Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112

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.

Facebook app. Can this be used, along with other charity performance monitors, for information on the Facebook fundraising performance of a particular charity in determining notability for Wikipedia? Rumiton (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be a primary source for its own activities. Can you give a specific example?   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite the case. I am suggesting it may be considered a secondary source for the performance of the charities and non-profits under its umbrella. Its function is to invite charities and other not-for-profit groups to use Facebook to increase their membership and raise funds. Causes verifies that they have non-profit status before it accepts them, then it displays their mission statement and links to their homepage. Then it monitors their success and grades their performance against that of other groups. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific page or pages which you'd like to use as a source, and to the pages which describe the process you've outlined?   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Here is a rundown of the way Causes operates on Facebook, acting as a “platform” for non-profit groups to feature their work, and to invite people to join and contribute.[1]. Here is a page of 12 of the highest-performing non-profits that Causes is featuring this week. [2]. Nearly all of them already have a Wikipedia article, but some do not. Perhaps they should, and their Causes listing should help them achieve this? Rumiton (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What I see is that the site says it has "500,000 member-created causes". If so, I don't see how inclusion confers notability. If there's no specific page which is going to be referenced, and no specific assertion for which the website is being proposed as a source, then it's impossible to make a determination.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not mere inclusion, but the statistical information they gather. The number of people who join the particular cause on Facebook, the amount of money they raise, the comparisons they make with similar organisations. That stuff. Rumiton (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am loking at the TPRF Cause, which is the only one of the 12 featured causes which does not have its own Wikipedia article. It seems to be in good company. Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like most, if not all, of the content is added by users. If so, that information would not be from an independent, 3rd party source, any more than a Facebook page would be.

As for TPRF, it was merged into the Prem Rawat article.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Mission Statements are provided by the users, but the number of users and amount of contributions are compiled by the app. This is clearly third party, to me. I know info on TPRF is in the Prem Rawat article. Pehaps it's time for TPRF to have its own article. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's kind of like saying "Save the Penguins" has 308,567 "friends", using their Facebook page as a source. I'm not sure if the project has gotten around to dealing with those sorts of claims. If folks think that these kinds of primary sourced assertions are worthwhile then we could say that TPRF is a "featured cause" on Causes, with XXXX number of followers and $XX raised.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was suggesting. I am not sure why you are describing Causes as a "primary source." They are not echoing the Non-profit's data; they monitor the membership and donation figures themselves, like any other third party. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to write an article on documentary filmmaker Ucu Agustin in my userspace, and I was wondering if Wikimedia could be used to reference her next endeavor. She received 700 million rupiah in a grant for the film from the Ford Foundation in collaboration with other groups, including Wikimedia, so this may pass

• Article is now at Ucu Agustin. None of the data from Wikimedia has been entered yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not for notability. Treat like a press release. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is how I would do it; she has her notability shown through 5 - 7 pieces of independent coverage. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into specifics for now, is there a substantial difference between citing a documentary and citing a book as a RS? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's only a question that can be answered very vaguely without knowing what the comparison being asked about is. In principle, the media of a source makes no difference to its use on WP. But, in practice, there can be all kinds of disadvantages to using a documentary, without getting into specifics for now. --FormerIP (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

this is a citation formatting question? We don't do non-specific reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In principle, a documentary is not more or less reliable than a book. However, in practice, the format might mean that they approach things in different ways, and some documentaries are more reliable than others (the same applies to books, of course). There are specific fields where I'd be very wary of documentaries, by default - for instance in some areas of pseudoscience and alt-med, the minority view isn't accepted by "the authorities" and can't get published through the usual channels, so documentaries are much more likely to be used to spread the message - so when somebody arrives wanting to put The Truth in an article and they're citing a documentary, that's an instant red flag.

Can't give a specific answer; it depends on exactly what the source is and what content it's being used to support.

Of course, we can fill in citation templates a bit differently... bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the following monograph be allowed as a reliable source for the

1. It is published by the School of Advanced Military Studies as part of the US Army's

Command and General Staff College

.

2. Two SAMS faculty members with PhDs provided oversight on the monograph.

3. It is a useful collection of information on the school—some of which is not easily found elsewhere—that will improve the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be useful to outline what information you want to take from it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it is a reliable publication internally published for the purposes of wikipedia. The system of professional and academic military science fact checking means that it is not "primary." However, like Former IP, I would like to see what you want to use from it before signing off on your uses as reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I haven't sorted through it yet to compile a list of material; I didn't want to waste my time on a work that wouldn't be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. An example might be information from an author interview of one of the early SAMS faculty members to help tell the story of the school's history. I really don't think there is any controversial information in it, but if there is a concern that there might be, I can look more carefully for specifics. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Extensively quoting from primary sources contained within secondary sources is a bad idea, unless the secondary source has a sufficient "authority" to, and in the text actually does, authorise the primary source as an accurate account. Try to stick to the secondary source's own narrative when using it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this site a reliable source about

I would have to say that it is not suitable source for stating as fact "Many of the stories about Kim Jong Il's eccentricities and decadent life-style are exaggerated, possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime."

Especially since it does not point to any examples of such exaggeration that would give context to the claim.

this is their 'about us' page which does not seem to have advertising, you may be able to use that for more general insight.

They do seem to have received a bit of praise and are referenced by news media.

In short, I don't think that we can discount them out of hand, but I do think that it is not used correctly in this particular case. un☯mi 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org has been used extensively as a reliable source on Wikipedia. As always, though, we weigh the individual facts in our sources and if there is no example given, the fact is not as strong. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Creation and evolution in public education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Is www.breakingchristiannews.com a reliable source for commentary on this resolution?
• Is this article from the
  Evangelical Church in Germany
  's website a secondary source on an Evangelical Church in Germany conference? (It seems unlikely)
• Is having two full sections ('Drafting and adoption' & 'Content') based purely on primary sources appropriate per
  WP:PSTS ("Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.")? For myself, I don't see how having this much detail on the drafting, adoption and contents of a resolution by an organisation
  , that is in any case purely advisory, rather than having any actual authority, is needed.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Some comments on that article (the discussion is actually between User:Hrafn and me):
  • Not perfect (it's not a major news agency), but it is a secondary source without specific reasons to suspect. I don't insist on that particular source.
  • While speaking German, I don't see in the article that the conference was held by the Evangelical Church in Germany.
  • First, those are not based purely on primary sources (not only the breakingchristiannews.com, but also
    IHEU is not a primary source). Second, use of primary sources is not forbidden and in this specific case they are the best - giving precise data on the full texts of documents involved, on the minutae of the PACE sitting, on the division of votes at the adoption of the resolution.Fuseau (talk
    ) 12:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the use of primary sources: no, it is not legitimate to structure, weight or cite out of primary sources in the manner indicated above. Regarding BCN, they lie in the credibility category of wsws.org: don't use. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Could you motivate? And which is the manner indicated above? If you mean Hrafn's claim that two sections were based purely on primary sources, I agree that would be inappropriate - but I've shown it wasn't so even at the time of Hrafn's statement, and I've added new secondary sources since. 2. BCN link was removed from the article hours before your comment. Fuseau (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I couldn't motivate as that's incomprehensible in standard English, and doesn't appear to make sense in any other dialect of English I know. "In the manner indicated above" was in the introduction to this RS/N section. If the matter's reliability issues are resolved, please stop talking about it here. For advice on what this page is used for, please see the top of the page. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:12, 21 December 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)

Hi. I'm Noah Berlatsky, the editor of the Hooded Utilitarian. I thought I would try to provide some more info about the site in hopes that it would be helpful.

I personally have written for the Atlantic, the Chicago Reader, the Washington Times, Reason, and a number of other established outlets. The site itself was hosted on The Comics Journal website for about a year. We have been linked by established comics sites, such as the Comics Journal, the Comics Reporter, and the Beat. We have also been linked by mainstream sites such as boing boing and io9. A post about the Wire by Sean Michael Robinson and Joy DeLyria was extremely popular and was linked by everyone from Harper's to the Boston Globe. The post has been expanded into a book and will be released in a couple of months.

As you mentioned, James Romberger and Marguerite Van Cook both write for the site. We have also had guest posts over the years by creators and critics such as Ariel Schrag, Shaenon Garrity, Jason Thompson, Steven Grant. A number of academics have also written for us, including Craig Fischer, Peter Sattler, Qiana Whitted, Charles Hatfield, and Andrei Molotiu.

I believe you can confirm all that through google fairly easily.

Incidentally, the post by Nadim was widely linked and discussed through the comics community, including by the Comics Journal and by Eddie Campbell through his own blog.

Thanks for you interest in the site. I hope this was helpful. NoahB (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For convenience, here is the link on Eddie Campbell's blog: http://eddiecampbell.blogspot.com/2011/10/h-abibi-by-craig-thompson.html

Horologium (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hooded Utilitarian's coverage of Habibi was just linked on NPR's site. a [[3]]

NoahB (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Habibi review is reliable for the graphic novel Habibi and the author of Habibi, and would be reliable. It is reliable as it is published in an edited outlet, and demonstrates the standard form of medium to higher criticism of comics. We don't do general reliability. The Hooded Utilitarian could make it easier for RS/N editors by publishing their editorial policy under their About tab. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at listed credentials I am not convinced that it is suitable as a source for philosophy articles - though it may well serve as a jump-off point for relevant sources of higher quality. Thoughts? un☯mi 01:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Suitable sources for philosophy articles would be philosophy articles, chapters, books and conference papers published in the scholarly presses. I'd suggest working from the footnotes of these first. Many search engines, such as JSTOR or google scholar provide direct access to scholarly works. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This web site has been discussed previously, and quite extensively. The conclusion was "It is an RS because Robinson [the site's editor] is a notable and acknowledged expert who has been published previously in reliable third-party sources and religioustolerance.org is used as a source for fact by reliable sources. However, it is still a self-published source and BLP restrictions for self-published sources apply. Care should also be taken not to add the site indiscriminately as as an external link; this has led to problems in the past." I see no reason to believe anything has changed since then. If anything, the site is even more well-respected as additional reliable sources have endorsed it in the period since that was written. As long as it is not being used for a biography of a living person there should be no problems. Of course if it's being used to cite fact it is citing to some other source, then that source should be tracked down and used instead, just like with any other source making reference to another. DreamGuy (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree - I think that we could conceivably use it as a 'source of last resort' on fringe / low-source-availability subjects - such as where it seems to have been used by the references in question. Namely Satanism, online cults, 'new religions' etc. which may not have a healthy body of extant scholarship. However, for 'mainstream' topics in philosophy, such as atheism, agnosticism, theism, epistemology etc. I really can't see it being able to offer anything different from what scholarly works can, and to the degree that it does - I see no reason why it should be trusted. un☯mi 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see using it for religion. I don't see why one would use it for philosophy. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am following a discussion at DRN which mentions this section. It is not possible to say whether a source is "reliable"–the question is always "is source X reliable to verify statement Y?". For example, a source may be reliable for a statement about poetry, but not reliable for a statement about biology (see "The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting" in the headers of this page). I have pointed out at DRN that religioustolerance.org is not a suitable source for a definition of "atheism" because the site has a (probably noble) agenda: they are promoting religious tolerance and are not claiming to be conducting scholarly research into the encyclopedic meaning of "atheism". Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq and Unomi. Not any use for philosophy or theology where scholarly sources are available. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this viewpoint -- to the extent that it can be considered reliable (which is questionable), it is on the topic of new religious movements, not atheism. There are surely far, far better sources on the latter than this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well - a source of last resort, where there is a lack of more reliable ones to draw upon. Can be used, cautiously, but only when other sources are not avaiable. If Robinson is an acknowledged expert we should cite his writings in books, articles and the like when available, rather than his website.

_complex

14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has questioned the reliability of the website

• Yes JFH is a RS. They have some sort of editorial board and a staff. In the realm of music, especially underground music, trying to claim that all RSes should be written by full time professional journalists is crazy. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that answer is going to satisfy this particular editor. I think he would appreciate a more in depth examination of the issue.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the particular editor in question. Finding legitimate

WP:RS by a country mile, in my opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 23:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't use a site is a personal choice. All RS requires is editorial control. In addition, Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music quotes JFH when discussing albums and bands. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How much is it quoted? Is it just the odd mention, or is the site used as a key source?--¿3family6 _contribs 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me exactly within

WP:RS. I do however have "editorial control". I think your reasoning is flawed, unless you can point me towards some part of the guideline I have missed. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 11:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I agree that there is more to an RS than just editorial oversight. The content must be generated by an actual staff, for starters. I have done some digging, and I've found that numerous sources refer to JFH. For starters, they are used as a reference for Newsboys in Refuel: The Complete New Testament for Guys from

HM Magazine: Circleslide getting JFH's Reader's Choice award and House of Hero's playing for the site's 14th anniversary. HM Magazine also gave fairly extensive coverage of a story done by JFH for an album by Fireflight. There are also numerous, more trivial mentions of reviews by JFH: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--¿3family6 _contribs

14:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what weight this has, but I have found the following: On

Salem Publishing to cover Christian hip hop news, also mentions the site: [21], [22], [23], [24].--¿3family6 _contribs

16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more findings: One of the staple sources of reviews for TodaysChristianMusic.com, a website run by CCM Magazine. The number of articles referencing JFH reviews, ranging from a quick mention to a major quote, is so long that I'll just give a link to the Google results. Two articles I will isolate are references demonstrating that JFH has exclusive music video streaming before a video hits other media sources: [25], [26].

There are also brief mentions of JFH in

Gospel Music Channel

.com, Beliefnet, and CCM Magazine, but I am not sure how reliable that website is.

But here is the most significant find: On page 12 of this PDF of a CCM Magazine issue, it states how JFH has become a major Christian music online resource.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In another CCM Magazine link, I found that John DiBiase was part of the magazine's review panel. Whether this specific info establishes the site as reliable, I'm not sure, but it means anything written by John DiBiase should be.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conversation (albeit an occasional patron of the site in question), it seems to me the 3family6's sources, both in number and quality, are more than enough to establish the site as a

WP:RS, especially those last two PDFs.--Invisiboy42293 (talk

) 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So where does that leave this discussion?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I discovered this discussion by accident but I have some very strong opinion on JFH as well. The problem is that we've been discussing it as a single entity. I don't look at it that way. I view it as three distinct entities or with three different purposes. Its first purpose is information. It passes-on press releases without vetting the information. So when it passed-on a press release about Relient K's recent EP, it introduced an error in the release's title. Albeit, that error originated from the label. There are more examples of that. In one sense, it's redistribution of press releases is a good thing, but in this aspect it's a primary source and not acting in a journalistic manner.

The second way in which it distributes information is in band interviews. When interviewing and discussing issues with band members we hear directly from the artists. In this way, it is a good and reliable source.

The final way is in album reviews. Here, I find the site lacking. Not all of the reviews are done by professionals. They use terms, particularly around genres, because they're asked to rather than understanding the full scope of those terms. Their ratings are usually accurate and in short they're purely the opinion of one editor. The real question though is how much editorial oversight do reviewers receive, and how does that relate to similar mainstream magazines such as SPIN?

In summary, JFH, can be a RS, but it's not always one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So how do we determine that? Email or a Facebook message could work, but it would need to be verified.--¿3family6 _contribs 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, given what Walter Görlitz has said, I think you'd treat the press releases as primary sources, interviews as a mix of primary (what the band members say) and secondary (what the interviewer claims), and reviews as secondary, and base reliability decisions not so much on the site, but on the reviewer. So if a reviewer has been published in other reliable sources such as SPIN, we'd consider the reviewer reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The reviews generally have no oversight and are the least reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you verify that? I'm not being obstructive here, just trying to make sure we make a decision from solid evidence.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No I can't verify that so let's exclude it completely as a source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The about page does say "The JFH Staff writers adhere to strict journalistic standards. Our editorial staff is independent of any artist/record label/management firm." Evidently there is some editorial review, but the site is vague. Maybe a question on the site's Facebook page could clear things up.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Walter's assessment. His summary is right "JFH, can be a RS, but it's not always one". I don't agree that their album reviews are necessarily lacking editorial oversight. Of course they are an opinion -- all album reviews are an opinion. I have found many JFH reviews on artists website and I added a few to the article. Obviously these artists feel that JFH reviews are important/reliable and the website is well-known to their fans. The website does reprint lots of press releases which are clearly labeled (and need to be treated as such). I was discouraged to see that Blackmetalbaz had removed almost all citations from the article (just because they were dead) right before slapping on the notability tag on November 14. They were placed in the article in 2007. Removal was against

WP:LR so I restored them. And I added the Alexa ranking (before finding this discussion). Royalbroil

04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So with reviews, it looks like they are reliable as reviews, but not as sources for things like band history or genres, unless written by someone who has previous material that is not self-published. Is that a good assessment?--¿3family6 _contribs 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the artists link to the reviews is simply an indication that they back the promotional material contained in them, not that they are reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with that.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So what is the consensus?--¿3family6 _contribs 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to note that, while I agree with the previous assessments of the site's news reports and interviews, I don't think they should be discounted as a source for genres, especially in light of the numerous instances linked to above of other reliable sources citing and discussing the site's opinion.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is something I've been thinking about that could be relevant here. The New York Times is self-published by the New York Times company, but it is certainly reliable, and it is used in BLPs. What is the rationale behind this, and how is it a different case?--¿3family6 _contribs 19:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything is self-published in a literal sense since no-one is forced to publish media, but basically in the way we use it, it is a divider between professional and amateur publishing. The theory being—although not always the case in practice—is that a hired staff will generally be professionally trained and qualified within their area and more capable of adhering to editorial standards. I think it's important to accept this as only a guide though, for me the real test is being cited in other RS media—it provides a form of peer review that in itself is more thorough and professional than the judgment of Wikipedia editors. It seems to be respected as an authority within its field, so I think it is probably reliable for relaying information. As for opinion pieces by its staff, I think that has to be taken on a case by case basis; some people's are opinions are worth more than others. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's basically what I thought, but I was not sure on the actual consensus.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There is only one source for the BLP

Removed a paragraph that apparently violated BLP on two counts. That does indeed leave it unsourced at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed up the article for you. Silverseren^C 04:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sgerbic, are you affiliated with Skeptoid? (Note that this isn't an accusation, just a question, and not an unreasonable one given your recent edits.) Dawn Bard (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a fan of Skeptoid. I explained to Acroterion on my talk page that I have been saving these edits up for some time waiting till I had a chance to add them into the pages they referred to. Apparently doing so all in one sitting has set off some kind of alarm. If I had made these edits once in a while then we would not be having this conversation. Sgerbic (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the EL to pseudoscience? Surely a well-written article by someone noteworthy that discusses how to tell what is and is not pseudoscience is worth being included in an article about pseudoscience? Why didn't you remove the EL to the Skeptic Dictionary? * Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscience – Robert Todd Carroll, PhD. What about the article by Coker who is not noteworthy but wrote an article about how to distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

• Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience – Rory Coker, PhD

Here are the other references that were not removed.

Look up pseudoscience in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Checklist for identifying dubious technical processes and products – Rainer Bunge, PhD
• Pseudoscience. What is it? How can I recognize it? – Stephen Lower
• Science and Pseudoscience – transcript and broadcast of talk by Imre Lakatos
• Science and Pseudo-Science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Science Needs to Combat Pseudoscience – A statement by 32 Russian scientists and philosophers
• Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism – Steven Dutch
• Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscientific topics and discussion – Robert Todd Carroll
• Why Is Pseudoscience Dangerous? – Edward Kruglyakov

Skeptoid's 15 points on how to recognize pseudoscience fits well in this body of External links. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

These discussions about whether or not an EL should remain, should be discussed on the relevant page. Not here. And reverting an edit without a reason is not good policy. I thought the reason we were on the reliable sources noticeboard page was to discuss if Skeptoid is a reliable source or not?

I would like to add that I take issue with the claim that I am spamming anything. Each External Link I left is unique, and relevant to the page it was left on. Sgerbic (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sgerbic. The site has very good, detailed but consise essays on a wide range of fringe and pseudoscience topics. I've read through several of them and found them well-written and representative of the mainstream view and is well sourced. There is no spamming going on here. The links are added judiciously and appropriately. The reason so many links are being added is the large number of fringe topics covered by the site. This is a valuable reasource for our readers because it covers the topics in a basic, but thorough manner. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My chief concern is where the EL is being added to topics that aren't fringe, sin and faith, as cited above, which I believe leads to NPOV problems.There appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach here that may not be appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. I agree they don't belong on such topics. But as for fringe and psudoscience topics, the site is top notch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that fringe topics are all too often linked to credulous conspiracy sites or *zomg* sensationalist crap, a skeptoid link may bring some reason to fringe topics, if used appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect skeptoid and think it would be a good EL on many specific fringey topics. However, indiscriminate use across a zillion articles would be a Bad Thing, and I doubt it's appropriate on most articles about general non-fringe concepts. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing, though, is that we all take our fingers off the revert button. Reflexive reverts just waste time and wear down goodwill, making it harder to reach a position that everybody's happy with. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Skeptoid is definitely reliable. There are dozens of episodes, so I think it would be easy to go overboard and reference Skeptoid in virtually every Wiki article dealing with pseudoscientific claims. Perhaps a better compromise would be to limit use of Skeptoid to more obscure topics that aren't widely covered. So, for example, there are a million articles on Homeopathy, so perhaps it's not necessary to use Skeptoid as a reference. But, certain UFO sightings, "haunted" castles, and other less widely-covered topics are covered by Skeptoid. Obviously, this isn't an official policy of Wiki, but it may make sense rather than referencing the articles a million times. Thoughts? JoelWhy (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(

Also, from

My take on this is similar to Dawn Bard's. There are often many sources that deal with our topics and relevance by itself cannot be sufficient for their inclusion - I think that's pretty obvious. In this case, while Dunning's Skeptoid podcasts/transcripts may serve a useful purpose in bringing pseudoscience to the attention of the iTunes masses, this very aspect of them suggests that they are unlikely to add anything new to our articles - the well-developed ones at least. A better approach, I'd say, would be to read the article, read the podcast transcript and if anything is covered better in the podcast, then use it to improve the article and cite it in the references.

A related concern is that of visibility and balance. The main sources for an article get listed, quite unobtrusively, in the References section. Those in External links, or Further reading appear far more prominently, and should, perhaps, be required to have a commensurate degree of importance to the topic.  —SMALLJIM  15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes the information on this web site

The web site is definitely promotional, pushing Dunning's broadcasts, live shows, books, videos, swag, and requests for subscriptions ("tips") which detracts both from claims of reliability and from the general utility of the site for this project. There are other sites with similar content that are not promotional. Jojalozzo 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal blog/podcast thing. That's generally a no-no for "reliable source". He just synthesizes other people's research, so why settle for the middle man when you could just go to the original research? I can also tell you that he says a lot of incorrect things in regards to

his wiki page. --Harizotoh9 (talk

) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell all of the skeptoid pieces come with solid references and I note that he does issue corrections when errors are pointed out. Yes, wikipedia doesn't need an exhaustive list attached to all articles but he does a good job of gathering solid referenced facts together.

ad hominem attack or something else? Daffydavid (talk

) 11:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Still, it's a self published secondary source. If it has solid references, then why not just skip the middle man and use the same references he uses? Also, his legal troubles involve engaging in fraudulant activities, which does hurt his credibility as a reliable source a bit. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a bigger problem on Wikipedia than just the references mentioned here. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Let.27s_move_the_Skeptic_Society_references_to_a_single_section_of_the_article --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe has objected to [32] to be considered a RS, stating that it "clearly copies Wikipedia". It was originally included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Resources as an acceptable source for unreferenced articles, but Mewulwe has objected for it to be listed there. Any thoughts on this? – Connormah (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use a source that itself uses Wikipedia as a source. For a simple example in this case, the full name of former president of Nauru

Frederick Pitcher and Sprent Dabwido - by some self-declared Swiss schoolboy who has repeatedly been asked for a source and pointedly failed to respond at all (note my question two years ago as well as Aridd's recently). There is absolutely no independent occurrence of this data to be found anywhere else. Yet all of these have been later (as you can check via archive.org) adopted, clearly from Wikipedia, by worldstatesmen.org. (I have since removed all of these as unverifiable.) I could find any number of further examples, but really this should be already sufficient. Mewulwe (talk

) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm reviewing AFN Munich for DYK, and I have concerns over the use of this reference from About.com. I am quite wary of it, as it is a) a language exercise and b) from About.com. As I do not speak German fluently, I cannot verify that all information in the about.com article is supported with the other sources; the nominator wishes to keep the current about.com reference as it is bilingual. Should about.com be allowed here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help on verifying sources. IMDB is obviously not reliable. However, the article is too big for me to check. Can you assist inspecting this article, please? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Used heavily in

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm is the source for the claim that

I would suggest that www.renewamerica.us is, at best, a

WP:QS (whether for extremism, or failure to fact-check). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm is not reliable due to parliamentary privilege
• Canada Free Press is not reliable as it is an ideological screed, "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which contain love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership." (About Us); based on user submissions with no editorial policy
• Anyone persisting in using these in BLP articles, especially after having our reliable sourcing policy explained, needs to be restricted from editing in this manner. If they're just used in non-BLP situations, just rip them out and delete the content sourced to them. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with these 'sources' and agree.

talk

) 14:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely not reliable, and agree with Fifelfoo that users who persist in inserting BLP information cited to fringe sources need to be sanctioned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Caution.

• It shouldn't be cited at all. The opinions there aren't weighty. Seek secondary sources, preferably academic sociology, on the nature of global warming conspiracy movements and theories. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am doing a systematic literature review of "climate change" and "global warming" "skepticism" and "denial". I have found a number of papers that seem to be relevant from 1991 to 2011. Most seem to be within sociology of science, political science, or philosophy of science. The journals that published papers in 2011 include the list below. I would be grateful for any comments on which are reliable. My impression is that all are normal academic journals except Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which is a magazine, and Neuroquantology which has pseudoscientific aspects. Some of the others seem to be prestigious while others are minor but respectable journals:

• American Journal of Preventive Medicine
• Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
• Environment
• Futures
• Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
• Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions
• Nature
• Nature Climate Change
• Neuroquantology
• Organization & Environment
• Osiris
• Public Understanding of Science
• Sociological Quarterly

Thanks for any comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith, let me boot Ulrichs:

• American Journal of Preventive Medicine
• Peer reviewed (0749-3797 1873-2607), reliable within normal academic limits of reliability:
• MIXED: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
  • 0096-3402 (Ceased) peer reviewed, reliable within normal limits
  • 1938-3282 (Active) not peer reviewed, may be reliable as a secondary source for non-academic claims, bring articles forward to RS/N for specific circumstances & claims
• Environment
  • Taylor & Francis? 0013-9157 or 1939-9154 ? Peer reviewed, reliable within normal limits
• Futures
  • Pergamon? 0016-3287, 1873-6378? Peer reviewed, reliable within normal limits
• Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
  • Supply an ISSN?
• Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions
  • Pergammon? "http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30425/description#description" ? Ulrich's shows peer reviewed
• Nature
  • Reliable
• Nature Climate Change
  • Reliable
• Neuroquantology
  • 1303-5150 Not listed as peer reviewed in Ulrich's. Their website indicates that they're peer reviewed to an academic standard. Normal academic limits on reliability
• Organization & Environment
  • Reviewed, normal academic limits
• Osiris
  • reviewed, normal academic limits
• Public Understanding of Science
  • reviewed, normal academic limits
• Sociological Quarterly
  • reviewed, normal academic limits
• All of these except for recent publications in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are peer reviewed scholarly journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Gaia's ISSN is 0940-5550 and this is the journal website. I am seriously concerned about Neuroquantology. The editorial board listing gives countries but no institutional affiliations. The founder and editor in chief has a web page describing him as a neurologist in a private hospital. I Googled the names of two other editorial board members. One is on a university staff list as a doctoral student. The other is a psychiatrist in private practice, author of a number of books with non-academic publishers.

This is the relevant paper, with part of the abstract.

Schwartz, S. A. (2011). "The Antique Roadshow: How Denier Movements Debunk Evolution, Climate Change, and Nonlocal Consciousness." Neuroquantology 9(1): 118-128. This paper describes the rise of three "denier" movements in the United States, and describes how each is actively engaged in trying to debunk and impede the free development of science: the Creationist Anti-evolutionists, the Climate Change Deniers, and the Consciousness Deniers. The last, a group that cannot, or will not, consider consciousness as anything other than physicalist processes.

Any further comments would be welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"NeuroQuantology is a quarterly peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that covers the intersection of neuroscience and quantum physics/mechanics" sounds a bit

WP:FTN could help? Cusop Dingle (talk

) 19:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1.http://www.bashaoorpakistan.com/urdu/download-urdu-novel-peer-e-kamil-pbuh-umera-ahmed/

2.http://www.pubarticles.com/article-critical-analysis-of-urdu-novels-of-umera-ahmed-1295436479.html

3.http://www.onlineurdunovels.com/author.php?no=1&a=Umera%20Ahmed

4.http://www.chowrangi.com/peer-e-kamil.html / http://www.chowrangi.com

1,2,3 and 4th links have been cited to article

• Non of editors have time to take a look at this matter.?
  talk
  ) 02:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It will be hard to convince anyone that a website written in very poor English is a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No. 2 (Pubarticles.com) is definitely not a reliable source (anyone can submit an article, so we have no way of knowing if the author knows what he or she is talking about ... and there appears to be no editorial oversight.)

• Thanks for your attention,your point is right,I agree,but what about other two references 3 and 4,hope that you will give your opinion about those too.
  talk
  ) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An admin gave me a block threat over this edit, saying Daily Mail is usually not reliable. Is it true Daily Mail is unreliable?

For most sources like this, they are never truly reliable or unreliable, as it depends on the context used. In terms of the Daily Mail, because of past scandals involving people, Wikipedians are wary of considering it reliable. So, unless you have other sources also backing up the information, it's best to not use it on biography articles. Other parts of it, like television, movie, or game reviews and other news that doesn't involve people is probably perfectly fine to use as a source. Silverseren^C 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And what i'm seeing when I look up information on this is a lot of sources saying that it didn't cause a controversy, mainly because Colonel Tom Parker kept it all under wraps. Some other rock stars that were involved in such controversies were a little upset that Elvis wasn't. Silverseren^C 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an excellent source for football scores. Not so reliable on people stories. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia will eventually have to come up with another term than "reliable source" - in Wikipedianese, it mainly means a known publisher which actually checks stories published it. It has nothing to do with the source being inerrant or infallible at all. The more "interesting" a claim is, the more likely it is to be sensationalized by any publisher (even the New York Times has done this). It is not really in Wikipedia's purview to be "as interesting as possible" but rather to give a neutrally worded and oriented article on any topic. In the case at hand,

I found this report:[33] its by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute, is it a reliable source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For what? The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is an advocacy group, if a respected one. I'd imagine the document would be a reliable source for its view on issues, but for facts - depends. What statement are you trying to use it to back, in what Wikipedia article, and what specific part of the document are you using as a reference? --GRuban (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It says on p 15 that Ein Qiniyye had a christian population before 1967. I was thinking about using it in its article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. That seems an off-hand mention among a long polemic about Israeli expulsion of Syrian Arabs from the Golan; the claim is quite likely controversial, so likely needs a good source. One without an obvious axe to grind would be ideal, but is probably too much to ask for, however one that devotes more than a passing mention to it would be nice. What probably is a good idea, though, is adding the alternate spelling 'Ain Qinya to the article lead. --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP:200.148.33.5, is using this source, James H. Guill, A history of the Azores Islands , Volume 5, page 139, in the article

Here is another book mentioning that Felix V did have a daughter Margarita [36] ... as does Britannica (Margherita) [37]; though neither says whom she married.--GRuban (talk)

If we are to believe the article

Antipope Felix V, it lists him having two daughters named Margaret, one that dies at 13 and another that is married 3 times(none of which is a Willem). The spelling may or may not be an issue concerning Margaride/Margarita/Margaret, yet since neither listed are married to a Willem, I am still at square one. It would appear the first link indicates Margaret of Savoy, Duchess of Anjou, who would have been between husbands in 1442. The second link is also Margaret of Savoy and her first husband. Unfortunately, I have not found anything in Spanish, French or English sources that supports Willem being the grandson of John "the Fearless", Duke of Burgundy. My sincerest thanks for the links, though. I usually do not get answers when I ask questions on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk

) 05:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can pictures be used as evidence of the existence of something or does that involve interpretation and, thus, make them original research? The article in question is Ninjatō and the sources being used are this and this. They are being used as references for sentences stating the swords are on display in specific museums. The issue I have with this is that 1) You have to be able to read Japanese and interpret the Japanese in these pictures to confirm this and 2) there's no way to confirm that these are actually in the museums in question without going there. Silverseren^C 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically they don't prove anything, as you obviously realise. The only reliable evidence would be a publication or the museum's catalogue. But it would be silly to remove these links from the article, since they add useful information which is probably not controversial. Our aim is to do things that are useful, not silly. So, if these two pictures are cited in a footnote, I would remove the footnote, leave the statement in the text unfootnoted, and insert the link at external links. Andrew Dalby 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, is this a reliable source? Silverseren^C 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Virtual Museum of Traditional Japanese Arts is produced for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Kodansha International Ltd.". An academic source would be better than this, but I'd say this is OK as a start: Kodansha International was a reputable publisher. Andrew Dalby 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's good, that means I can use it in the article for info. However, do you agree that what it's currently being used to source (existence of Ninjato at the Iga Ryu Ninja Museum) is inappropriate, since it says nothing about the stated museum in it? Silverseren^C 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick: "there's no way to confirm that these are actually in the museums in question without going there" - I'm not sure this actually disqualifies a source. The issue of accessibility of sources has been raised several times before, and IIRC the general consensus only required that it be possible for others to check a source, without requiring that it be easy to do so. (Context does matter here; I've run into one vandal who deliberately mis-cited inaccessible sources and it got to the point where I'd reject such sources on the pages he targets, but it doesn't sound as if that's an issue here.) --GenericBob (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but there's a difference between accessibility to, say, a book, which you would be able to at least confirm exists online, even if you can't access it online. But, when you're dealing with a picture, there's no way to confirm it exists without going to the museum and, if you don't find it there, does that mean it was never there or perhaps they changed their displays? I find pictures to be very suspect when we're supposed to assume information from them, information which is not directly stated by the source. Silverseren^C 11:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. We would accept a book as evidence (even if it isn't available online), because, via its creator's credentials, we can assure ourselves of its reliability. Similarly, we would accept a museum's website or its public catalogue on the question of what items it possesses because we would regard the creator, the museum, as a reliable source on that. But we don't know anything about the creator of these photographs.

I still say, if there's no controversy, they can be listed under "External links". We don't vouch for the reliability of "external links", we just want them to add something useful to the article. Andrew Dalby 10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the images to an external links sections. I've also moved the info from the Web Japan link to the Appearance section, since it said nothing about either of the museums. And i've also added a citation needed tag to that sentence about the museums. Silverseren^C 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a parallel discussion currently at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tommy_Morrison_the_boxer where I commented "I have occasionally wondered about this (principle, I mean, not this photo). Why do we allow images with no reliable source to back them up, when we wouldn't allow arguments like 'It seems plausible to me' for written content?" Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Recently, an editor removed a large amount of content from List of emoticons (history), on the grounds that the removed emoticons were not reliably sourced. Since then there's been something of a backlash on the talk page, and after seeing complaints both on Reddit and from a friend I thought I'd bring the issue here for some new eyes.

Previously the emoticons under the "2channel emoticons" header were sourced to the 2channel emoticons board. Here's why I think this attribution is OK:

1. WP:NNC
   .
2. Emoticons are user-generated content, and are resistant to being reliably sourced. The standard for such sources should be lowered so that we can give a reasonably comprehensive treatment of the subject.
3. Users' conversational posts aren't being cited; instead, the referenced sources are compilations of specific emoticons which were selected as well-known, popular, or especially clever. This is reminiscent of the "grouping or set" requirement in
   WP:LISTN
   .
4. 2channel is the most popular imageboard in the world, and has an enormous impact on net culture in Japan - as the references in that article show. "If 2chan (the single biggest representation of Eastern internet culture) isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is."

What do you think? What should be the standard of sources for emoticons? Thanks! .froth. (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial priest who died 10 years ago. In his lifetime he was widely published and probably interviewed 100's of thousands of times. Both he and his work have been written about. Many of these sources are listed in the article; however the bulk of the references (including everything from number of languages he spoke to him acting as the Vatican's own 007) are tied to an audio cassette put out by his followers which sounds like an obituary, eulogy: Doran, Brian (2001) (cassette), Malachi Martin: God's Messenger - In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, published by Catholic Treasures. I am not comfortable with this as source material for a biographical piece. Am I wrong? I say this as a fan of the priest's nonfiction writing before he suffered a stroke. I think better source material can be found is all. I just don't want to get into a pissing contest with some of the editors. Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm attempting to source the filmography for Dylan and Cole Sprouse. I have a few questions about what would be a reliable source for a cast listing:

• Is Amazon a reliable source for this purpose?
• Is a review aggregator (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes) reliable for this purpose?
• Is an episode of a television show itself (especially if a timecode and/or the exact wording of the credit is given) reliable for this?

Thanks for any help. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If they receive on-screen credit in a television or film appearance, then that appearance can be cited itself. {{Cite episode}} is useful for this. If they're not credited on-screen then you'll probably need to use a source which would normally pass WP:RS and mentions their appearance. Reviews might mention this, or perhaps if there's an official website, as it would be authoritative in this regard. GRAPPLE X 02:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've only been citing episodes I have access to, even when I know they're in (and credited in) other episodes. Also, I'd use their website, except that it doesn't list a lot of their minor roles/appearances, which are most of the ones I'm trying to cite. I'm also still a bit unclear on whether Amazon would be reliable or not, though I'm leaning towards not. I have a hard time understanding/interpreting the information in WP:RS, even though I love finding sources (and generally am able to tell what's unreliable/reliable). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazon is not reliable. It mirrors the information supplied to it by publishers/distributors, often including errors and misunderstandings. Andrew Dalby 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! :) - Purplewowies (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this article? Are its sources reliable? Some Archive.org sites are invalid due to copyright issues, including

Archive.org is a primary source on what the article claims to provide ("a list of films that certain cited sources believe are in the public domain"). We should not base an article chiefly on primary sources. In any case, to link to these files at archive.org, if we confidently believe that they are breaching copyright, is immoral, isn't it? And to compile a list like this on the basis of archive.org's catalogues is original research, isn't it? Andrew Dalby 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are right, may I remove the whole list, or may I

debate it for deletion the second time? --George Ho (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC) --George Ho (talk

) 11:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what others say. My second (moral) point shouldn't be pressed if we think archive.org has arguable justification -- evidently the copyright status of feature films is extremely complicated. But, setting that aside, the vast majority of the footnotes on the list are to archive.org, so it still looks to me like OR based on a primary source. Andrew Dalby 19:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This conversation probably should be happening on the article discussion page.

talk

) 20:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point ... and discussion is now continuing there. See Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States#The list of films. Andrew Dalby 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. A full citation of the source in question.
  2. A link to the source in question.
  3. The article in which it is being used. For example article name
  4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
  5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.