadian teams, from the RCAF's Blue Devils, Golden Hawks and the Golden Centennaires. Former Snowbird Lieutenant Colonel Dan Dempsey's thorough compilation of the history of Canadian air military and civilian teams is collected in 700 pages that are rich in detail of text and enlivened with 1,700 fabulous photographs that make this hefty book a page turner as well as a collector's item ... The Globe and Mail source

♦ It's a wonderful book ... a gap in our history now superbly covered. A Tradition of Excellence is a well-researched, well-written, beautifully illustrated book to delight all those who have, over the past 70 years, thrilled to the flawless aerial ballets at countless airshows. For older readers, it will bring back some stirring memories of fast, noisy aircraft doing incredible things close to the ground. For younger readers, it will be an opportunity to delve into the past to see how the air force established those traditions of airshow excellence ... Bob Merrick, COPA Flight

♦ Outstanding ... Highly recommended to our listeners ... Sterling Faux, Corus Radio Network 3

♦ This book is unarguably the definitive history of Canada's airshow demonstration teams ... Dempsey has left no stone unturned researching this book, and the collective stories are all backed up with hundreds of gorgeous illustrations and photographs ... This book goes a long way towards promoting the continued tradition of aerial demonstration in Canadian aviation and is an essential addition to the library of any Canadian aviation aficionado ... Aviator Magazine

♦ This book was well publicized before hand and a long time coming, but the lengthy gestation period was worth the wait and the results are spectacular. It weighs in at over eight pounds, so strengthen your coffee table. The author is an ex Snowbirds leader and obviously a devotee of excellence in the publishing field as well. The book is well researched, reads well, and is replete with quality images. Photos and avart illustrations abound. For example, there are over two dozen repros of works by nine CAAA members alone, many in large scale format, and an exceptionally fine set of colour profiles by Peter Mossman (some 42, covering 14 pages). The narrative runs from the earliest days of the RCAF up to the present, and much of the knowledgeable commentary is provided by airmen who were part of the numerous teams, and by the solo performers as well. This gives the reader a rare insight into the technical and highly professional side of demonstration flying; it also conveys equally well the immense pride these people took in their work and the emotions of patriotism and camaraderie that inspired them and which still stir memories of what was for many "the best years of our lives". The book was printed by Friesens of Manitoba, and apparently no expense was spared in the production standards. While the price of this opulent offering is necessarily high, it definitely delivers full value for the cost. And, hey, what keen aviation artist wouldn "t gladly forsake a night of fine wining and dining with a companion just to have such a volume in his / her library? In a year of outstanding aviation books, this one stands out most strongly - but don "t waste time in obtaining one, because it is not likely to ever be found on a "remainders" table and is surely destined to become a collector "s item. Don Connolly - Aerial Views Canadian Aviation Artists" Association

♦ Rich in spectacular photography, wonderful illustrations, and detailed research, the book is exceptional in every way. It's a collector's item for young and old alike ... It's no exaggeration to say that Dempsey has done a flawless job in his first book. His enthusiasm, dedication and professionalism shine through on every page. He finishes with an eloquent appeal for the preservation of the Snowbirds and the replacement of the 1960s-vintage Tutors with new aircraft ... The book is an excellent investment. It will provide many hours of enjoyment and a new appreciation of why the Snowbirds and their predecessors should justifiably be regarded as national treasures. Gord McNulty The Hamilton Spectator 4

♦ A Tradition of Excellence Canada's Airshow Team Heritage Reviewed by Mark Proulx 10 "X12" Hard Cover 734 Pages

FWiW, I have probably neglected to mention that I am also an accredited Official RCAF Historian. Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

• If you're a RCAF historian, I suggest you publish a review of the work, because these snippets aren't acceptable for wikipedia policy purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that many of the reviews are given in full or extract and the publishing source is identified. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

In addition, this is the foreward of the book:

Foreward by Lieutenant General Fred R. Sutherland, CMM, CD. Honorary Colonel - 431 Air Demonstration Squadron

"Now look straight ahead for the nine twinkling lights as the Team Lead calls for the Snowbirds to check in." With these words, the ensuing pull-up of the 'trademark' nine-plane formation and the stirring sounds of Steven Vitali's musical tribute, In Flight, another Snowbird show begins.

For the next 30 minutes, audiences ranging in size from a few hundred in Canada's Far North, to several hundred thousand at other major showsites across Canada and the United States, will be treated to a display of aerial skill and professionalism by Canada's world famous air demonstration team. The show is, in every sense of the word, a virtual aerial ballet, choreographed with a precision in time and space that knows few equals.

Members of today's Snowbird team shoulder a significant responsibility - one which is subliminal, and thus unspoken, but which is very real. That responsibility is threefold. First, it is to execute the team's primary mission - specifically to demonstrate the professionalism of each member of the Canadian Forces. Second, it is one of 'stewardship,' that is, to maintain the very high reputation established by all those aircrew and groundcrew members who have preceded them in the team's proud history. Finally, it is to preserve the 'tradition of excellence' established by such eminent predecessors as the Siskins, Blue Devils, Golden Hawks and Golden Centennaires in a legacy that dates back over eight decades in Canada. Even today, these teams still evoke powerful memories from those fortunate enough to have seen them fly - each of them an integral part of Canada's proud aviation heritage.

Through his book, Dan Dempsey makes an invaluable contribution to the preservation of this 'tradition of excellence.' Only someone who has been there and who has established such credibility within the airshow team community, both past and present, could have elicited so many rich first-hand accounts of their experiences from members of that unique fraternity. Coupled with outstanding collections of photographs and art work, this book provides a truly superb chronicle of the distinguished history and proud legacy of Canada's aerial demonstration teams.

This wonderful book must and will serve as a constant and vivid reminder, to both the people of Canada and to our country's civilian and military decision makers, that the Snowbirds are the visible and very popular custodians of our airshow heritage. By discharging their role with such singular excellence during their 32-year history, and by touching millions of lives in such a positive way, they have become, in every sense of the word, a national treasure - a treasure which simply must be preserved for future generations of Canadians to see.

F.R. Sutherland, CMM, CD Lieutenant-General (Ret'd) Honorary Colonel 431 (AD) Sqn ♦ Received the book today - truly magnificent!! The CD Rom simply can't do it justice. F.R. Sutherland LGen (Ret’d), Bath, Ontario, 30 Oct 2002. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Personally I wouldn't give too much weight to book forwards. A friend of mine wrote a book commissioned by a well-known commercial publishing house. The forward is by a former Prime Minister of Canada. The author admits he wrote the forward and that the ex-PM's office read it and signed off on it. In this case this book is very clearly advocating for the non-disbandment of the Snowbirds, so it hardly seems surprising that the honourary colonel of the Snowbirds thinks it is a great book. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be obstreperous, and with a raft of personal anecdotes to validate the above observation, but the foreward in this case, was quoted, because it did represent a learned and credible source, especially in the penultimate statement. (I was sorely tempted to edit the more effusive statements, but left them, as is.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

I agree about the effusivness. You have brought us back to one of my earliest points. This book is not like an academic history book. It is not an objective history of the subject, as it is very enthusiastically promotional in tone and content. If it were just a neutral-POV history book that had failed to find a publisher I probably wouldn't have brought it here for consultation, but the book never loses a chance to be promotional. One small example: The book has a series of preliminary sketches that lead to the Snowbird's team logo, starting with a matchbook cover that was the initial inspiration. These are very helpful to see and you would expect the caption to read something like "The evolution of designs for the team logo" or similar. Instead it says "The birth of a famous logo. The matchbook cover that inspired the sketches that led to the final version of the Snowbird crest. Today it is recognized around the world as a symbol of aerial excellence, Canadian style." The author never stops being wildly promotional like that throughout the book, especially where the Snowbirds are concerned, constantly lobbying for their survival as a team, as the book's thesis. For instance the opening page of the Snowbirds chapter (which is almost a quarter of the book) says "In preserving the proud traditions of their predecessors, the Snowbirds have become a highly visible symbol of national pride". I don't question that this is a very lovingly crafted work. As User:Brian Crawford noted above, if it had been commercially published the promotional language would have probably been edited out. Will Snowbird enthusiasts love this book - yes. Will most aviation enthusiasts enjoy the book - yes. Would it make a great Christmas gift for the pilot on your shopping list - yes. What I question is using this as a source for Wikipedia because of the book's combination of being self-published and openly non-objective in its treatment of the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and all those plaudits above are irrelevant to us. We are considering whether to cite a

WP:SPS as a reliable source. If the author has been published elsewhere as an expert on this subject, we can use it. If the book has been accepted into the academic/technical literature on this subject, we can use it. If not, we can still of course list it as "further reading" but we can't treat it as a reliable source. So please may we focus on those two questions? Andrew Dalby

15:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What I see is a bit of the "curate's egg" conundrum. On one hand, the book clearly covers the following topics in a scholarly (well-researched and written manner):

• Canadian International Air Show
• List of airshow accidents and incidents
• Snowbirds
• Red Knight (aircraft)
• McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo
• Blue Devils (aerobatic team)
• Golden Centennaires
• Armstrong Whitworth Siskin
• Golden Hawks
• Canadair Sabre
• Abbotsford International Airshow
• RCAF Station Grostenquin
• Siskins
• History of the Royal Canadian Air Force
• 410 Tactical Fighter Operational Training Squadron

... and further, the author has been a contributor to academic and trade journals as a historian, and fulfills that role with a flight team, historical association and private museum/collection. The above statements are examples of the book being reviewed by independent and reputable media and history-based sources, and should not be considered "irrelevant"; rather, they fulfill the requirement of having a peer review.

At the same time, one of the aspects that is missing in an academic work is the documentation which likely exists but is not provided within the book (likely because of a choice of limiting the already large amount of text rather than choosing to create a popular-vein approach or worse, having a less than authentic account). The other aspect that is present is a perceived "boosterism" for the home team.

Given the excellent points already raised, is A Tradition of Excellence: Canada's Airshow Team Heritage accurate? Difficult to assess by outsiders, but "insiders" conclude that it is an accurate historical record of Canada's air teams. Was it written by an experte or knowledgeable subject matter specialist? Yes Was due care and academic standards met? Yes and no here, as the attributable reference sources are not present but in many cases, can be verified by other sources. Is it a valuable resource? Again, yes for most of the "curate's egg" but obviously, the other part of the "curate's egg" is inclusion of opinions by the author that must be tempered by a more jaundiced view of having a lobbying effort appear within an otherwise, historical treatise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

User:Bzuk: I think that is an excellent summary! It is a bit of a dilemma, which is why I brought it here for discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This type of source comes up often in military history articles, especially regimental history, where the most complete sources are written by people close to the subject. I would consider it rs. TFD (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a reliable source for factual statements but it may be better not to use it as a source of opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found that I've become frustrated and emotionally involved in this RS/N review, and so won't comment any further as I'd not be contributing at the high level of quality I prefer to contribute at (apologies to the Bzuk who has worked hard with RS/N to get a conclusion). I would remind editors that before I reached this point that I'd accepted the expert/SPS argument for the militaria side of the work, and was undecided regarding the military history (the analytical and evaluative) side of the work—do not take this withdrawal from the process as a statement against the work, or for it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am sorry to see you withdraw. I think you asked some good questions and made some good points that got us all thinking. Thank you for participating. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have come to an end, so I thought I would summarize it before it gets archived. In re-reading all the comments it seems that the general consensus is that this book can be used as a source for factual information, but, because of its self-published nature and unabashed Snowbirds lobbying, should not be used for opinion or mistaken for an objective academic-style history book. Please do correct me if anyone thinks this is not an accurate summary. - Ahunt (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Genocide Watch a suitable source for including one of their statements in a BLP? Do goverments and other civil society organisations pay serious attention to what Genocide Wach has to say or is it a fringe organisation with little credibility? A statement by the organisation is being used in Julius Malema#Genocide Watch Place South Africa at Stage 6 on Countries at Risk Chart. In the light of the strict sourcing rules regarding negative information in BLPs, I'm not sure if the section should be in the article. The subject of the BLP is currently a hot topic in South Africa. Roger (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a fringe organisation. It's an advocacy organisation. Here I think the issue is that its view is not notable enough for inclusion. And the statement referred to was made in September, before the subject's conviction in South Africa in November. So I think leave out, at least for now. It could be considered again if there is independent press coverage of the question. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the organisation's statement was clearly in response to the subjects conviction (in a court) for hate speech just three days before they issued the statement. We must be careful to distinguish between a conviction in a court of law and the "conviction" resulting from an internal disciplinary procedure of his political party. Roger (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(I originally asked this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology)

What's the procedure for dealing with sources that become dubious? Are any of our articles affected by this (alleged) data manipulation?

• Max Eddy (November 8th, 2011). "Famed Dutch Psychologist Faked Reams of Data, Dozens of Studies Tainted - Diederik Stapel"

(University of Tilburg report, Science Magazine article via The Chronicle of Higher Education via Reddit) --Lexein (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• • As the scholarly consensus changes on who is a member of the community of scholars, so we change our use of the sources made by those "scholars." Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• (did you mean double asterisks?) Where is that scholarly consensus expressed? An author can be reliable for some works, but unreliable for others. Per the end of the ScienceMag article,

"The report says that Diederik Stapel voluntarily identified a list of journal articles he authored or co-authored that were "based on fabricated data" but that list is not in the report and has not yet been made public."

So, do we at Wikipedia immediately act upon the release of that list? Or wait until after the "further investigations" have completed? A brief search reveals no citations containing his name, but a search for titles of the works would be more constructive.

List of publications ending in 2008, from archive. Current list of publications is blank. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If the scholarly public haven't made up their mind yet, we wouldn't act. If there hasn't been a published report, or note, saying that their work is unacceptable, then we wouldn't act yet and would wait on that report or note by scientists. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the ScienceMag article repeating information from an admission constitute a published report that we could at least consider for use in Wikipedia? I am not saying we necessarily must delete references to the older articles that have been brought into question. But it does seem to me that we could add reference to published doubts expressed about them? I think the question Where is that scholarly consensus expressed? is a reasonable question, but it points to something we can never resolve fully for most disciplines. For most disciplines Wikipedia editors need to use judgement about how to balance their use of sources, including at least some primary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Original findings published in articles should be considered primary sources and normally should not be used for articles. However one would expect that the psychologist's articles would still meet rs as secondary sources, i.e., they would correctly explain the understanding of other psychologists at the time they were written. I assume that if studies become discredited then subsequent writing will ignore their findings. So there is really no issue at all. TFD (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Where an article has been specifically disavowed, it is not likely that using it in any article as a source is wise - even if the original publication was "reliable" it is presumed that disavowal by the author on the grounds that he wrote a fraudulent article is sufficient to remove the article from Wikipedia entirely as a source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, disavowal by author or retraction by the publisher/journal invalidates the reliability completely. I would however remove the claims from the article in question on grounds of suspicion only - as TFD says it is much better to use secondary sources when in doubt.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this site reliable for its South Park reviews?

Reviews are statements of opinions and any cite is a relaible source for its own opinion. The question is whether its opinion is notable enough to merit inclusion - and I would say no to that in this case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's what I meant. Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone has used his book in this article as the main source of book burning by Arabs in Persia. This is while besides being a primary source, the translator of this book to English Dr. Franz Rosenthal, calls this story a legend here

Is it acceptable as a reliable source?--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

700 years out of date, and a primary source being used for facts in history. Both unacceptable. Not reliable for that use. See

WP:HISTRS for details. Fifelfoo_m (talk

) 06:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Second, just where does the work as a whole fall? Secondary source because it was vetted through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers or a Primary source because it was written by Price? (See Princeton University's classification of What is a Primary Source?)

Third, even if the passage itself qualifies as a Primary source is it reliable regarding Price's own view of his earlier 1923 work?

Right now I am going for reliability not NPOV so don't waste our time with that. Once the RS of this source is confirmed or denied we can work on the NPOV issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like an obviously involved primary to me. For reviews and appreciations of scholars' works, seek other scholars' opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, this is

wp:UNDUE weight on what you yourself note is a passing comment. All this quote says is what our article already says - that Price decided to seek out 'unspoiled' indigenous peoples to study. Include it as a link if you need to, but full quote is way too much. --Ludwigs2

16:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It took some digging to find the one reliable source that actually looked at Meinig's book in the context of what Price actually said and even that didn't go any further than the 1923 work. How much of what we are seeing is actually about Price's actual views and not about Meinig's interpretation of Price? I've noticed things even in the 1923 work that get ignored--I had to slug all the way back to 1935 to find a secondary reference regarding Price's conservatism regarding tooth extraction and even that called him radical though it doesn't explain as to how he was radical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting subject that applies to some others whose original ideas have been misused by others, and it's the misuse that is what makes them notable. It's perfectly proper to document this situation IF it can be done using RS. That may not always be easy, but if it can be done, it would improve the quality of some articles. --

talk

) 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I want to use Price's own words in a book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Weston_Price_and_.22The_Charles_Darwin_of_Nutrition.22 established the precedent for correcting a popular misconception with a reliable source showing what the statement 'Dr. Pricewas called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition' actually was. In that same vein I argue in the interests of accuracy that the information needs to go in to show that at least by 1939 Price himself admitted he could find no validity for his ideas regarding Focal Infection theory ("forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues") but first we need ot establish if it is considered reliable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to make a list of all the discussions on this, so we're not

How about sticking to the matter at hand rather than wondering off on trivialities?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Long-term edit-warring and canvassing result in blocks - hardly trivial. --

talk

) 03:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS BOARD, RONZ? NOT A BLASTED THING! STAY ON TOPIC. Getting back on topic I point to

Wikipedia:Secondary_is_not_another_way_to_spell_good#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 to the mistaken attitude of Primary = bad that seems to be here.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 05:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be just more canvassing to support long-term edit-warring that has gone on for over a year. While consensus can change, ignoring consensus and instead edit-warring and canvassing is disruptive to this noticeboard and the encyclopedia as a whole. --

talk

) 16:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And Ronz again fails to stay on topic and just throws claims around.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I proposed we list past discussions. We can document the past edit-warring as well. There's also gaming the system by trying to edit relevant policies, guidelines, and essays in order to change the outcome of past discussions.

That said, this attempt at canvasing appears dead. --

talk

) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of reviving this discussion, I'd like to remind Bruce of what NPOV means: If "The problem with Weston Price is that his modern fame seems to revolve around what others did with his work long after his death", then the Wikipedia article should also "revolve around what others did with his work long after his death". Wikipedia is not the place to correct or influence the world's perception of Price's work. It should reflect the standard, mainstream, middle-of-the-road modern scholarly opinion, even if that means that the article "revolves around what others did with his work long after his death". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This raises the accuracy issue that in some quarters makes Wikipedia regarded as a bad joke and in part made "not truth" such a hot button issue over in WP:V. I would point out that the Weston Price article as it stands fails to explain in the lead just why Price is important now. Also, in terms of reliability the references to Stephen Barrett and Weston A. Price Foundation are total train wrecks--neither should be in an article about Weston Price as neither really qualifies under RS and the information on price himself on both sides leaves much to be desired.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an

Unreliable, from the lack of editorial control, the partisan function, and the misspelling when quoting another journalist, not reliable for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. It's basically a blog site—albeit a professionally run one—but the emphasis is on personal opinion rather than factual verification. There is also a questionable level of editorial oversight. Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's unreliable for a blunt statement of fact about Muller, but it might be reliable for an attributed statement as to the opinion of the blogger. The question then becomes: does mentioning what the blogger says in his blog give that blogger's views undue weight (probably). Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The info about him reads: "Tom Blumer is president of Monetary Matters, a training and development company in Mason, Ohio. He presents workshops on money management, retirement, and investing.". He doesn't seem notable at all, particularly not about climate change so this appears undue weight to me.

talk

) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, just cite the original source of information: [8] . He says flat-out in the interview that he was an Anthropogenic Global Warming since at least the 1980. Good blogs cite their sources, so instead of citing a blog, cite their sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying I don't need to depend on a news story or some other source to point out that interview? I can just point it out myself? Frotz (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make a strong claim on why these sources are reliable.

• GosuGamers

Is it reliable? I am fairly sure that wikipedia does not have a 100% must work policy in determining what sources are reliable. However, according to alexa rankings, this site has a fairly high number of visitor, and has been linked to other reliable sources.

Is it disinterested? Yes. Though as been said, it is "MMo-centric", I discovered that it is actually not.

Electronic Sports

consists of very few major games, and GosuGamers covers most of the major games, in addition, it even covers POKER. So when a single game's scene is concerned, it should be considered disinterested.

Is it self-published? No. There are certainly self-published contents, mostly community events announcements, but as far as electronic sports scene is concerned, no. Jounalists/Editors are used in order to obtain the latest information and gather interviews from electronic sports scenes all over the world.

Is it a blog/fansite/whatever? No. The website formatting may seem to people that is it a blog, but there are zero mentions on the fact it is a blog. The content proves that it isn't a fansite.

• sGamer
• 178.com
• pcgames.com.cn

Even better, these sources covers at least 100 games each, and fits the profile of being not self-published and the alexa rankings. So when a single game's scene is concerned, they should be considered reliable.

• pchome.net

This one is about digital lifestyle, but also offers an abundance of electronic sports news.

• sk-gaming.com (Official site of SK Gaming)
• myMYM (Official site of MeetYourMakers)

These two sites are for these two organizations respectively. However, they do offer an abundance of news on electronic sport where their team are not concerned. Verdict They are reliable when their sources are not self-published (i.e. when their own team are not concerned)

Now lets talk about what kind of sources could establish notablility for an electronic sports player.

Significant coverange on reliable sources

• Significant coverage on a player mentioning on how they performed in a single game.
• Interviews with the players. Although interviews are primary sources, the fact that they are interviewed means that they are notable (See discussion Here)

Is it possible for an experience source checker to look into this? Thank You.
Redefining history (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry but... again with this? I thought you had moved on. Presenting the same arguments several times in several locations will not yield results you will like better, I'm afraid. --
  t • c
  ) 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read it. DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS. Thank you. Redefining history (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what's going on here? Salvidrim, I started vetting one of these (pcgames.com.cn) and I'm not finished but it's looking to be possibly OK. Is there other information on this entity that can point me to or describe in a nutshell? Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... 3rd grade sectarian text-book from the 19th century, no less. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LNot actually ludicrous as a claim, howevewr. See the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia [11] 31:6) to work with Bezaleel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, in the construction of the Tabernacle (ib. xxxv. 34; xxxvi. 1, 2). Oholiab was "an engraver, and a cunning workman, and an embroiderer in blue, and in purple, and in scarlet, and fine linen" (ib. xxxviii. 23). E. G. H, and a bunch of Masonic and Catholic cites as well. Is there a reason for deeming this contentious in some way? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

biblical exegesis changed rather dramatically in the twentieth century. Out of date and not designed to reflect the scholarship even when created but rather serve pedagogical and pastoral purposes Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe this editor belongs at ANI, see his edit summary at [12] " Samson was not the origin of the Tribe of Dan, stratagems placed that there by myself only to have you support that placement, but not the others, indicating you're objecting just to object". And his talk page. I'm going on a Wikibreak today (keep postponing it but really mean it this time).

talk

) 07:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's because I don't like his Sunday school sources or that I don't believe the Tribe of Dan reached North America, but something has caused him to call me an anti-Semite.

talk

) 13:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In this edit I added a print source regarding the master of RMS Titanic's delivery voyage. An editor reverted it, describing the addition as "vandalism". I reinstated it, with a quote, here. Contributor removed it again, describing it as an "obvious error". Requesting an assessment of the validity of the print source, please.

Previous talk page discussion

--

• [
  ISBN 978-1-84809-151-1.] looks like a reliable source to me. The author is a qualified historian with a background in researching documentaries. This is the sort of claim that should be easy enough to check against official records, so I wouldn't expect it to be incorrect, and if it is incorrect it should be easy enough to prove incorrect. If someone wants to challenge a factual claim made by this book I would expect them to challenge it by citing other reliable source that counters the claim. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—I should have included the work here as well as in the link! --

Old Moonraker (talk

) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Undeadly is a news site with extensive coverage of

2. http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/

3. Appears in

4. Context:

Five Internet engineers, Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson and Paul Vixie have prepared a whitepaper[34] suggesting that the DNS filtering provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the Internet", while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit.[35][36][37][38][39][40]

I realize there are other problems with this sentence. For instance it cites "other engineers" and only documents one; NPOV is also a problem. I tried to change some of these things and was un-edited.

But the question right here right now is whether the Daily Caller is reliable in this context. I said no. The un-editor says it is, based on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71. I read it and the following discussion ensued:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protect_IP_Act&action=edit&section=28

By the way

The footnotes in that paragraph link, in the following order, to:

http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59599226/Debunking-DNS-Filtering-Concerns

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/#more-26745

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=2

this links to letters to the editor

Thank you for your thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who first introduced The Daily Caller source citation to our Wikipedia article. It cites an opinion piece by a network engineer, George Ou, in the tech section of that publication, and the Daily Caller article also supplies an embedded link to George Ou's full technical paper. The Daily Caller is not being cited to support an assertion of fact; it is only cited as a published source of an opposing opinion from another engineer. I admit I'm still unclear as to what possible specific objection the above editor may have to citing the DC as a source of opinion, especially in light of Elinruby's agreement about Ou's position linked above: "I have not investigated its claims in depth but it raises questions phrased in a respectable manner that suggest a valid alternate view. The author (George Ou) also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing." As near as I can tell, the objection has something to do with Gloria Allred...

Xenophrenic (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any challenges or critiques of the white paper would have to be of equivalent reliabilty. The scribd source seems to be self-published. The Caller is clearly not a reliable source for technical matters, but the reliability of the source used rests on the qualifications of the suthor. In either case, as Xenophrenic Elinruby says, "the author (George Ou) also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing", so his criticism would not qualify as of equivalent reliability or noteworthiness. PCnet, Wired and Cnet are reliable sources, but the criticisms presented in those articles are clearly attributed to individuals who have no competency at all to criticize a technical paper. The letters to the editor in the NYT don't mention the white paper at all. Basically, none of the criticisms presented come from an equivalently qualified researcher as the authors of the white paper, and thus should not be included in the article at all. The sentence and the sources cited should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence and the sources cited should be deleted? All 6 engineers, the reliable citations, the baby, bathwater, and everything? Interesting, but sounds drastic. I'd like to set aside the comments more applicable to a WP:NPOV weight discussion, and get back to whether or not the Daily Caller can be cited as a reliable source in support of the existence of opposing opinions. Specifically in support of this text in our Wikipedia article: "while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit." If I understand you correctly when you say "the reliability of the source used rests on the qualifications of the author", then I must assume you are giving the green light to use this source in this situation — as long as George Ou is qualified to give an opinion. George Ou and the other engineers have both issued technical
  ZDNet, and an experienced network engineer, it seems reasonable that he would have an informed opinion. I can't speak to editor Elinruby's apparent personal knowledge of the comparitive qualifications of these engineers, but the Internet Governance Forum has seen fit to seat the primary authors of both of these papers elbow-to-elbow with each other at their 2011 annual conference. While they weren't able to reach consensus, they did argue their competing views. If you say we can cite the Daily Caller piece if George Ou is qualified to speak on the matter, then I guess this is resolved. But I'd welcome other input. Xenophrenic (talk
  ) 05:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course I didn't mean the whole sentence, just the part about the criticism. I've looked at everything you've provided (thanks for the links), and it looks as if George Ou has indeed been recognized as an expert approximately on par with the five engineers, at least by the Internet Governance Forum, and that should be good enough for WP. Since their white paper was self-published, his self-published response can and should also be mentioned (the scribd source). I'm not to sure about the Caller source, though, as it seems a bit to polemical. It's basically a rehash of the scribd source, anyway, so it's probably not necessary to include it. As for the PCnet, Wired, Cnet and NYT sources, though, I can't find any identified engineers mentioned, or anyone who is on par with the five engineers, so their comments are not really notable (unless you can establish that they are indeed on par). But from what I see now, the only qualified expert criticism comes from George Ou, and he should be the only one who is mentioned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may clarify the context of my quoted remarks and change my question slightly -- I did make the remark that I am quoted above as making, but as part of a suggestion made in an attempt to find middle ground, an important piece of context not provided by the other editor. I suggested that if he could find the text in a journal, we would not need to have this dispute. No, I personally do not think Ou is of equivalent expertise, only that he has *some* expertise and makes an argument (which I have not investigated) which at least uses the right terminology. To my eyes, the Daily Caller does not add authority.

The five authors of the white paper almost seem not to need further authority; one of them actually co-wrote the most common implementation of the protocol being discussed. But that's my opinion, not Wikipedia policy, and most readers will not realize this. Xenophrenic is right about that. I actually went out to look for the Ou article in a journal or more reputable publication, as I really have other things to do with my time and wanted to put this discussion behind me. Unfortunately the only other place I found it was in an industry blog unaffiliated with a newspaper, which I suppose is why Xenophrenic is arguing so hard for the Daily Caller reprint. But that publication really does look like a trashy tabloid, and at a minimum is not a reputable *tech* magazine.

I have been asking questions elsewhere about an unrelated dispute we have over a different aspect of this sentence. It doesn't matter so much what that was; the important part is that someone pointed out to me that white papers are also, by definition, self-published. So perhaps the best thing to do would be to quote a secondary source such as Ars Technica about the white paper, as well as any reliable secondary source that can be found for the Ou piece?

That does leave the question of whether the Daily Caller is a reliable secondary source. I still say no, and argue that if nobody but a tabloid discusses Ou's editorial, then perhaps there is a reason for that.Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller doesn't discuss Ou's editorial. It merely printed it (with accompanying source links). Apparently, the DC agrees that Ou's is a "valid alternate view", and they printed it. The Internet Governance Forum also agrees. Not to belabor the point, but even in their October 12 letter to the United States Senate, those very same 5 engineers cite George's Ou's technical paper (although not kindly). Ou is indeed a reliable source for a point of view that is relevant and significant enough to be raised in our article. The only grounds to question the Daily Caller as a source for that opinion would be if you suspected they misconveyed George Ou's words. Is that the case here? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the fact that he got to sit on a music copyright/piracy panel at a conference does not make him an authority on the DNS protocol. They seated a representative of the MPAA on the same panel. I am furthermore saying that although you keep telling me that the Daily Caller is a reliable source, and pointing me here as alleged proof, all references that *I* can find to this tabloid say otherwise, and you have declined to provide a quote to the contrary. When you asked, you told me to raise the issue here, so I am doing that. That's what I am saying. Since I well know that you seem to have a lot of free time to argue about such topics, I will stop there and see if we can get input from other editors, which was the whole point of this post. I propose, if I am correctly informed about the reliability of the white paper, that we rewrite the entire sentence. Perhaps even make it sentences. There are several undisputedly reliable sources footnoted at the end of the sentence that we could draw from. Elinruby (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)We should at least try to keep this factual. I am unaware of the music panel to which you refer, so let's get back to the DNS Blocking and Filtering panel which centered on a "discussion about the merits of DNS blocking and filtering as an answer to copyright infringement. The panel was divided on its views – some felt that DNS filtering and blocking represented the perfect answer to copyright infringement and media piracy, while others felt that a solution based on technical adjustment was the wrong way to approach what they deemed a human problem, not a technical problem. While a consensus was not achieved, the discussion addressed serious concerns about the damaging effects of illegal downloading on the content production industry, as well as the greater constitutional, technical and political implications of the use of DNS filtering and blocking. Panelists referenced the Protect IP legislation that is currently in the U.S. Senate." -- It is relevant to our Wikipedia article. Also in attendance was the chief technology policy officer for the MPAA. I've never directed you here as "alleged proof" of anything; I merely suggested you might get input here as to whether The Daily Caller can be cited as a source of opinion (and I also linked a past discussion that I felt you might consider interesting). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If the engineers' white paper were a peer-reviewd publication, I would say that Ou's white paper was not good enough to criticise it. But the engineer's white paper is apparently self-published, and Ou can be considered qualified enough to publish a meaningful paper on his own, even though his qualifications are not quite on the same level as the five engineers. He's clearly not UNQUALIFIED. However, I can't support the use of the DC commentary, which is not exactly neutral and objective, and a bit to polemical for my tastes.

The only way I can see of excluding Ou's scribd source is if you have reasonable doubts about whether Ou is misrepresenting his qualifications, that the article is a sham article posing as real scientific opinion, that the author is clearly a patisan source because of some conflict of interest (making his paper more junk science than real science), or that it has been challenged to the point where it can reasonably be said to be completely worthless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's partisan but I don't have the time to litigate that through every administrative board on wikipedia ;) As you can see the other editor really really wants it in and was attached to the Daily Caller because he was hanging it on the Caller's coattails as an allegedly reliable source. I think that anyone interested in the technical issues will be able to weigh the credentials of the authors. Elinruby (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DV in that Scribd can be used and Daily Caller should not. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My actual question can be narrowed down to the Daily Caller cite. There are lots of secondary sources about the white paper so I am not worried about that. I question Ou's credentials but could live with the Scribd text being used as reference as long as it's no longer used to back up a statement that "other engineers" say the white paper is nonsense, or words to that effect. Something like "at least one engineer disagrees -- George Ou has stated bla bla" would work for me. Or, if the other editor can find other critics, he can use the plural all he likes, shrug. I have a living to earn here ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with DV in that George Ou is qualified and can be cited for an opposing opinion. And while the Daily Caller piece may be a "bit too polemical" for Dominus Vobisdu's tastes, it isn't too polemical to be cited as a source of opinion. And it is certainly more neutral and less polemic than some of the existing caustic commentary sources presently in use in our article; it is, after all, a controversial political issue. The most polemic statement made in the well-reasoned DC piece is that the DNS concerns "were riddled with fallacies"; while the "meritless" and "unfounded" adjectives actually come from the Scribd doc that everyone says is OK. The Daily Caller is part of the

White House Press Pool, and as a matter of Wikipedia policy interest: personal taste doesn't dictate source reliability, and "partisan" ≠ unreliable (else we'd have to scrub thousands of citations to FOX News from Wiki articles). Xenophrenic (talk

) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A kind user (66.183.40.56) recently contributed edits to several dozen articles to provide ridership numbers on the Vancouver transit system. It is the Passengers (2009) statistic in each of those articles' info boxes that is in question here. These are relevant and useful contributions to the articles. Unfortunately, I struggle to verify these facts due to the complex procedure required to do so. The user offers the verification instructions on their talk page. I have a couple of questions, and would like to hear others' thoughts.

1. How can proper citation or verifiability be brought directly into the articles, attached to the claims, where it needs to be? The facts are currently uncited. Supplying a URL won't give future users the ability to directly verify -- not without adding the instructions to the URL comment.
2. It seems a bit of a stretch to consider this procedure a
   synthesis
   ?

Hoping to find a way for the new facts to remain in the articles, so appreciate any insight or suggestions... --Ds13 (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If the instructions are brief, it is acceptable to parenthesize them in the inline cite, at the end. Example:

<ref>Author (date). "Title+url". Publisher. (download app, create worksheet add the 'Station' dimension and 'Boardings 2009' measure)

2.

WP:V

says that as long as a source which can be considered reliable exists somewhere in the world, it's verifiable. This form of data is uncommon, but not out of bounds.

3. The newspaper article and its included data are reliable. I would strongly recommend using WebCitation to archive the page, the app, the workbook, etc. So I've done that. Article, workbook, workbook, but when I tried to archive the 25MB app, I got this error: "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 25165824 bytes) in /home/webcita/public_html/metadata.inc.php on line 8".

4. The data source is a

WP:RS

. So I would continue to seek out reportage which includes the ridership numbers of interest. These could be industry trade journals - is there a Monorail Journal?

5. Oddly, this blog asserts that Skytrain doesn't have turnstiles, so ridership claims can't be validated. Assistance from other editors is requested. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't have turnstiles, but they do have ticket sales and there are counters on the platforms on occasion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the newspaper article and its included data, they are no more reliable as they rely on the same set of numbers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone actually follow the procedure. If the dimension is merely a "hidden" component of a proprietary format data visualisation display, then it isn't calculation, it is just "unhiding" a "hidden" component, like unsealing the sealed section of a women's magazine. We don't care about the OS / Software / "unhide" requirements to verify; but the citation needs to specify these. "Viewing foo.bar in Proprietary as obtained from Organisation "Document title" location; reveal the hidden data dimension of "x" via the "unhide" feature in the Menu item "Hiding things"". Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried - but failed. I could not find "Boardings 2009" but I did find an "Address" field based on which the unregistered user had made entries in the articles. Some of them do not to fit the actual station location. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Works for me - I've appended detailed instructions at User talk:66.183.40.56. The downloadable workbook is atomic and unchangeable - dated 2010, so at least it's fixed. --Lexein (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that this be cited as: "Fare evasion on SkyTrain and Canada Line" Vancouver Sun provides: cskelton [pseudonym] (2010 Nov 7, 02:42 pm) Fare Paid - Ross.twbx (Tableaux Public data file) using within Tableaux Public Data="Matched (Fare Paid by Skytrain Station - Matched.xlsx)"; Dimension added to sheet "Abc Station"; Measure added to sheet "Boardings 2009"; The simple calculated sum Boardings 2009 is 78,845,243. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 November 2011

That's cool. I'd rephrase slightly: "Fare evasion on SkyTrain and Canada Line" Vancouver Sun provides: cskelton [pseudonym] (2010 Nov 7, 02:42 pm) "Fare Paid - Ross.twbx" (Tableaux Public data file) used within Tableau Public; Data="Fare Paid by Skytrain Station - Matched.xlsx"; Dimensions "Abc Station" added to sheet; Measures "Boardings 2009" added to sheet; The simple calculated sum "Boardings 2009" is 78,845,243. --Lexein (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm unable to download this program (Windows only?) can someone comment on the individual station statistics? I like the look of that citation code you have supplied, but is that for total system ridership or are there per-station numbers that can also be unhidden? --Ds13 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From using similar statistical systems, adding a Dimension of "Abc Station" indicates the individual stations, alphabetically ordered. This does need to be tested by someone with a windows machine. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How do people see blogs at The Economist? For example, can this be used as a source?

Also, what about opinion pieces such as this in say The New York Times or other major newspapers? B^e——C_ritical 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG, it depends on the specific piece and how it's being used on Wikipedia. That Economist blog appears to be published by Economist staff ("by The Economist online") and reads more a factual piece than an opinion piece, but again, it depends on how exactly it's being used. The NY Times opinion piece should be used as an opinion piece and attributed inline. Siawase (talk

) 20:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The first link is to an opinion piece written by The Economist editorial staff, so it can be cited as the opinion of the periodical. The second link is an opinion piece easily cited to Paul Krugman. The NYT link is clearly op-ed material. The Economist blog is also of that nature, not of a lesser form than traditional op-ed columns. It's a new world in news, and such blogging often replaces or augments op-ed activities. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm encountering a lot of sources from major news outlets, which would be very useful if they didn't have "blog" in the URL. I'm not sure how Wikipedia is going to adapt to this. And thanks for the help, someone was saying that the Economist piece wasn't of any value (: B^e——C_ritical 21:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me about this source? As far as I can tell, it is in the name of Forbes, by a staff writer, but not really designated as an opinion piece. Can factual information for WP be drawn from the following quote?

Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%. In financial wealth, the figures are even more startling: 42.7%, 50.3%, and 7.0% respectively. And these statistics from UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Professor G. William Domhoff are from 2007, the most recent complete data available for analysis. Domhoff cites economist Edward Wolff, who concludes that the Great Recession has meant a whopping drop of 36.1% in median household wealth as compared to 11.1% for the top one percent, further widening the gulf between the obscenely rich and the rest of us—the 99%.

(more source links in original) B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

All the pieces you have mentioned are at the top end of opinion writing. We can assume that they have been fact-checked. They reflect expert opinion, though not necessarily all of expert opinion. Krugmann is citable wherever he writes. Just one more angle on it though. Krugmann, Domhoff and other experts can easily pull out the stats that support their arguments. Those stats have already been published in official compiliations or academic sources. We ought to seek out those government or academic sources if we can. But sources of this kind can still be used. Attribute. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah that would be easy. Unfortunately, while really I think it would be justified, I'm trying to source a section of the Occupy Wall Street article on We are the 99%. I'm not having trouble finding the numbers, I'm having trouble finding specific references to the 99% (or 1%) that give the numbers. If I could take the sources like above, and go to their sources, it would be easy. Any justification for that? See, the trouble here is that it's too obvious and they don't bother writing much about it. I'm not having trouble writing a good encyclopedic section, but with legalistic Wikipedia rules. For example, if I could use sources like this it would be easier. B^e——C_ritical 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you can cite the primary source for the data, and the secondary source with attribution (Krugman, whatever) for the intrepretation. You aren't synthesizing from primary sources; Krugman is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is http://www.frogkick.nl/ a reliable source for an encyclopedic description of scuba gear configuration?

1. Cites are http://www.frogkick.nl/ : click on "Non-DIR" and then on "suicide clips" (exactly that) and five similar cites from the same website.
2. The website http://www.frogkick.nl/ is in Dutch and Google can't translate it because of the way it uses javascript and frames to generate content. But
   WP:RSUE
   is not the problem – the question is whether a self-published website that has no outside reputation for fact-finding and accuracy can ever be a source for anything beyond its own opinion, and whether that is sufficient to construct an significant part of an article upon.
3. The article where it is used (extensively) is Doing It Right.
4. For reasons of size, I'm sorry that I can't quote the exact statements, but it is used to reference an entire section Doing It Right#"Doing It Wrongly" containing 28 individual claims in bullet points. The section has been marked with {{Primary sources}} since June 2009.
5. A previous discussion occurred at Talk:Doing It Right#frogkick.nl that explored the issues, but was unable to reach a conclusion over two years ago. The current discussion is at Talk:Doing It Right#New attempt to sort out old problems. I haven't used permalinks as the talk page is not large enough to warrant archiving.

Any outside opinions would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

After a very brief look it seems the concern is not that the website is a in another language. The problem seems to be about trying to report about a certain controversy which is supposed to exist, but the only sources are online primary sources. Correct? My first impression is that this makes the controversy, however real, not notable enough for Wikipedia. Has anyone tried looking in relevant magazines?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, you've encapsulated the issue very well. I was attempting to ask the question so as not to prejudice the replies, but you echo my concerns. Unfortunately, dive magazines tend to give controversies somewhat superficial treatment (not to alienate any audience I guess), so most of the impassioned argument took place on online newsgroups and mailing lists. Although they are evidence that controversy existed, I wouldn't consider the lists reliable (or even consistent) sources of the detail of the issues as the article currently expounds them. I fail to see how the website meets our standards for reliable sources, but I'm an involved party and was hoping for outside opinions to help drive consensus on this one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well any website can probably be an RS for something. If you just want to write "There is a website with a forum about this" for some reason then you could perhaps place a link to such a forum. But such a sentence would be of questionable notability I suppose, unless you can at least source something about the existance of this controversy from somewhere else. The bigger problems would come from trying to use this type of website to actually explain the details of the controversy. Strangely enough, internet forums are often not even good clear evidence for what subjects they argue about (at if you must avoid doing original research, as we do).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Guardian datablog a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia, if posted by a Guardian news editor? I'm talking about data points, not opinions. B^e——C_ritical 06:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this legitimate news content, just presented in another format? The paper takes care to distinguish between what its staffers write and the readers' responses, which are only visible after a click-through. Looks OK to me. --

Old Moonraker (talk

) 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The stats are presented with a specific slant of opinion and not presented as "dry facts" by the source. Amazingly enough, choice of facts can, indeed, be done in a POV manner and should be so noted as being "opinion" in that sense. This is not just a problem in one article, however, but endemic in all cases of newspaper usage of statistics. See Mark Twain. And the readers' responses to a news blog are never usable on Wikipedia in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue may be oversight. It seems to be written as an opinion piece, but do such pieces have the oversight given an article in a newspaper; the writer's expertise has weight, but is that enough?

Statistics would be a primary source, so this use of statistics is secondary , although again the statistics have been interpreted, so we're not looking at raw, neutral data. If it were raw data could we use it? No, probably not, as use would be OR.

While clearly there may be some concern with this article , because of oversight, because the author is writing in an newspaper where he often writes as a reporter and because the author has expertise as a reporter, I'd say you could use the source with careful inline attribution.

As an aside: While called a blog the piece looks like standard newspaper journalism, with added room for comments and may very well have oversight, so may not be a blog in the traditional sense. (olive (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)).

My own thought is that it does have the oversight of the Guardian. I think they'd keep a pretty tight focus on their reputation, and although it's a "blog," it's actually part of their main operation. I'm beginning to think that Littleolive oil is a sourcing fanatic, so if he would accept it as an article source I'm comforted. Thanks for the replies (: B^e——C_ritical 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable secondary source for intrepreted statistics. The default choice would be to attribute the statement, but in particular cases as a matter of judgement, some things could simply be stated with the Guardian datablog as citation. It seems to me that the answer to "is this a reliable source" is always "it depends what you want to say." If it's to be the source for something about Occupy Wall Street (just guessing) I'd say it needs to be attributed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's my problem in a nutshell: there are lots of sources discussing the economic statistics, and there are lots of sources on "We are the 99%" which is what I'm writing a section about. But few sources go into much detail on what "We are the 99%" means, because they discuss those statistics in other articles, and anyway they think it's obvious. So for WP, it's a sourcing problem because just going and getting the statistics about the gap between the 1% and the 99% is OR. I need this source for statistics explicitely connected to the "99%" meme (not for opinion). Thanks, and the greater number of replies does help. B^e——C_ritical 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is any controversy about this then it might be wise to use the language of attribution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Marlborough News considered to be reliable? They abide by the editors code of practice and The Press Complaints Commission so would appear to be perfectly acceptable, though an IP editor on the Rachel Reeves article claims the site is a blog. Their site is here: http://www.marlboroughnewsonline.co.uk/about-us

It's a properly constituted business—

Old Moonraker (talk

) 22:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your expertise. I would appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the Rachel Reeves article as editors breaching NPOV or other polices pop up there on a regular basis dating right back to the creation of the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You should state the edits it is supposed to support. Not everything in good news sources is rs and some editors will find obscure publications to support their POV. TFD (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is simply to support the name of the subject's spouse.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with that, unless there is some sort of controversy about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

http://hamraaz.org/ as a source for accurate research on Indian music? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are the reviews on this website reliable/notable enough to be added to articles on artistic works like Habibi? Of the 17 contributors listed under "Contributors" on that site, two have their own Wikipedia articles, Marguerite Van Cook and James Romberger. But Nadim Damluji, the author of the review of Habibi that one editor added to the Habibi article, is not. Is it acceptable? Nightscream (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just came across this publication[14] being used as a source in

This a Spanish-language site. [15] While I was searching for an album (Bachata Rosa), I've come across forums that claim that the album was certified 7x in Spain, but since forums are user-generated content, I've searched through Google to look for a reliable source that can verify the claim. The above site was the only one I could find and it sources

Is Time magazine a reliable source? Users at

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a very good explanation of the issue. Simplified, a person makes a quote. Some people (in this case the Time article writer) misinterprets that statement and infers things from the statement that wasn't said in the first place. It becomes apparent that some people are misunderstanding the original quote and interpreting it different from how it was intended so the organization comes out with a clarification that contradicts the understanding that people like the Time article writer had. Should a misinterpretation of a quote, actually make it into an article? Marauder40 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

TIME is generally considered a

let it drive encyclopedic coverage. But to answer the question more fully, could you describe the specific text that the source would be used to support? MastCell ^Talk

20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's the paragraph beginning "In May 2007" in this revision. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me in this case that Time has not made a misinterpretation of any quote. I has made what appears to be a fairly straightforward interpretation of the words "they are excommunicated". The article does also include the view of a Vatican spokesperson that the words should not be taken to mean that anyone was excommunicated. It seem clear to me that the Pope mis-spoke on this occasion. It probably doesn't reflect the official position of Roman Catholicism, but the fact that it was said by the Pope is probably noteworthy for inclusion in the article, with clarification if and as appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is he didn't say "they are excommunicated". The actual quotes go like this

"Do you agree with the excommunications given to legislators in Mexico City on the question?" a reporter asked. "Yes. The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the (canon law) code. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going in Communion with the body of Christ. Thus, they (the bishops) didn't do anything new or anything surprising. Or arbitrary."

How can that be directly sourced to "In May 2007, in response to a liberalization of Mexico's abortion laws, Pope Benedict XVI stated that pro-choice Catholic politicians were excommunicated and should be denied communion." He did not excommunicate them. He is stating that he agrees with it, there is a big difference. The Time article itself even mentions the clarification. The Pope didn't misspeak, people misunderstood what he meant. It happens all the time. The quote from the Time article says "Benedict left little room for interpretation: pro-choice politicians not only should be denied communion, but face outright excommunication from the Church for supporting "the killing of a human child." This is not a direct quote and even it says he leaves little room for interpretation. Problem is later in the article is says that the interpretation was stated as wrong by the Vatican itself and even the Time article interpretation doesn't reflect the sentence that is being added to the article at all. Marauder40 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What you're doing is exactly what

WP:NOR) enjoins us not to do. You're taking primary-source quotes and trying to substitute your own interpretation of them for the interpretation provided by reliable sources. Time discusses in not insignificant detail the relevance of this comment for pro-choice Catholic politicians everywhere. To a lesser degree, so do the AP and the NYT. Your own personal belief that the statements of Federico Lombardi are more important than the statements of reliable sources is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Without any shadow of a doubt, the source is reliable in this context and would appear to be noteworthy. It may be appropriate to mention the view of Vatican disputing the TIME source, but the views of editors on the accuracy of a reliable source are worth nothing in establishing its reliability. We do not substitute anonymous amateurs' opinions for the processes of professional peer-review or editorial oversight that we find in quality sources. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Maruader40's point is well-taken, though. It might be more correct to say that Benedict voiced support for the excommunication of pro-choice politicians. He didn't actually excommunicate them himself, and the article text gives the impression that he did. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think that the text implied this at all, but I have no objection to changing the phrasing. My problem is that these users are trying to suppress entirely the interpretation provided by (unsurprisingly determined to be) reliable sources and substitute their own interpretation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this even important enough to include in the article? It sounds like the Pope mispoke, a correction was issued, and nothing of signficance happened. Is this correct? If so, I'd remove it from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually have already mentioned the weight issues concerning this on the article talk page. In your interpretation it is a little cleaner to say "the Pope spoke, several people misunderstood his statements, a correction was issued, and nothing of signficance happened."Marauder40 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And as I said on the talkpage, we can't allow subsequent events or comments to color our views on the notability of an incident - otherwise, we'd have no articles on failed candidacies or on criminal cases where the suspect was found to be innocent. This was widely covered at the time in the news, and coverage in scholarly books continues. It's not our responsibility to shove all incidents where Benedict "misspoke" under the rug. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard has the purpose of deciding whether a source is reliable in a given context and I see virtually no dissent from the view that Time is reliable here. The question of WEIGHT is not best discussed on this board, but anyone who reads the article can be left in little doubt that the stance expressed by the Pope is a significant statement in the context of topics we would expect to be covered in

Catholicism and abortion#Recent events. --RexxS (talk

) 21:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, including the last part. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I agree that there's no question that Time is a reliable source. Now we just have to hope that editors at that article will abide by this snow-yes as to its reliability, even though it isn't affiliated with the RCC... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the snow yes, I think that words spoken by the pontiff almost always need clarification and context applied by secondary sources, in this case Time magazine. People have often attributed strong meanings to mild-seeming statements by popes. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely nobody denies that Time magazine, like the Associated Press agency, is a reliable (wiki-citable) source. At the same time, the opinions and interpretations advanced by its correspondents and editors are not wiki-infallible. Wikipedia should report them as opinions and interpretations of that publication, not as unquestionable objective facts. Surely we all agree on that? As Binksternet says, "people have often attributed strong meanings to mild-seeming statements by popes". Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Esoglou. TIME Magazine is certainly a reliable source. However, being a reliable source doesn't mean that everything printed in that source is true. It just means that it's reasonable to consider the source as providing information worth evaluating and weighing for inclusion. By comparison, we don't even consider unreliable sources such as weblogs, forums, etc.

In this particular case, the assertion that the Pope's statement was misinterpreted is substantiated by providing a very reliable source who (may have) misinterpreted it.

My personal understanding (admittedly based only on what I've read here and in the particular revision provided by Roscelese) is that the Pope made a statement (possibly based on a misunderstanding on his part) which was widely misinterpreted and later clarified. However, (IMHO) the key point here is that the Pope did not excommunicate anyone but left those decisions to individual bishops. He did not repudiate excommunication when related to abortion and support for abortion (rather he implicitly endorsed such actions) nor did he preempt individual bishops from making those decisions (as some may have thought he was doing) but rather endorsed what he thought they had done (but hadn't). The net effect of all this was to endorse the actions of local bishops without personally intervening in affairs under their jurisdiction. IMO, the text of the paragraph should be focused on making those points. If written that way, the TIME magazine article is left not supporting anything of much importance to the article text. Also note that TIME magazine is probably only one source that made this misinterpretation which suggests that it would be better to step away from that article and look for a different source that describes the whole sequence of events and provides all significant interpretations (and misinterpretations).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could people share their opinions on whether the following sources are to be considered RS for information on the family background of John of Damascus? More information on the crux of the dispute can be found in the discussion on the talk page at Talk:John of Damascus#sources on his origins.

• Ross Burns. Damascus: A History (2007). Rouledge; pp. 99, 105:.
• Hugh N. Kennedy. The great Arab conquests: how the spread of Islam changed the world we live in (2007). Da Capo Press; p. 28.
• Ruth A. Tucker. Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church (2011). Zondervan.
• Peter Robert Lamont Brown. The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity (2003). Wiley-Blackwell; p. 307.
• David Vila in Richard Valantasis. Religions of late antiquity in practice (2000). Princeton University Press; p. 454.
• Kallistos Ware in William CLoughlin et al. Mary for earth and heaven: papers on Mary and ecumenism given at international congresses of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Leeds (1998) and Oxford (2000) and conferences at Woldingham (1997) and Maynooth (2001). Gracewing Publishing; p. 355. Tiamut^talk 17:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All these are scholarly and reliable, but of course you will also bear in mind sources that give a different description or even leave the whole issue out because the subject's ethnic origin may not be very important anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look reliable enuff. Seems like

Arab identity is well enough represented in the sources to merit its inclusion. Even if you add a "According to some scholars.." (that usually fixes the problem.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk

) 07:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The ethnicity and origin of John of Damascus is minor concern to all these books as they don't cover but less than two sentences. Most specialised sources, on the other hand, seem to promote the fact that he wasn't an Arab as

talk

14:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A edit war has been going on for sometime at

Note that what

talk

) 10:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sertima's books are fringe and not reliable for Wikipedia. I am sure there are better references that say that the term Moor was vaguely applied through the ages. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So your issue is only with Van Sertima and not the content in bold? Because I think as per Itsmejudith we can find reference which say Moor was applied broadly through-out the ages. In other words Moor, does not exclude so-called black people. I am on Kindle so i will download a few books. The Story of the Moors in Spain (Paperback)] Might be a better reference.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Got it [18]As critics have established, the term "Moor" was used interchangeably with such similarly ambiguous terms as "African," "Ethiopian," "Negro," and even "Indian" to designate a figure from different parts or the whole of Africa (or beyond) who was either black or Moslem, neither, or both. will move this to the talk page as i think this is a R.S feedback on the source and the sentiment.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for claiming that Mount Hermon is in Israel? nableezy - 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Travelogues are nowhere adequate for issues of technical, legal and historical 'controversy' on wikipedia.

It's pretty odd anyone would claim that Mt Hermon is in Israel, when it's in the Golan, esp. since Shimon Peres is on record that 'The Golan Heights was never historically considered a part of the State of Israel,' and 'Neither Herzl nor any other of Israel's founders of any stripe ever dreamt the Golan Heights would be part of the state of Israel' and that Israel has repeatedly affirmed Syria has sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and Israel is sitting on Syrian territory there, as sources from 'left' to right, like Moshe Ma'oz and Daniel Pipes remind us.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Travel guides are notoriously bad at history and politics. They are rarely written by experts in those subjects. Actually they are commercial publications that should be treated about the same as company websites, i.e. only reliable for very limited things. Zero^talk 07:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this website qualify RS?

• http://www.compassdirect.org/

That depends. "Reliable source" is not boolean; which statement is it supporting?

It's not looking good. The byline is "News from the Frontlines of Persecution" ... and they promise "As Christian persecution continues to intensify worldwide, you need a source that can provide the most accurate, up-to-date information available..." so there could be serious neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the bylines. All news agencies make tall claims. However, what bothers me is as follows. Compass Direct professes to be a news service dedicated to 'providing exclusive news, penetrating reports, moving interviews and insightful analyses of situations and events facing Christians persecuted for their faith.' So this in essence makes them a Christian media agency. They also apparently maintain an extensive network of news bureaus and correspondents around the world. I have read many articles and these read more like regular news articles. So i was just wondering, because of of the nature of the media agency. Could their articles be used as references in Christian persecution articles?

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!}

16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, i have also come across articles in which they have documented atrocities committed by Christians on each other. See this.

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!}

18:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of statement do you want to use this source to support? bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a real incident. For example, in a village in Upper Egypt after Friday prayers, a Muslim mob attacked and torched dozens of Christian homes. An elderly man was killed, and five seriously injured.

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!}

12:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of statement do you want to use this source to support? bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just provided an example! I am not working on any Christian persecution articles as of now, but i intend to do so. As such, i would appreciate any views as to whether it satisifes WP:RS.

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!}

17:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A number of facts at KAI T-50 Golden Eagle have been referenced using images of display boards taken at an exhibition. These images have been hosted on blogs and image hosts then used as a source for the information. Are images of display material a reliable source, and if they are can we link to blogs and image hosts as references? I presume they cant be uploaded to wikipedia as they would probably be copyrighted material, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be duly noted that these display boards pertaining to T-50 have been set up by the manufacturers of T-50 itself (or its components) in some of the largest aerospace exhibitions and air shows in the country, such as the ADEX. I'll provide some example images here:

F-50 proposed next-generation fighter: http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/07/f-50_1.jpg

Flightglobal news on KAI's proposal of an F-50 variant: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-gets-t-50-work-as-kai-studies-fighter-variant-169416/

Weapons fit for armed T-50 variants:

http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL105/upload/2005/10/A-50%20%B9%AB%C0%E5%20%281%29_1.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL105/upload/2005/10/A-50%20%B9%AB%C0%E5%20%284%29_1.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/201009/20100925140812_2.jpg

Supplementary DefenseIndustryDaily news on FA-50's weapons fit: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-t-50-spreads-its-wings-04004/

Avionics components for T-50, and their manufacturers: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=cutysio&logNo=40127916907&viewDate=&currentPage=1&listtype=0

Website of the event's host: http://www.rndkorea.or.kr/

I've already known for a long time that 'blogs' are deemed unreliable sources in Wikipedia if they are used as direct references. But I'm not directly referring to blogs to verify some important information regarding T-50, such as proposed variants, armaments, and component producers; I only want to refer to the legitimate exhibition materials made and presented by manufacturers regarding T-50 design proposals, armament specifications, components content, etc., and I'd totally do I way with blogs whenever I could; it's just that there are no convenient way I can see of showing these materials in Wikipedia unless by using image hosting sites, which could sometimes be blogs. I'm of the opinion that we should find a mutually agreed means to rate the credibility of these exhibition materials not by the blog nature of the image hosting site but by who made and presented them (KAI, Lockheed Martin, MDS Technology, etc), and where they were hosted (the biannual ADEX, or other regular technology R&D accomplishment exhibition, etc). The direct attribution should be given to the manufacturers themselves who made and presented the exhibition materials, and to the hosts of such official exhibition events, but as I've said, I myself have found no way of linking Wikipedia to these materials unless I use image hosting sites. A small suggestion to the OP: maybe instead of preemptively accusing me of being purposefully disruptive and deleting what I intend to be good faith edits without even discussing the matter with the community first, you can actually help me get the exhibition materials properly attributed to their creators (the manufacturers themselves) and their hosts (Ministry of Knowledge and Economy and other government branches) by suggesting alternatives to blogs and other unrelated commercial sites for image hosting. Desagwan (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the exhibition materials are, basically, best regarded as advertising. It's reasonable to take specific technical details from them but we need to be very careful of qualitative claims, especially comparisons (along the lines of "best in class") since these will have been finessed by the manufacturer. If we can trust any intermediate step in the chain (blog, forum post, whatever) to pass on the images without shopping then I'm happy.

Defense Industry Daily, I feel, meets the criteria for a reliable source as long as they're sticking to military procurement (and generally, they do). In this field, details are sometimes speculative, and sometimes specifications/timelines don't turn out as previously announced - but DiD is generally quite clear about that, rather than taking everything at face value. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think images like the T-50 avionics operating system having the IEEE POSIX certification and who produces what is not really aimed at advertisement; they are merely stating educational facts about T-50 to an audience that's unlikely to ever personally buy T-50's avionics components, kinda like museum exhibitions (are museums going to be considered unreliable sources, then?). Your concern about the potential advertising nature of the display boards in other exhibitions like ADEX has its merit, though I tend to think that if KAI really thought its T-50 couldn't deliver the capabilities that it says it could (like F-50 having next-generational capabilities compared to present T-50, if developed), it wouldn't have exhibited the models and display boards in such a blatant and outright way (which will have severe ethical implications should the claims prove false) to such a large audience in one of the biggest aerospace exhibitions in the world. I think KAI, as the largest and flagship aerospace company in Korea, has plenty of obligations to state facts about their aircraft in such an important PR event where the business-ethical image of the company itself (and perhaps of Korea's entire aerospace industry) may be directly at stake. In any case, the claims made in the images over time were proven by secondary non-manufacturer sources (some even before, like the existence of F-50 by Flightglobal and by others if we search long enough), but this article's editorial progress is so slow due to the small number of editors dedicated to T-50, with only a few select people like me (perhaps only me, at this moment) to process the disproportionately large amount of information and defend the editions made against an outnumbering opposing side, and such slow dissemination of information about T-50 can sometimes sow unnecessary disputes about T-50's capabilities, design, service history, etc that otherwise doesn't need to exist (like how some readers couldn't accept that FA-50, in fact, can be comparable to other fighters like F-16, Saab Gripen; we also have much simpler disputes about the different looks between T-50, T-50B, and TA-50, as well as their ID). Desagwan (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am Jewish and the mother of 4 children. One of my children was in a private school which approached my husband and me with the name of Marina von Prutzmann ...they wanted her to come and live with us. I did not know how to rsearch the family of this girl and accepted her in the summer of 1975 for the coming school year. She was 16. She did nothing wrong in our house but our children did not "take" to her and she was hard on the people of German extraction in Milwaukee.... saying things to their faces such as, "My that is a funny German name...." and thus displaying an arrogant attitude on the part of a genuine German to a transplanted one whose famiy probably had been in the US for at least 100 years at that point... and may have come to the USA as poor people with peasant type names. Because of her standoffishness, I wrote to her parents and said that she really was not adapting well and either that the school had to place her elsewhere in the USA or in Milwaukee OR she had to go home. THey asked to meet us in Holland and I met General Von Prutzmann's eldest son, who never saw his father after he went to war. The son was a fine man with a terrific limp; he had suffered a deep injury. He was married to a beautiful woman, Marina's mother. It was Marina's mother who said, "Oh the General never fought against the USA, he fought on the Eastern Front with the Waffen SS." As if fighting on the Eastern front made his efforts part of a different war. I said, "My son found out he was in Riga as a leader." "Oh, yes by that time in Latvia, he held a high position. Very high," she said, "but still he never fought with the western armies." My husband said, "The Russians by that time had ceased being your allies and had become ours. It was the same war and it was not supposed to be fought against civilians." "They needed food..... " and we decided to stop talking about it. I later found out how he was the head of the ghetto-concentration camp in Riga which was infamous after a while for the mass murders performed there and at Baba Yar.

The son was a kind man who made no defense for his father. He just loved him and missed him as a child. The son was terribly affected by everything in his past. His wife was not, and Marina not at all. There is a possibility that at 16 she was just acting up in our house and 'acting out' as they say today... prehaps because she could not do so at home. Certainly she talked about there being fewer opportunities to go to University in Germany than there were in the USA because there were no gradations of qualities in the colleges there. Either you qualified or you did not. So I think she may have been thinking of taking her University training in the USA and was nervous about suggesting this path to her parents. She left out house without finishing out the year; I do not know what happened to any of her family. I could not pursue the relationship not only because of the grandfather and his crimes but also because the only person I was comfortable with was the son and that would have been improper in those days. Perhaps today if a friendship developed between the wife of one man and the husband of another woman it could flourish but in those days, for me at any rate such a friendship would have not been acceptable..... putting aside the history of the German or Jewish heritage or if I were American or not.... just the factors of his being married to a woman and me being the wife of someone else... we could not develop the friendship we both felt. Last night on the Military Channel I saw the photos of Riga and the filling of the Ghetto, pictures of the previous 10,000 practice murders and then the 30,000 at Baba Yar and got upset all over again. How on earth could a general like that have such a fine son.....somethings are not given to us to understand. I hope this is helpful to those studying the subject of Gen. Von Pruztmann and his participation in RIGA in 1941 or so. He was there. He fought the eastern front.... which is the same as fighting in the west. It was the same war. Goldie Kossow age 73 American born — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.20.82 (talk)

OR/Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a fascinating story, but not acceptable as a reference on Wikipedia, because it is

original research. Wikipedia only cites information that has been previously published in reliable references. - Ahunt (talk

) 18:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Hans-Adolf Prützmann. Neither the English or German Wikipedia's articles contain any information about his marriage or family so perhaps your note will help someone find some information to add to the articles. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK news/satire magazine Private_Eye has fairly recently starting putting stories on it's website - for example [19], and so I suspect that wikipedia is likely to find a lot more citations pointing to private-eye. I think it would be sensible to get consensus on the reliability of such citations (personally I believe them to be as valid as any other newspaper website) before, rather than after. (there's been some previous chat about citing the paper version at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#UK_news_magazine_Private_Eye).

Are people happy with this as a source?

As a source for what? It would certainly be reliable for a statement as to what was reported in Private Eye ... it might not be reliable for a statement of blunt fact. Or to put this another way... it would probably not be reliable for a statement like: "Prince Harry was involved in the scandal", but it would be reliable for a statement like: "According to Private Eye, Prince Harry was involved in the scandal". (Caveat... it may well be that mentioning what Private Eye says could give undue weight to a particular viewpoint... but that is a NPOV issue and not a reliability issue). Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of giving it carte blanche. Private Eye is probably OK for most simple statements of fact but it is not renowned for framing news neutrally. (And did they ever back down over the MMR thing?) bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

...and if we do find ourselves in a position where we have to cite Private Eye because it mentions something which no other source does (I gave up reading because a few years ago the main thing it printed which others didn't was gossip about a handful of other newspapers and reporters) then we should exercise great caution. Similarly, if multiple sources report on a controversy in different ways but you find yourself preferring the wording offered by a satirical clique... maybe that's not the best wording to use.bobrayner (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its investigative journalism is well regarded. Generally reliable, I would say - the serious sections only of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Private Eye does gossip, exaggeration and satire. The fact that they do these quite well does not make them a reliable source. They publish stuff not in other papers precisely because they don't do fact checking. Their reliability level is about the same as an anonymous blog. Yes, they quite often publish things not in mainstream papers and some of them are true. But that is because they have such a low bar for publication. Or are these comments saying that it is reliable just satirical? And on Blueboar's point, Private Eye's opinion should never be mentioned because they are not experts, even on gossip. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dingo1729, what is your source for your claim that "they don't do fact checking"? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll freely admit that that was simply based on their use of unattributed statements of fact. You often can't fact check anonymous sources, which is a problem for all news outlets but more so for Private Eye because they publish more borderline material. Also, simply from reading them over the years I get the impression that they are careless about details or simply exaggerate in order to be dramatic. I'll throw the ball back in your court. Do you have a source which says that they consistently fact-check their articles? Remember that it has to be consistent, or we're in the position of not knowing whether to trust any particular statement. I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't have a policy stating that a source is reliable unless we have a source saying that they don't fact-check. On the other hand, I think I was overstating when I said they were like an anonymous blog. They're more like a widely-read signed blog. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just edited a page in passing called

Who knows? You'd have to find someone who reads Arabic and knows those sources. Wikipedia probably gives such obscure sourcing a free pass. B^e——C_ritical 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia has a policy in place: WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. A translation should be provided in a footnote, if required - the citation templates offer a parameter to hold a translation. It's always worth also checking the talk page and its archives as previous guidance suggested that a translation should be made on the talk page if it was too large for a footnote. If no translation can be provided then you may treat the statements as if they were unable to be verified. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a request for translation list that somebody can put the article on? I hate to see possibly useful content thrown out because an Arabic speaker hasn't noticed footnote format problems. Elinruby (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Humanist

An IP requested the deletion of certain material in the Oktar article cited to the above source ([20]). I looked at the article material and the source and tended to agree with the IP that the source is not a reliable source for the assertion, but I also felt it wasn't a reliable source period. Then, I noticed that the article cites the source 16 times! So, I could remove the material the IP objects to, but it wouldn't solve the continuous sourcing to something that describes itself as "the London based magazine of the Rationalist Association" that "has distinguished itself as a world leader in supporting and promoting humanism and rational inquiry and opposing religious dogma, irrationalism and bunkum wherever it is found."

Does anyone have any comments on whether the source can be used for anything, or is it necessary to analyze each assertion in the WP article? By the way, the WP article cites to just one article at the source's website, which is essentially an attack piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it can be used as a source for the opinion of someone who writes there. That is, if the magazine publishes an article by A that says XYZ, you can write "According to A, XYZ". For claims about third parties, especially about opponents of the magazine position, I'd say it generally shouldn't be used as a source. Zero^talk 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article in question is clearly an attack piece, for example, He is a deluded megalomaniac who has artfully exploited the global resurgence of religious sentiment to cheat us all. A ludicrous man for ludicrous times. I glanced through it, and it appears that most if not all of the assertions made are unsupported by references. They may or may not be true, but given that the apparent purpose of the article is to discredit the subject, I wouldn't consider it worth using--any we took from there would need to be supported by other, better sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the magazine occasionally. It's a mixture of some humanist/atheist polemic and some less vituperative stuff than the description of Mr Oktar quoted above. The printed magazine used to get quite wide distribution in branches of Border's Books in the UK (until they sadly closed), and it can be read in some university library reading rooms (the

Senate House Library, for instance). The writers for New Humanist tend to be a mixture of humanist/secularist ideologues and sympathetic journalists, writers and academics. It is particularly useful as a source of book reviews for a variety of books on all sorts of topics. Just to give an idea of the diversity, from the May/June 2005 edition, the reviews section consisted of a review of seven books, including two on philosophy, two non-fiction books (one on politics, another on religion), and two novels. The same edition also includes an article on Ken Loach and an article on Irish immigration, both of which could potentially be useful sources on those topics. There are many similar articles in other editions I have read. I'd say that putting it narrowly into either the "reliable" or "not reliable" box is rather difficult. There are bits which are polemic, there are bits which are feature/reportage, there are bits which are reviews. One must also pay attention to the fact that there is a distinction between material from the magazine and the accompanying blog. —Tom Morris (talk

) 23:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A while back I added a New Humanist article as a source in Barbara Wootton, Baroness Wootton of Abinger. Seems reliable enough there. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

this site is used on hundreds of articles, as far as I can tell it's simply user-generated content and not a RS - anyone come across it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

totally unreliable as an archive of FAQs, there is no guarantee that it transmits the source material invariant and unamended. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason allowing such material to be used as a factual reference on any Wikipedia article with the single exception of documenting newsgroup history (i.e. such as giving a date for establishment of any given newsgroup). Any factual claim otherwise should have a "reliable source" used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked this 2 months ago, and didn't get any response then so will try rewording it in order to improve the article in question I would appreciate knowing if forgetomori.com would be a reliable source for the following statements in

Further research suggests that the modern appearance of the man may not have been so modern. The style of sunglasses first appeared in the 1920s, and in fact Barbara Stanwyck can be seen wearing a similar pair in the film Double Indemnity three years later. On first glance the man is taken by many to be wearing a modern printed T-shirt, but on closer inspection it seems to be a sweater with a sewn-on emblem, the kind of clothing often worn by sports teams of the period. The remainder of his clothing would appear to have been available at the time, though his clothes are far more casual than those worn by the other individuals in the photograph.

and

Debate centers on whether the image genuinely shows a time traveler, has been photomanipulated, or is simply being mistaken as anachronistic.

Forgetomori does appear to be self published, but has been cited as reliable by magazines and journals on both sides of the Pseudo Science debate. More importantly Knowyourmeme cites it as an important source in both debunking the myth and bringing it to wider public attention, and Fortean Times (normally regarded as an RS, but used with care) not only cites forgetomori but repeats the conclusions that forgetomori draws (issue 263, May 2010, "Future Imperfect", Bob Rickard). Finally a published research paper into the myth (Harkness, D., et al., The Mystery of the "1940s Time Traveller": The Changing Face of Online Brand Monitoring. In J. Trant and D. Bearman [eds]. Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2011. Consulted March 31, 2011.) specifically cites Forgetomori as authoritative about the subject in question. From this I would consider that the site is considered expert per the allowances of the

OK for debunking fringe claims per

WP:PARITY. Itsmejudith (talk

) 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be rs but you would need to find out who publishes the site, their credentials and the degree of acceptance the site has. Compare with Snopes. I could not find anything about them. TFD (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources have been reinserted under WP:PARITY but aside from that the site is published by Kentaro Mori who has a number of similar roles - generally working with Portuguese magazines but at least one American rational sceptic organisations as well: Creator of the "Ceticismo Aberto(Open Skepticism)",project, Consultant for the "Detetive Virtual( Virtual Detective)" , Columnist for the " Committee for Skeptical Inquiry "(CSICOP). Employee of "“ Sedentário&Hiperativo(Sedentary & Hyperactive)" site. Editor of " Revista Terra Redonda (Round Earth Magazine)" so on and so forth. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In our article

Miley's article is part of the proceedings of The Second Conference on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions. The conference papers were "printed immediately after the conference as Vol. 1, No. 3, of the Journal of New Energy" (1996). Miley's article on nuclear transmutation is available for download in .pdf format on the "Selected Papers" page of the New Energy Times website. There is a

CETI Patterson Power Cell and the Fair Use version of Miley's article should be linked to the Wikipedia article about the Patterson cell. AnnaBennett (talk

) 03:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How many of the Google Scholar citations are from recognised mainstream scientific sources? As for "The Second Conference on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions", if the only source for that you have is a ridiculous website like www.padrak.com, [22] I hardly think that is evidence of anything. Incidentally, Patterson and Miley are named as joint authors - why are you describing it as "Miley's article"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Count them yourself, starting here. Don't miss this one. I refer to it as Miley's article because I believe that Patterson lacked the very sophisticated laboratory equipment that Miley had access to in his university's fusion lab. Miley probably did most or all of the element analysis. So by tradition, he would be the first listed author. AnnaBennett (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So your response to my question is 'find the answer yourself', and a link to a webpage that doesn't answer the question either? As for the rest of your comments, we don't base article content on guesswork. In any case, this noticeboard is here to ask for third-party input, not to argue amongst ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, we now have an anon SPA IP inserting (or reverting) more fringe material, along with YouTube links (possible copyvios) and who knows what else. I see no reason to edit war over nonsense like this. The article was only kept because of media coverage, and there has been nothing since, except in fringe sources. The article is being used as a coatrack by cold fusion promoters, and probably needs deletion. If the Patterson Cell actually worked, it would have been reported in mainstream science journals by now - but instead, it seems to be just another overhyped dead-end line of research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. Mainstream journal article would be required.

talk

) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source mentioning that Miley did work on the Patterson cell would be "What if cold fusion is real?" by Charles Platt (Wired Nov 1998) [23] --POVbrigand (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Wired is sufficient source to state that Miley has worked on Patterson Cells, yes. It isn't however suitable as a source for an assertion that "nuclear transmutations" occur in the Cell, which is what is being claimed. More to the point, why is it significant to the article anyway? With no published results (in mainstream scientific journals), it looks like more coatracking for credibility - something that has been all-too common in cold fusion/LENR-related Wikipedia articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be coatracking. Miley has spent a good chunk of his cold fusion research on the Patterson cell and equivolent thin film stuff. He published all of it only in proceedings. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So what? Unless Miley actually provides proof (in recognised mainstream science sources) that he has actually shown something interesting is going on, it is of no concern to Wikipedia - this isn't a 'fringe-science' blog. If and when Miley's research is recognised by the scientific community, it may well merit inclusion in Wikipedia. For now, according to both policy and normal standards, it doesn't. This may not suit the objectives of those wishing to promote 'cold fusion'/LENR (for whatever reasons), but that is the way it is - and if they wish Wikipedia policy to be revised to suit their agendas, they should make proper proposals in the appropriate places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Redux

In an attempt to impress the !voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination) the article has become stuffed overnight with citations to what may be characterised as "doubtful" sources. In an effort to remove any doubt, would contributors please indicate whether the following sources are reliable? I've appended some sample text of what is being claimed:

• Manning, Jean. "'Cold Fusion' Breakthrough" Atlantis Rising. 1996. 6:37,56. Retrieved December 10, 2007. - Its proponents claim that the device uses less than 1 watts and yet is capable of generating thousands of times this amount of power which is released as heat after a brief "warm-up" period.
• New Energy News "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis" VOLUME 4, NUMBER 10 ISSN 1075-0045 FEBRUARY 1997 - Furthermore, Miley and Patterson claim yields of ~1mg of key elements obtained in a cell containing ~1000 microspheres (~1/2 cc). In several cases over 40 atom % of the metal film consisted of these products after 2 weeks operation.
• CETI official website "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis" George H. Miley, G. Name, M.J. Williams, University of Illinois, Department of Nuclear Engineering, James A. Patterson (CETI), J. Nix, D. Cravens (CETI) and H. Hora - as above
• Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79. - In April 1995, at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) CETI demonstrated a cell with input of 0.14 watts and a peak excess of 2.5 watts, a ratio of 1:18
• http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/ceti/CETI-ColdFusionTechnologyMagazine.shtml - as above

There's another dozen or more listed at

Hi, im currently reveiwing Love, Blactually and would like to know if a couple of the sources currently in the article are reliable. Hope its okay, thanks;

• "Family Guy – Season 8". EzyDVD. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
• Bierly, Mandy (2008-09-29). "Ratings: 'Desperate Housewives' returns to win Sunday night". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2008-10-07.
• Haque, Ahsan (2008-09-26). "Family Guy: "Love Blacktually" Review". IGN. Retrieved 2010-2-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Heisler, Steve (2008-09-28). "Sex, Pies and Idiot Scrapes"/"Dia-Bill-ic Shock"/"Love Blactually"/"1600 Candles". The A.V. Club. Retrieved 2010-02-28.
• "Fox Not Renewing King of the Hill". comingsoon.net. 2008-10-31. Retrieved 2009-05-25.

Once again- Thanks

Anyone?

Mario

20:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Of the bunch, Entertainment Weekly appears to be the most substantial and authoritative reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

IGN seems to be used as a reliable source in these

Wikipedia:Featured articles: Homer's Enemy, Lisa the Vegetarian; while The A. V. Club is used several times as a source in the FA The Simpsons. They seem to be closely related to the article you're reviewing, so I'd say that's strong evidence of them being good here. --GRuban (talk

) 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't really answer the question without asking ... reliable for what? For example, the episode itself would be reliable for a descriptive summary of what occurred during the episode... but it would not be reliable for analysis or conclusionary statements about the episode. There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source, or a 100% unreliable source... because reliability depends on specific context (ie exactly what statement in what article the source is supporting). Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately the question is easily answered by looking at the article in question.

• EzyDVD is being cited for "what's on the DVD". That's probably good enough.
• EW is being cited for "how many viewers it got". Good.
• IGN and the AV Club are being cited for reviews. Per the Simpsons precedents, I'd say good.
• comingsoon is being cited for ... what? The sentence it's allegedly referencing reads " It was written by Family Guy voice actor, and veteran writer Mike Henry[1], who would later go on to create the Family Guy spin-off, The Cleveland Show, based around his character in the show, Cleveland Brown.[2]" But I don't seen that in the source at all, it doesn't even mention Mike Henry.[24] That's not very good at all. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thansk very much everyone!

Mario

18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are old (circa 1924) United States passports normally available for verification? An editor uses an old passport as source for biographical information in

I don't believe passports (a type of primary source document) are generally considered "published" (ie available to the public)... but it is certainly possible that a specific person's passport has been made available (if it is included with the subject's papers in an library archive, or scanned on line at a genealogical website, etc.) So yeah... WP:BURDEN applies here... the editor who wants to use the passport as a source does need to indicate where he/she found it (we need to know whether someone else could, with enough effort, also find it). Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Passports are not available (but wouldn't have the husband's death date anyhow). Passport applications through 1925 are available on 694 microfilm rolls at the National Archives, and these have been scanned and indexed at Ancestry.com. This is clearly the source actually being used, as it explicitly gives the cited information concerning her husband (although her husband's information is one of several additions in a different hand made after the application was submitted). However, these are definitely primary sources, and only accessible through Original Research. 75.93.164.58 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you!

Fram (talk

) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing in this noticeboard, people talking about pre-Ranke history books (who do not meet his standard definition) as primary source and not secondary. I wonder if this classification is just an inside-wiki thing or there are actually scholarly sources supporting it. Your consideration is appreciated.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern historical scholarship begins with Ranke's methodology—history done in the style of Ranke, and subsequently, is modern in the full sense. This relates to the concept of reliability being a spectrum, and in the case of history, we prefer the highest quality works.

WP:HISTRS is a beta document describing best practice for wikipedians writing historical articles on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk

) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. Gibbon is a secondary source; so is Prescott; so is (Barthold) Niebuhr. The problem with them is that they are dated; too much work, too many discoveries, too much discussion, has gone on since. But the same applies to Ranke himself, to Mommsen, to Trevelyan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To get somewhat snide, Gibbon's self-perception of method is inferior to Ranke's. The emphasis at RS/N has always been on method, practice and peering with historians. It is harder to give a hard and fast rule about how fast a certain sub-discipline moves in terms of theoretical currency. Ranke's self conscious method stands out much clearer as a statement of "this is what they have to look like to be considered credible." Gibbon's method seems significantly analogous to Ranke's. I can't myself think of an article where we'd use either as a secondary source due to new availabilities of sources, and new theoretical methods. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And Ranke's self-perception is not quite matched by his practice. Since we agree on other grounds that more modern historians are the desirable sources, can we call this settled? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this wired 1998 article reliable for the figure of $2 million dollars spent on research of the

We have to assume the reporter performed some fact checking, enough to classify the source as reliable. The issue will change if another reliable source quotes a different figure. In the interim, we can say that Wired reported the $2M figure, and we will always be correct. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically I think "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." is violated as his narrating of his meetings does not appear to be a disinterested perspective.

talk

) 11:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think the author has a conflict of interest, please quote the statements that make you think this. But I agree with Binksternet: the $2 million figure can be cited as having been reported in Wired. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the words "connecton" and "disinterested". There is no indication that the journalist in question has a conflict of interest, or that he did anything out of the ordinary to obtain the information that he reported on. Meeting with the subject of the article for an interview or tour is not a "significant connection" to the subject or the topic discussed. "Disinterested" does not mean "not interested". The source is fine for the statement it is used to support. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the CETI talk page, if we refused to use sources where the journalist actually investigated the topic about which they were writing then we would have a pretty shitty encyclopedia. Journalists are expected to do as much research as possible and if they can interview a subject and attend intimate meetings then they can write a much better article. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wired has a good reputation for journalism and AFAIK did in 1998 also. Elinruby (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect IRWolfie's honesty to raise the question here to get it clarified. What I do not understand is that anyone could doubt this Wired article is RS just because the journalist went out there and asked a couple of questions. I do not want to discredit IRWolfie, but I wonder if the mere fact that an article is about cold fusion can influence with rightly assessing it as RS. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good one. There's been an ongoing fight at

It's not "allegedly" her; it is a verified account. Nor was the BLPN board a threat. And she does say that she has never been named Demetria, you just choose not to read it. Nymf _hideliho! 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and neither of the news articles quotes Demi. Nymf _hideliho! 21:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck? Reliable sources don't need to quote. They have fact checking guidelines. That's why they're considered reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We give a fuck. Demi Moore is a reliable source for her own name. The Twitter account is verified to be her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The twitter account may well be verified to be her, but then that would be considered a primary source, and not a reliable source. People lie about themselves quite often, especially famous people trying to project an image. I am not accusing her of anything, but just pointing out why a celeb twitter is not reliable in general. There are numerous numerous sources saying her full name is Demetria Gene Guynes. I would support something along the lines of "According to many sources her name is X, but Demi has denied this on her twitter". Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The only more reliable source for someone's name than the person involved would be a birth certificate - any secondary source would have to be based on one or the other, or a less-reliable source. Are you really going to insist on seeing her birth certificate to settle this bit of nonsense? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We have policies about primary sources and reliable sources exactly for this reason. It is not up to us to judge the accuracy of the information. However, the RS could be relying on several pieces of information - drivers licences, court records, school records, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at

I'd like to learn whether the document made by Norwegian National Television [NRK] ([27], [28]) dedicated to scholars each having own page at Wikipedia (

Contested edit: [29] The part relevant for this inquiry: Last sentence in the given edit.

Discussion: [30] Thanks --Stephfo (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has been topic banned from editing in this subject area. Warning issued Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaction: I have no intention to edit the given article, however since the given subject was used in enforcing a block on me, I'd like to learn 3rd party opinion prior to going for the arbitration. --Stephfo (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then speak to your mentor. If they think the question is relevant, they can post it for you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know. After talking to an informed source via Derek Gallegos( band manager), After Midnight Project has been disbanded.

What is the meaning of this note? Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are either of these reliable for the article on the UK social stereotype?

• Jardine, Crombie; Bok, Lee (11 May 2006). The Chav Guide to Life. Crombie Jardine Publishing.
• Wallace, Mia; Spanner, Clint (12 July 2005). Chav! A User's Guide to Britain's New Ruling Class. Transworld Publishers.
  ISBN 978-0-553-81713-3
  .

I'm saying not, given that there are many sources in the mainstream press and also some academic sources, but someone disagrees suggested it be raised here. Many thanks for further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not reliable and not reliable. No signs of the standard features of sociological or anthropological texts. No citations, inline references, references to methodology, data collection, question construction, literatures. The introductions don't discuss the scope or span of the work. The publishers are in the sub-coffee table grade in the layout design and market segment. We should not be using these books on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not, for the reasons Fifelfoo gives and also because they are humorous books - they are not even purporting to be accurate on specifics. Barnabypage (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been a kerfuffle at Yui (singer) over reliable sources concerning the individual's legal name. There are no reliable sources in the subject's native language (Japanese) that suggest that she has a publicly known surname or that we have the written Japanese form (kanji) of her legal name.

This has not stopped some editors from using English, French, and German language sources (including the AP and French Cosmo) as citations for this alleged surname, and this has not stopped them from assuming that a Japanese tabloid that published a primary school yearbook photo with this name written in Japanese is also a reliable source. As it is very clear that a Tabloid is not a reliable source, what do we do when the sources in the subject's language honor her request not to publish her full legal name, but foreign sources publish this full name that we cannot corroborate with any sources in the native language? The sources (used on the talk page to support the fact that the surname is a particular name) are as follows:

• Japanese singer Yui eyes bigger foreign fan base
• Japanese Singer Yui Stages First Foreign Show
• American MTV profile
• Fiche people : Yui (in French)
• Diese Leistungen verlangen Respekt (in German)

There is also an old official website of some band that has a young woman who has Yui's alleged full name (in the first section, the photo that is alleged to be Yui is the "Pic 6" link), and her name given in kanji is also nearby.

So what is done in this situation? Do we go with the English (and French and German) sources, or do we go with the subject's privacy that the Japanese press (barring a 4 year old tabloid article) respects? Or is this a matter for another board entirely?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The language question is a red herring - it as simple as this - do we have a reliable source for the surname? The policy says nothing about it having to be in a specific language - If so, then solves the verification problem. As for the "should we use it if they don't want us to use it?" - I'm not sure, however I think in the best, it's not a request we honour. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The real question is are the AP, Cosmo, and...whatever that German site is articles reliable sources considering they are in the minority of sources that discuss the subject? There are over 120 articles here that don't use her alleged surname. Her alleged surname is never included in her album notes (just go through song titles and check the bits that say 作詞 & 作曲). It is merely these two articles written by the Associated Press, that one article in French Cosmopolitan magazine, and that one German page where she is mentioned in passing that her full name has ever been printed in the Latin alphabet, and on that seven year old Japanese website where it is only assumed that 吉岡唯 refers to the singer now only known as YUI based on comparing photos.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

When reliable sources appear to contradict each other it may indicate that some of them are wrong. In this situation, as you describe it, the Japanese sources merely omit a piece of information. It's not our place to tell otherwise reliable sources that they're wrong. Id suggest consulting

WP:BLP for guidance beyond the scope of this noticeboard. By the way, "the Schwäbische Zeitung is an independent regional daily newspaper for Christian culture and politics".[31] Goodraise

23:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction or omission as much as the only sources that state this are the ones that are not in her native language. We have no way to confirm that her full legal name is "Yui Yoshioka" or if it is written in Japanese as 吉岡唯 because the Japanese press will not report it.

And now there is an issue with another article where an editor has found what is believed to be the full name of Misia in this one Business Week article. Again, the Japanese press does not use her full name (reported in this article as "Misaki Ito"), and this is what may be the only reliable source that reports it as such (our article used to have this full name, but because no Japanese sources report it, it was removed).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, my knowledge of the Japanese language and its writing system is rudimentary at best, so take this comment with sufficient sodium chloride. As I understand it, a name (even a Japanese one) written in Latin characters can at least sometimes be rendered in kanji in different ways, while usually only one of those ways is correct. If that is so, then we need a source giving the name in kanji form for that kanji form to be included in the article. Whether that hypothetical source were otherwise written in Japanese or not would be irrelevant. Also, if a source leaves it unclear whether the person discussed in it and the person our article is about are the same person, that would disqualify the source. And considering the absence of the name in Japanese sources, it may not be unreasonable to demand a source dating back to a time before the person's alleged name was put into her article, because, if your description of the situation is accurate and I'm not mixing things up here, there's a fairly high risk that there's been

circular sourcing involved. Goodraise

01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that certainly discounts using the kanji form of the name as there is no way of knowing if the alleged legal name used refers to the subject (even though it is probably fairly obvious, but still not reliably sourceable). But this still raises problems with the Latinate form of the name appearing in non-Japanese media when it is clear that the news article is about the subject of the article. This is most definitely about

WP:BLPN#Misia & Yui (singer) per your suggestion, as well, to see if there is a BLP issue at hand here, rather than just one of iffy sourcing.—Ryulong (竜龙

) 01:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to prove that a source is correct. How would we do that for any source? You may doubt non-Japanese sources. Someone else may doubt all but non-Japanese sources. That's a requirement that cannot be met. If you want to have these names removed from the articles, you'll have to find a way to cast doubt on these sources. The absence of the names in Japanese sources is, in my opinion, not enough for that. At best it proves that the media in Japan have more restraint than elsewhere. Goodraise 02:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Would this suffice? Seeing as the subjects are Japanese, why would English (or French or German) language sources be used to cite their legal name?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that English language sources are

preferred to begin with, why wouldn't we use them? If they're reliable sources, they can be used. If a journalist writing in Japanese is capable of researching an individual's name, why wouldn't a journalist writing in another language be capable of the same thing? Goodraise

02:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Because there's absolutely no way to know that the information is accurate if the Japanese don't discuss the same things.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For all I know, one of the authors might speak or even be Japanese. Or maybe one of the persons in question can speak English and told their name to one of the authors. Or maybe one of the authors heard the name from one of their Japanese colleagues. Or maybe one of them has seen a birth certificate. Or maybe one of them asked someone who wrote a check to one of those musicians. I'll stop here, but I can think of a hundred thousand ways a decent journalist could find out the legal name of a prominent person. That we have no way of checking the veracity of a particular claim is insufficient grounds to remove otherwise acceptable content from articles. I don't have a multi-million dollar telescope in my garden, that doesn't mean I get to remove half the sourced content from every astronomy related article on the 'pedia. Goodraise 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd call the French piece a blog. But AP is reliable unless proven otherwise as far as I know, and the German article seems solid at first glance anyway. MTV, well, we are in their area of expertise. As for the singer's wishes, perhaps Prince is a good precedent. We don't follow *his* Elinruby (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that we can take the transliteration of her name as reliably sourced. There is reasonable evidence that her name is Yui Yoshioka and that the kanji rendering is 吉岡唯 (she was involved with the band on whose website her name is allegedly written). The judgement call on that evidence we can certainly leave up to reliable secondary sources (that's what they're there for). The Mainichi Shimbun English version also carried the AP report. There are also no sources contradicting the statement that her birth name was Yui Yoshioka. The frustrating thing is, that although the Japanese blogosphere and fan websites are happy to say she was born 吉岡唯, no reliable online Japanese news source seems to include it. It's meant to be some kind of open secret.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So we can say that her name is "Yui Yoshioka", but we have no real source to say that is written in Japanese as 吉岡唯 outside of the vague mention of a "Yui Yoshioka" on the band website?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

More or less. Surreal, isn't it? For the kanji, it's not so much a vague mention, as a primary source that does not state clearly that the 吉岡唯 in that photo is the woman with the current stage name of YUI. YUI was involved with that band, however. There is also a high school graduation photo with someone of the same name floating around the internet that certainly looks like her, although I can't find confirmation that it's the same school (or even the right prefecture). Personally, I'm pretty sure that 吉岡唯 is the correct rendering. I can fully understand, however, if someone feels we don't have enough to pass WP:V for the kanji.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing that says that the girl whose name is 吉岡唯 is the woman known as YUI. It is just a "Yui Yoshioka".—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for Japanese script on English Wiki in general. I'm just afraid that if we don't put in kanji, someone will add katakana. Kauffner (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Geez. Enough with the crap on

WP:MOS-JA the katakana form is used, because IPA is not used on Japanese topics. And Japanese script is indeed necessary on the English Wikipedia for Japanese article subjects, just like Chinese, Korean, Russian, Tibetan, etc. The sources that call YUI "Yui Yoshioka" I will acquiesce as being reliable. However, we have no reliable source to say that it is written in Japanese as "吉岡唯", just a mention of a musician with that name on some primary source who may or may not be YUI (because there is nothing that says that bianco nero and YUI were ever collaborating).—Ryulong (竜龙

) 07:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So the bottom line is...you will give Yui a kana in the form ヨシオカ ・ユイ? Oh, my. I hope you are not doing this to spite me. Also, I assume that with Tibetan, Russian, and so forth, the articles are giving the name of the subject in the local script. Kauffner (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope Ryulong will pardon me for speaking on his behalf, but no, that's not what he's saying. Ordinarily, any article on a Japanese topic should include the name in Japanese, including people. This is an entirely uncontroversial point of view, as the transliteration won't tell us all we might like to know about the name (and in Japanese and other languages, transliterations are sometimes ambiguous or there is more than one system for transliteration). Unfortunately in this instance we don't have an RS letting us know what her legal name is, which would be the one on her koseki - it won't be just YUI, as I'm pretty sure that would not be legal. So I believe he's saying we can't include anything beyond the latin transliteration - which is the position most in accordance with WP:V. Including the phonetic katakana ヨシオカ ユイ or hiragana よしおかゆい would not be justified, as it would imply that these are common renderings when they're not. Putting something unsourceable to put off people putting in something else unsourceable doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Ryulong has added the information about the latin alphabet transliteration, although I think it's a little too apologetic, and it would be better to put it in the infobox with a footnote explaining that her real name does not appear in Japanese media. We have a similar situation with Becky. Talent agencies in Japan are revoltingly powerful; they appear to be able to keep people's real names out of the press even when their property is on our screens all the bloody time. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I did find a reliable source that has her name as "Becky Rabone" at one point (an old photobook of hers), and I also found a source for a UK airman by the name of "Simon Rabone" stationed in Kanagawa, but I doubt that we can use these as reliable sources. And that is indeed what I was trying to convey. Kauffner merely has an issue with the use of ミーシャ on Misia (and possibly ユイ on Yui (singer)) as a means to provide some sort of Japanese text that regards the phonetic form of their names which exists in some form in Japan.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

People speaking on his behalf, an uncontroversial point of view, AND a possessor of the position most accord with our guidelines. Golly, can he walk on water too? Here I was thinking that he was just a guy who comes to my talk periodically and curses me out. Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware that the same Japanese name rendered in latin script may often be written in a variety of ways in kanji; Yui can be 由衣 (Yui Horie), 結衣 (Yuis Aragaki and Natsukawa), 唯 (Yui Okada and probably YUI), 裕唯 (Yui Sakai), 由井 (Shosetsu Yui - a surname), plain hiragana ゆい (Yui Sakakibara) or whatever combination from the official list of name kanji that produces (or rather, can be read as producing) the same two syllables. Ryulong didn't invent the principle that articles about Japanese subjects include the name in kanji, it's just obviously necessary. When we can reliably source the correct kanji. Which we can't here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)