Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 125

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.

Can a TED-x lecture by Peter Joseph, the co-founder of The Zeitgeist Movement, be considered a reliable (primary) source for The Zeitgeist Movement? For example, as a reliable (primary) source (used in support of reliable secondary sources) for some of the key concepts/ ideas/ philosophy of the movement? Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your quesion is too hypothetical. What statement, exactly, do you want to use it to support? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That the movement believes that in its theoretical Earth Economy, decisions are would be directly based upon scientific understandings as they relate to optimized human health and well-being and habitat management, and production and distribution of goods, services, and resources is would be regulated by the most technically efficient and sustainable approaches known to the scientific and technological community. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant section(s) from a transcript of the lecture that support this. In English please, not buzz-words and vacuous waffle. And shouldn't that read "would be directly based", rather than "are directly based"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Read George Orwell's Politics and the English Language: you might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read almost everything by Orwell, including the article you referenced. And yes, you are right, if we were to include the quote (or a rewording thereof) in the TZM article (or any WP article), it should be something like 'would be directly based' and not 'are directly based'. I was quoting from the TED-x lecture. The quote above appears very near the beginning of the lecture. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I have found a [game review here] on Gameboomers. The [about us] page isn't super encouraging, but I've searched around and see the site being linked to a lot in articles, although it might be mostly in external links. Is this just out completely? I might not necessarily need more reviews for the reception section of Drowned God, but I was considering using that article to source some gameplay information, like calling the game point and click, first person, and describing some of the navigation and interaction with the environment. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the "about us" page, you're right, it isn't super-encouraging, but then I googled some of the editors, including Ana Sprague and Becky Waxman, and they, among others, actually have some credentials in the gaming world, so that's a good thing. In general, by policy, it's not RS, as the site doesn't list the information we need, and doesn't have a proven track record we can look at. Having said that, in this particular case, I'm not sure how much better of a review you are going to get of a 1996 video game. I'm not sure things like calling something "point and click" or "first person" is going to be a contentious fact, so in that case, I would cite it, and if someone gets all up in a snit about it, well, they will have policy on their side, but you'll still have

WP:IAR. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. That was pretty much a perfect answer and in line with my thoughts. Thanks for researching the reviewers' names though; I didn't think of doing that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For the Masculinity article. Is this article on Naturalsociety.com] a reliable source for a subsection section called "Masculinity in decline"? Is this documentary and documentary summary"? a reliable source for the same? Here is the disputed edit [1]. Note that I can confirm that neither of the clearly reliable sources (The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and The Internet Journal of Urology, mentions masculinity (or it being in decline) at all.--Slp1 (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The NaturalSociety article gets it info from here, which based on who posted it, I do find to be RS for the claim.

Oscar Boyson and Casey Neistat who made the documentary are not medical professionals, I don't see them as RS for the claim. I see them as RS for the fact that this is *their* claim, but since they are not known in the medical field, it's

WP:WEIGHT issues. The documentary quotes PHD candidate Chris Lockwood, he is also not RS for this claim. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Source: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=37&pr.y=1&sy=2009&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=564&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=

Article: Pakistan

Content: Hi,

I had updated GDP estimates on Pakistan article. Some editors have reverted my edits and called in question the need to do so. However, I believe the estimates should be updated from 2011 to 2012. The article clearly states GDP "ESTIMATE" like other similar articles on Wikipedia. We are NOT talking about actual GDP figures but again ESTIMATES. The literal meaning is 'to guess the cost, size, value, etc. of something'. Thus, articles such as France, United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia have updated to 2012 estimates.

We have discussed the matter on the talk page [[3]]. I would like other senior editors to contribute to the discussion here or possibly on the talk page.

Please advise on how to proceed further. Pk-user (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that other articles have listed it that way may be relevant to the article in question, but not too much here for reliability purposes. There may be a norm that is used for country articles, but that's outside the scope of this board (and I don't know that answer). Yes, the IMF is RS for this data, even though they differentiate the 2012 numbers specifically, it states that these estimates are IMF staff estimates, and there's no reason to believe that the IMF is a poor source for those estimates, and after all, estimates are just that, estimates. Suggestion: Leave notes on the France, UK and Saudi Arabia article talk pages asking if this was a contentious issue for them, and to comment on the Pakistan talk page. Also, isn't there a portal or project for countries? That would seem like an ideal place for this question, I think the source is fine, I'm not sure that's really the issue here. Then again, if that really is the issue, as I said, I find this source RS for the claim. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I think this would be best discussed on its talk page. --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A fountain of information. That's where I would recommend you take this question Pk-user. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And due to momentary immense boredom, I've transplanted this entire discussion to this point over to there, specifically, here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Despayre and Stfg. I will proceed with the matter in question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and as suggested by Despayre would likely resort to notes on talk page of articles with updated estimates. Pk-user (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.allkpop.com
• http://www.soompi.com

See

Examples for credible articles:

• [4] News reporting. Easier to access and report back to than uploading YouTube screenshots of the same, while still everyone can easil check the YT stats of these videos. Why would this article be not reliable?
• [5] Translation from
  Gaon
  website can be also used as a source for such data but data there changes weekly therefore it is difficult to check back, say, years later.
• [6] Chart releases as a source for song charting. Easier to screen through than Gaon's changing weekly list, especially for non-Korean speakers.
• [7] reporting winners of an award, again translation from Naver.

I would like to see some second opinions from people here, as I'd like to venture into improving the K-pop article, but without English language sources it would be difficult to do so. I think the above examples testify that these kind of news sources can be acceptable, editors simply have to use common sense when selecting the articles. Obviously, articles like this are not good for using as a source, but then again, it's the same with every celebrity gossip article, be it from Allkpop or the

Twice in two minutes...as I said above,

WP:OSE

is never a good argument. Using the source directly is always going to be preferred. The simple to understand concept is that the more people touch the data, the more likely there will be errors. By using the translations, you would be accepting another level of reliability questionability. First level, is the source reliable? second level, is someone else's translation of the source correct, and reliable? Unnecessary, and I realize that makes your work much more difficult, I'm just the messenger.

allKpop's site says "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims", that sounds like a carte blanche to print whatever they like, that's not an RS-enhancing statement.

Soompi's site says "The headquarters has relocated to Seoul, and the editorial team now consists of nine writers, plus a number of contributors from around the world, as it continues to grow in size and influence in the Korean entertainment industry", and while that's marginally better, it at least acknowledges that they have an editorial team, it still doesn't quite pass my RS smell test, sorry.

To sum up, neither source seems RS to me. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And we do not cover gossip, whether is in the Daily Mail or on a website. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And somehow I don't think they start their articles with "this one is fact" and "this one is just gossip", so that's going to be hard to verify as any kind of dividing line too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah, great comments but then again, if someone posts native language websites as source, people start questioning reliabilty because they can't speak the language. I have had numerous arguments with enwiki editors who questioned the notability of a Turkish singer only because all sources were in Turkish. Then, if I post the article from Naver, how do you check what's in there? How do I check what's in there? Google translator? Does that make it more relaibale if I translate the original article with google, than Allkpop, where translators actually possess both languages? And by the way, a lot of news agencies go by translation news from others.

WP:NOENG is policy, it's not a guideline. Non-english is just fine. Notability is outside the scope of this board. My free gift to you, here . Btw, WP:OSE is *still* not a good argument. If you have a specific question for an article where MTI is the source, feel free to present it, but I'm not too interested in pre-emptively qualifying every news agency in the world, thanks anyway (also, without context, I couldn't). The disclaimer for the Daily News is there for legal reasons mostly, however, they also list a trained editorial staff with provable expertise in the relevant subject areas, complete with fact checkers, and a track record of reliablility. You can search the RSN archives for the many times they have been brought here and I think, always, found to be RS. None of these characteristics were present on your sites. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

One final thought, being an RS source doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. Everyone does. It means they have checks in place so that when mistakes occur they can be corrected, and/or minimized to start with. I'm sure the New York Times has got things wrong in the past, but they are likely going to be RS when someone asks next anyway. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 04:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Me and

Technically, you want a 3rd opinion, which, you would think would take you to

WP:SPS for more on that). Without some of these things, he would be free to write down on his website anything he'd like. Granted, I don't see anything contentious there that another editor would get all excited about either, but, hey, I just work here, and by policy, it's not RS. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A fansite is not an independent secondary source. And when the claim to reliability of any material published a fansite is that it essentially is doing nothing but echoing the words of someone who was involved in the creation of the work in question, then it is in function a

WP:SELFPUB. And as such it cannot lend notability. But as long as it can be reasonably verified that the site is indeed correctly relating the words of a creator information gleaned from it can be used as long as WP:SELFPUB is observed. Siawase (talk

) 23:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost. Assuming I buy your argument that this is a primary source (which I don't think I do) the self-pub-er would have to be an expert in the field in question, we have no confirmation of that. He would also have to have been published in 3rd party sources, we have no confirmation of that. I agree that it would still need to be verified, and there's no way to do that either, so it can't pass the WP:SELFUB test either. I don't see how this could be an RS source either way you slice it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said that the source wasn't notable. I tagged

The Missing Coach because it didn't appear to be notable. I said that sodor-island.net wasn't a reliable source and explained this when Acather96 posted on my talk page. --AussieLegend (talk

) 05:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, I'd just like to point out that I was asking for other opinions on the reliabilitiy of the source, saying notability was simply a mistake. I'm quite busy at the moment, but would like to thank all of you for your comments and I will respond either later this day or tomorrow. Many thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem either way, as notability is outside the scope of this board and I didn't make any statements about that. Also, it doesn't affect my opinion on the RS-ness of this site as explained above either. So no harm done there. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, fansites generally are independent sources. Nobody pays the fan to publish it or tells them what to put on it, right? Independent sources can be lousy, too, just like secondary sources can be

WP:NOTGOODSOURCEs. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But fansites are self published. They don't have editorial oversight, fact checking etc etc, they aren't reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia definitions. When a fansite interviews the subject of their fandom, it's only the words of those people that are reliable (in as much they can be verified as being authentic) not anything written by the person who runs the fansite. And whatever that subject says is not independent. Siawase (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Siawase, that's just not correct. The site is run by the person who runs it, as you just said, they aren't reliable, etc. End of story. Putting some other content on their site does not change what they are, which in this case, is a secondary unreliable source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If the subject that was interviewed by the fansite corroborates that it was correctly rendered on the site, then their words still stand. See these previous discussions of another fansite: [8][9] Of course, if no such corroboration can be found, and it cannot be verified in any way, then it's not usable. Siawase (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Independence is about distance from the subject matter, not about editorial control. If I tell you that the US president is a beady-eyed Martian, I'm an independent source: I'm not controlled by either the president or the Martians (assuming any exist), and I have no conflict of interest. If I tell you that I have a used car to sell you, and it's in top condition with artistic scratches on the bumper, then I'm not an independent source. See

WP:INDY for more help. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen fansite-based interviews argued as acceptable but:

• SPS is always a concern, and the site's history in reporting needs to be considered. A unknown site that suddenly gets a major interview with a person that no other site could get begs for question.
• The more contentious the fact the interview is being cited for, the less likely the interview will be considered appropriate as a source for it.
• The interview should not be the bulk of the sourcing of the article in question. If its to get one fact that 20 other RS's can't get, that's probably ok. If the interview is backing 20 facts and one other fact backed by a single RS, that's likely a problem.
• The more well-known the fan site is in the area it is to cover, the more likely the interview is okay.
• If additional sources can back up some of information in the interview, that helps to secure the interview as reliable.
• Such interviews will not count towards "Significant coverage" when trying to assess notability.

Basically, I'd considering them a last resort, good to build up an article but if you're going for GA/FA, replacing it would be good if you can. Of course, problematic sourcing for things like BLP claims, etc. will be stripped sooner if they are not considered a good RS. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider either of the two previous discussions as either thorough or inclusive enough to be persuasive, and I think I agree with everything that Masem has just said about it. Neither of the previous discussions were about *this* particular site, which is what my opinions have been referring to specifically. I don't find this site RS. Still. (Even if you want to consider it primary/SPS, it doesn't meet the exception standards).-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with Masem, not just on fansite interviews, but as a reasonable approach to interviews in general. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should write this up as an addition to

WP:RSEX. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This little old discussion about AlterNet seems odd to me:

• starting as it does with the It should go without saying that the far-left
  Alternet
  is not a reliable source, no? If I have to spell this out, then
  • (i) starting It should go without saying that [X] is not [Y], no? seems an extraordinarily blatant attempt to get an anchoring effect, and
  • (ii) AlterNet is not obviously far left ("progressive" would be a better short descriptor).
• Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal -- odd in that a great number of periodicals explicitly advocate this and that (and a great number do so implicitly; think of the pro-car/power/speed/purchasing advocacy of car magazines, for example) -- and all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited.

The last makes it sound no better than Fox News. But anyway, what's the informed opinion hereabouts on AlterNet these days? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"{{RSNvague}}", I'm told. Some other editor is most insistent on Talk:Malcolm Gladwell that the article "Is Malcolm Gladwell America's Most Successful Propagandist and Corporate Shill?", originally elsewhere but later reproduced in abridged form here in AlterNet, is a reliable source for a claim that Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point, etc) is one of America's most successful propagandists and corporate shills (phrased of course in more temperate and encyclopedic language). The article seems pretty good to me, though I haven't examined it closely. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From Alternet's "About" page: "[Alternet] creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources"..."AlterNet publishes grassroots success stories and inspirational narratives alongside hard-hitting critiques of policies, investigative reports and expert analysis."..."AlterNet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed"..."all with the broader goal of raising awareness, changing policies"

From their "Writer Guidelines" page: "Due to the large volume of submissions we receive we are able to respond to only those that interest us"..."We like new ideas and investigations. Tell us a story we haven’t heard from the mainstream press."..."We have a small editorial staff, so we cannot spend an enormous amount of time editing submissions"

None of these things make me think that they are a particularly high quality source. The article itself seems to be an attack piece on a living person, so I think there may also be some BLP concerns, along the lines of exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I do NOT find this to be an exceptional source. In addition to that, the editor listed on the byline is not listed on the staff page at Alternet, leaving me to wonder even more about accountability issues. I'm not saying everything in the article is or is not true, please be clear, I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information.

Here is some additional information on the author: "Yasha Levine, President of S.H.A.M.E., is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled." Exiled and SHAME are where the articles were first released. From the about page of S.H.A.M.E., "Think of S.H.A.M.E. as kind of roach trap for media shills and corporate lackeys.". These are the actual source for the article, and I definitely do NOT find these sources RS. Reprinting of it by Alternet does not in any way confer a higher confidence rating in it from me. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quit hanging decorations on me, I'm not a christmas tree. I'm just as little a peon as you are, and I think the swearing is unnecessary. One lowly peon to another, if you would like to look over the policy located at

WP:CAPSLOCK). And btw, there's no reason you have to agree with me when we're done either, so you've got that in your back pocket. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

23:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Above: One of you said: "I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information." Let me rephrase: "Evidence is lacking that this is a reliable source for that information." Response above to the former: What evidence are you basing your "not convinced" verdict on? No, no evidence is needed for an allegation of lack of evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Republication by Alternet doesn't affect the status of the work as it is a republication, not affected by Alternet's editorial policy. eXiled Online's editorial status doesn't affect the work, as the work was republished from Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics (SHAME): Media Transparency Project. We are only concerned with SHAME's editorial policy as it was the site of first publication, and the other outlets republished the work. Yasha Levine (20120531) "Malcolm Gladwell Unmasked: A Look Into the Life & Work of America’s Most Successful Propagandist" Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics (SHAME): Media Transparency Project is the work in question. Levine is SHAME's President, and Mark Ames its Chair. Both Ames and Levine are widely published journalists and co-editors of a minor (if long lasting) English language online tabloid. It may or may not be reliable for particular claims originating from within the article. Levine's opinion isn't notable in the field of media ethics though, so it would need to be fact issues that it may or may not be reliable for. Specific factual claims in the article would need to be evaluated against this source's reliability.

Please follow the instructions given:

• At the top of this page
• At the top of every RS/N edit window
• In Template:RSNvague

and provide the actual source, not a republication, and the claims being supported by the source in the article in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed with Fifelfoo--we all too frequently list the reprinter instead of the original source, and regardless of being controversial this is not proper attribution: (there is no such source, for example, as JSTOR, but rather the journals they reprint)

but I also point out that a comment starting " far-left Alternet " is not an unbiased view of this publication, given the backers as shown by the article on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that comment is potty. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

50.47.119.246 does not care to take no for an answer, and has reintroduced the material to the article, this time bypassing Alternet and instead citing the SHAME Project. (Which, it must be said, has now rolled out three exposés, all most readable and interesting.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe Exiled's capacity to check facts for a controversial BLP. I see no reason to believe SHAME's capacity to check facts for a controversial BLP. Suggesting that a pundit is in thrall to the industries which he critiques is a controversial BLP fact. Inform 50.47 of this RS/N thread, if they continue editing it in, I suggest it would be a BLP related IDHT disruption. (I think they're probably right, but fail to meet Wikipedia policy) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Have done. ¶ Hello,

WP:IDHT. -- Hoary (talk

) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

50.47.119.246 did hear that. This much is clear when 50.47.119.246 writes (22:11, 21 June 2012): You can add MSNBC to the growing list of SHAME exposure. The Gladwell bio will reflect his corporate whoredom. It's just a matter of time. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I still do not consider SHAME or Exiled to be RS for this material. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I want to know whether Russian historian Renald Simonyan (ru:Симонян,_Ренальд_Хикарович), who is participant of the joint Russian-Latvian historical commission, can be referenced in a Wikipedia's article.

Similar questions about Alexander Shubin (ru:Шубин, Александр Владленович) and et:Lauri Mälksoo.--UUNC (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full citations (including date, publisher and publication location) of the works in question, the claims made against the works, and the articles in which the claims appear. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is regarding an article published by Renald Simonyan in 2011 in Russian language a peer-reviewed journal of Russian Academy of sciences "Государство и право" ("State and Law"). The article link: [10] Journal link: [11]. The work is still not included in any article. It is claimed by a user that the work does not represent mainstream point of view. The reference is intended for inclusion in

Occupation of Baltic states to illustrate Russian point of view on an international legal dispute between Russia and Latvia. --UUNC (talk

) 01:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the full citation is Ренальд Хикарович Симонян [Renald Simonyan] (2011) "ОККУПАЦИОННАЯ ДОКТРИНА В СТРАНАХ БАЛТИИ: СОДЕРЖАТЕЛЬНЫЙ И ПРАВОВОЙ АСПЕКТЫ" [Occupation doctrine in the Baltic states: meaningful and legal aspects] Государство и право [State and Law] 11: 106–114. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that there are so many journals titled Государство и право, I'm having trouble finding which particular Государство и право this one is. Do you have an ISSN? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it Izdatel'stvo Nauka's Государство и право ISSN 1026-9452? It is. Ulrich's shows it peer reviewed, as does the journal's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Государство и право is a peer reviewed journal of law and the state, published inside the Russian Federation. Opinions printed in it by scholars are weighty. Opinions would need to be suitably attributed, including clarifying the author's position in the debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So what are the Шубин and Mälksoo articles? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, they concern Soviet claims that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940 rather than being invaded and occupied. There is a full fool-scale discussion at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Some_notes_about_admission_to_the_USSR and adjoining sections. Using Soviet era historical and legal sources, or, as in this case materials derived from them, is very difficult to do because of the difficulty in establishing their reliability. These are not materials based on KGB or other Soviet archives, but material produced by scholars whose work was required by the Soviet government to conform to government positions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Historiography_in_the_Soviet_Union#Credibility User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, the Soviet Union ended in 1991. The publication date on this work is 2011. The claim attempting to be supported from the work is the "Russian point of view on an international legal dispute between Russia and Latvia." Государство и право (1026-9452) is a peer reviewed scholarly work published in the Russian Federation. And it is both reliable and WEIGHTY for the Russian (state's) point of view, ie its opinion, on the international legal dispute. Did you note how I didn't say it is reliable for historiography, or what actually happened? Because its a journal of politics and law, and because I'm well aware of the contested historiography of this. Normally articles on history merely note official state opinions where weighty, and then return to the core historiography. Much like they note outdated scholarly historiography in passing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree Simonyan is a reputable source for the version of history for which he advocates. As you indicate, he is not reliable regarding history as he contradicts incontrovertible facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe RS/N regulars would describe that as "contradicting the incontrovertible preponderance of scholarly historiography" (if such were so, I haven't seen any evidence, I haven't seen any evidence Simonyan's historical opinion lies within the preponderance of historiography either: all he's good for is the opinion of the Russian Federation in relation to the continuing legal/political debate). RS/N rarely if at all deals with truth, we deal with source reliability, in terms of verifiability, for claims;

WP:HISTRS) prefers seeing literature reviews or field surveys when being asked to evaluate large scale weighting issues in historiography. (RS/N also assumes editors with access to literature reviews or field surveys are capable of weighting in good faith themselves). Fifelfoo (talk

) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would posit that Simonyan's contention that the Baltics' decision to join the Soviet Union was made by the legitimate governments of the Baltics, the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been elected on the basis and in accordance with state law in those countries ("а решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 году легитимные органы власти - парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе существующих в этих странах государственных законов") speaks to his being reliable only for "versions" of history not based on historical facts, i.e., historical lies. With respect to intrinsic reliability, that is, is this source trustworthy? (which is the intent of employing reliable sources), Simonyan fails the test. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The RS test doesn't exist in the form you put it, because the form you use relies on your personal capacity to read truth. If we conduct the test against the standard accepted historiography, we find that Simonyan's conclusions lie outside the standard historiography, and are part of a rejected as FRINGE scholarly historiography (the Soviet historiography of the incident). As Simonyan's writing lies outside of the standard historiography it shouldn't be used for fact, nor for weight, but only for describing that FRINGE historiography. We can't use "truth" as part of an RS evaluation because then we're asking encyclopaedists to become historians, to evaluate the raw truth, and while we're on wikipedia none of us are historians. So that's why the issue is always phrased in terms of the accepted scholarly historiographies, not in terms of contradicting fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to use this site at Stargate Universe as a source: http://www.sorozatjunkie.hu/2009/10/23/stargate-universe-1x04/

User:Rehevkor have a problem with this because "seems to be more of a blog". Infact it's reliable site about TV series and in Hungary many professional site work in blog system, Forexample one of our (other) main TV series site is http://comment.blog.hu what owned by http://index.hu/impresszum/ what is one of the two main Hungarian internet company (online news, blogs, etc). (They owned blog.hu system too.) So somtimes comment.blog.hu main source for Hungarian TV companies, and news papers AND comment.blog.hu use as a main source sorozatjunkie.hu.

Infact the information what I would like to write to article is obviously but need the source to avoid sign of original research. --Szente (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. This appears to be an example of
  WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source which (for example) shows that the creators or writers of Stargate Universe have compared Destiny to Rama then the information would be viable and could be included in the article. But if the person making the comparison is not directly involved in the making of SGU then they would not be considered a reliable source -- it would just be another person's opinion. Taroaldo (talk
  ) 22:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So this mean if something not admitted by creators it won't be notable?

Anyway I dont't want to write that the SGU creators use the idea of Rama. Just I note that there are simmilarity to Rama spaceship (which built by aliens, thousand years old, looks abandoned, travel via universe and get power directly from suns). This is an obvious fact by book of Arthur C. Clarke. Infact I see many expale (to note simmilarity) where this not problem in wikipedia. Unfortunately I have about hungarian source but this hungarian article (by Rama concept) adumbrate what will happen whith Destiny in the next part before it's premiere! --Szente (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position. However, we don't know what was in the SGU creators' minds when they developed the concept of Destiny, and we wouldn't want the casual Wikipedia reader to infer that there is a connection when there is no confirmed connection, only an opinion showing a similarity. Taroaldo (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again: I don't want to write what was concept of Destiny. I only want to note an obvious (and strong) simmilarity. I think it's an interesting information for fans. --Szente (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example what I would like: "...17 years after Lem wrote His Master's Voice, and three years after it was translated into English, Carl Sagan wrote his acclaimed book, Contact, which uses many ideas similar to His Master's Voice; both depend on the extensive speculation on possible contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence, which was novel when Lem wrote, and is also reflected, for example, in Frederik Pohl's novella The Gold at the Starbow's End (1971)...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_%28novel%29#Other_works_about_similar_messages_from_space --Szente (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer this "...only an opinion showing a similarity..." If I named many similarity between two works it never "an opinion", that facts. And I doubt I need any third source for enumerate those. Who use which conception is another question. --Szente (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree or disagree with the inclusion. I've offered my opinion here, but I cannot compel any change. The issue has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and it does not seem that there is consensus to make the addition. The only other thing I can suggest is to open a

My language knowledge is not enough for this long arguments. So I try this one to hope any new result, but I wont involve to other new arguments. --Szente (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I will keep this answer short. I do not find that website to be RS for the text you want to put in. I understand that it is only an opinion you want to use, but I don't see how the opinion is notable, and I don't see the website as RS for use on the english WP, you may have better chances with WP in other languages (is there a Hungarian WP??), as the rules we use here are only in use for the english version (please note, I do *not* have any problem with the site being in Hungarian, that is not a problem). I understand the connection you want to make between the two spaceships, but unless you can find someone notable, or someone involved with the show to say something about the connection, there is not really any basis for it to be in an encyclopedia article. If it's an obvious link, many readers will already draw that conclusion. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on my own observations, it seems to be blog-like with no editorial oversight, writers are anonymous. Яehevkor ✉ 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Many Hungarian big web sites miss data about writers. Usually at the big news portal known the writers name only nothing more. And the special portals like some filmportals sometimes writers use nick names only. --Szente (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This change amounts to one minor sentence in the SGU article, which does not appear to be supported by its creators or writers. It has been discussed on the article's talk page and it has been discussed here: there does not appear to be consensus to add it. I have noted above the other steps you could take; it's up to you if you want to invest the effort in a RfC to prove a point. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rules of WP do not change because it's "just done that way" in Hungary. The policy applies to all sources, regardless of locale. If it's really uncontentious, and an improvement to the article, you can always fall back on

WP:IAR, but if it's not with consensus, I suspect you will just be reverted. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This little old discussion about AlterNet seems odd to me:

• starting as it does with the It should go without saying that the far-left
  Alternet
  is not a reliable source, no? If I have to spell this out, then
  • (i) starting It should go without saying that [X] is not [Y], no? seems an extraordinarily blatant attempt to get an anchoring effect, and
  • (ii) AlterNet is not obviously far left ("progressive" would be a better short descriptor).
• Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal -- odd in that a great number of periodicals explicitly advocate this and that (and a great number do so implicitly; think of the pro-car/power/speed/purchasing advocacy of car magazines, for example) -- and all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited.

The last makes it sound no better than Fox News. But anyway, what's the informed opinion hereabouts on AlterNet these days? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"{{RSNvague}}", I'm told. Some other editor is most insistent on Talk:Malcolm Gladwell that the article "Is Malcolm Gladwell America's Most Successful Propagandist and Corporate Shill?", originally elsewhere but later reproduced in abridged form here in AlterNet, is a reliable source for a claim that Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point, etc) is one of America's most successful propagandists and corporate shills (phrased of course in more temperate and encyclopedic language). The article seems pretty good to me, though I haven't examined it closely. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From Alternet's "About" page: "[Alternet] creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources"..."AlterNet publishes grassroots success stories and inspirational narratives alongside hard-hitting critiques of policies, investigative reports and expert analysis."..."AlterNet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed"..."all with the broader goal of raising awareness, changing policies"

From their "Writer Guidelines" page: "Due to the large volume of submissions we receive we are able to respond to only those that interest us"..."We like new ideas and investigations. Tell us a story we haven’t heard from the mainstream press."..."We have a small editorial staff, so we cannot spend an enormous amount of time editing submissions"

None of these things make me think that they are a particularly high quality source. The article itself seems to be an attack piece on a living person, so I think there may also be some BLP concerns, along the lines of exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I do NOT find this to be an exceptional source. In addition to that, the editor listed on the byline is not listed on the staff page at Alternet, leaving me to wonder even more about accountability issues. I'm not saying everything in the article is or is not true, please be clear, I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information.

Here is some additional information on the author: "Yasha Levine, President of S.H.A.M.E., is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled." Exiled and SHAME are where the articles were first released. From the about page of S.H.A.M.E., "Think of S.H.A.M.E. as kind of roach trap for media shills and corporate lackeys.". These are the actual source for the article, and I definitely do NOT find these sources RS. Reprinting of it by Alternet does not in any way confer a higher confidence rating in it from me. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quit hanging decorations on me, I'm not a christmas tree. I'm just as little a peon as you are, and I think the swearing is unnecessary. One lowly peon to another, if you would like to look over the policy located at

WP:CAPSLOCK). And btw, there's no reason you have to agree with me when we're done either, so you've got that in your back pocket. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

23:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Above: One of you said: "I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information." Let me rephrase: "Evidence is lacking that this is a reliable source for that information." Response above to the former: What evidence are you basing your "not convinced" verdict on? No, no evidence is needed for an allegation of lack of evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Republication by Alternet doesn't affect the status of the work as it is a republication, not affected by Alternet's editorial policy. eXiled Online's editorial status doesn't affect the work, as the work was republished from Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics (SHAME): Media Transparency Project. We are only concerned with SHAME's editorial policy as it was the site of first publication, and the other outlets republished the work. Yasha Levine (20120531) "Malcolm Gladwell Unmasked: A Look Into the Life & Work of America’s Most Successful Propagandist" Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics (SHAME): Media Transparency Project is the work in question. Levine is SHAME's President, and Mark Ames its Chair. Both Ames and Levine are widely published journalists and co-editors of a minor (if long lasting) English language online tabloid. It may or may not be reliable for particular claims originating from within the article. Levine's opinion isn't notable in the field of media ethics though, so it would need to be fact issues that it may or may not be reliable for. Specific factual claims in the article would need to be evaluated against this source's reliability.

Please follow the instructions given:

• At the top of this page
• At the top of every RS/N edit window
• In Template:RSNvague

and provide the actual source, not a republication, and the claims being supported by the source in the article in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed with Fifelfoo--we all too frequently list the reprinter instead of the original source, and regardless of being controversial this is not proper attribution: (there is no such source, for example, as JSTOR, but rather the journals they reprint)

but I also point out that a comment starting " far-left Alternet " is not an unbiased view of this publication, given the backers as shown by the article on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that comment is potty. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

50.47.119.246 does not care to take no for an answer, and has reintroduced the material to the article, this time bypassing Alternet and instead citing the SHAME Project. (Which, it must be said, has now rolled out three exposés, all most readable and interesting.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe Exiled's capacity to check facts for a controversial BLP. I see no reason to believe SHAME's capacity to check facts for a controversial BLP. Suggesting that a pundit is in thrall to the industries which he critiques is a controversial BLP fact. Inform 50.47 of this RS/N thread, if they continue editing it in, I suggest it would be a BLP related IDHT disruption. (I think they're probably right, but fail to meet Wikipedia policy) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Have done. ¶ Hello,

WP:IDHT. -- Hoary (talk

) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

50.47.119.246 did hear that. This much is clear when 50.47.119.246 writes (22:11, 21 June 2012): You can add MSNBC to the growing list of SHAME exposure. The Gladwell bio will reflect his corporate whoredom. It's just a matter of time. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I still do not consider SHAME or Exiled to be RS for this material. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I want to know whether Russian historian Renald Simonyan (ru:Симонян,_Ренальд_Хикарович), who is participant of the joint Russian-Latvian historical commission, can be referenced in a Wikipedia's article.

Similar questions about Alexander Shubin (ru:Шубин, Александр Владленович) and et:Lauri Mälksoo.--UUNC (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full citations (including date, publisher and publication location) of the works in question, the claims made against the works, and the articles in which the claims appear. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is regarding an article published by Renald Simonyan in 2011 in Russian language a peer-reviewed journal of Russian Academy of sciences "Государство и право" ("State and Law"). The article link: [12] Journal link: [13]. The work is still not included in any article. It is claimed by a user that the work does not represent mainstream point of view. The reference is intended for inclusion in

Occupation of Baltic states to illustrate Russian point of view on an international legal dispute between Russia and Latvia. --UUNC (talk

) 01:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the full citation is Ренальд Хикарович Симонян [Renald Simonyan] (2011) "ОККУПАЦИОННАЯ ДОКТРИНА В СТРАНАХ БАЛТИИ: СОДЕРЖАТЕЛЬНЫЙ И ПРАВОВОЙ АСПЕКТЫ" [Occupation doctrine in the Baltic states: meaningful and legal aspects] Государство и право [State and Law] 11: 106–114. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that there are so many journals titled Государство и право, I'm having trouble finding which particular Государство и право this one is. Do you have an ISSN? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it Izdatel'stvo Nauka's Государство и право ISSN 1026-9452? It is. Ulrich's shows it peer reviewed, as does the journal's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Государство и право is a peer reviewed journal of law and the state, published inside the Russian Federation. Opinions printed in it by scholars are weighty. Opinions would need to be suitably attributed, including clarifying the author's position in the debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So what are the Шубин and Mälksoo articles? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, they concern Soviet claims that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940 rather than being invaded and occupied. There is a full fool-scale discussion at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Some_notes_about_admission_to_the_USSR and adjoining sections. Using Soviet era historical and legal sources, or, as in this case materials derived from them, is very difficult to do because of the difficulty in establishing their reliability. These are not materials based on KGB or other Soviet archives, but material produced by scholars whose work was required by the Soviet government to conform to government positions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Historiography_in_the_Soviet_Union#Credibility User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, the Soviet Union ended in 1991. The publication date on this work is 2011. The claim attempting to be supported from the work is the "Russian point of view on an international legal dispute between Russia and Latvia." Государство и право (1026-9452) is a peer reviewed scholarly work published in the Russian Federation. And it is both reliable and WEIGHTY for the Russian (state's) point of view, ie its opinion, on the international legal dispute. Did you note how I didn't say it is reliable for historiography, or what actually happened? Because its a journal of politics and law, and because I'm well aware of the contested historiography of this. Normally articles on history merely note official state opinions where weighty, and then return to the core historiography. Much like they note outdated scholarly historiography in passing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree Simonyan is a reputable source for the version of history for which he advocates. As you indicate, he is not reliable regarding history as he contradicts incontrovertible facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe RS/N regulars would describe that as "contradicting the incontrovertible preponderance of scholarly historiography" (if such were so, I haven't seen any evidence, I haven't seen any evidence Simonyan's historical opinion lies within the preponderance of historiography either: all he's good for is the opinion of the Russian Federation in relation to the continuing legal/political debate). RS/N rarely if at all deals with truth, we deal with source reliability, in terms of verifiability, for claims;

WP:HISTRS) prefers seeing literature reviews or field surveys when being asked to evaluate large scale weighting issues in historiography. (RS/N also assumes editors with access to literature reviews or field surveys are capable of weighting in good faith themselves). Fifelfoo (talk

) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would posit that Simonyan's contention that the Baltics' decision to join the Soviet Union was made by the legitimate governments of the Baltics, the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been elected on the basis and in accordance with state law in those countries ("а решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 году легитимные органы власти - парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе существующих в этих странах государственных законов") speaks to his being reliable only for "versions" of history not based on historical facts, i.e., historical lies. With respect to intrinsic reliability, that is, is this source trustworthy? (which is the intent of employing reliable sources), Simonyan fails the test. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The RS test doesn't exist in the form you put it, because the form you use relies on your personal capacity to read truth. If we conduct the test against the standard accepted historiography, we find that Simonyan's conclusions lie outside the standard historiography, and are part of a rejected as FRINGE scholarly historiography (the Soviet historiography of the incident). As Simonyan's writing lies outside of the standard historiography it shouldn't be used for fact, nor for weight, but only for describing that FRINGE historiography. We can't use "truth" as part of an RS evaluation because then we're asking encyclopaedists to become historians, to evaluate the raw truth, and while we're on wikipedia none of us are historians. So that's why the issue is always phrased in terms of the accepted scholarly historiographies, not in terms of contradicting fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to use this site at Stargate Universe as a source: http://www.sorozatjunkie.hu/2009/10/23/stargate-universe-1x04/

User:Rehevkor have a problem with this because "seems to be more of a blog". Infact it's reliable site about TV series and in Hungary many professional site work in blog system, Forexample one of our (other) main TV series site is http://comment.blog.hu what owned by http://index.hu/impresszum/ what is one of the two main Hungarian internet company (online news, blogs, etc). (They owned blog.hu system too.) So somtimes comment.blog.hu main source for Hungarian TV companies, and news papers AND comment.blog.hu use as a main source sorozatjunkie.hu.

Infact the information what I would like to write to article is obviously but need the source to avoid sign of original research. --Szente (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. This appears to be an example of
  WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source which (for example) shows that the creators or writers of Stargate Universe have compared Destiny to Rama then the information would be viable and could be included in the article. But if the person making the comparison is not directly involved in the making of SGU then they would not be considered a reliable source -- it would just be another person's opinion. Taroaldo (talk
  ) 22:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So this mean if something not admitted by creators it won't be notable?

Anyway I dont't want to write that the SGU creators use the idea of Rama. Just I note that there are simmilarity to Rama spaceship (which built by aliens, thousand years old, looks abandoned, travel via universe and get power directly from suns). This is an obvious fact by book of Arthur C. Clarke. Infact I see many expale (to note simmilarity) where this not problem in wikipedia. Unfortunately I have about hungarian source but this hungarian article (by Rama concept) adumbrate what will happen whith Destiny in the next part before it's premiere! --Szente (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position. However, we don't know what was in the SGU creators' minds when they developed the concept of Destiny, and we wouldn't want the casual Wikipedia reader to infer that there is a connection when there is no confirmed connection, only an opinion showing a similarity. Taroaldo (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again: I don't want to write what was concept of Destiny. I only want to note an obvious (and strong) simmilarity. I think it's an interesting information for fans. --Szente (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example what I would like: "...17 years after Lem wrote His Master's Voice, and three years after it was translated into English, Carl Sagan wrote his acclaimed book, Contact, which uses many ideas similar to His Master's Voice; both depend on the extensive speculation on possible contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence, which was novel when Lem wrote, and is also reflected, for example, in Frederik Pohl's novella The Gold at the Starbow's End (1971)...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_%28novel%29#Other_works_about_similar_messages_from_space --Szente (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer this "...only an opinion showing a similarity..." If I named many similarity between two works it never "an opinion", that facts. And I doubt I need any third source for enumerate those. Who use which conception is another question. --Szente (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree or disagree with the inclusion. I've offered my opinion here, but I cannot compel any change. The issue has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and it does not seem that there is consensus to make the addition. The only other thing I can suggest is to open a

My language knowledge is not enough for this long arguments. So I try this one to hope any new result, but I wont involve to other new arguments. --Szente (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I will keep this answer short. I do not find that website to be RS for the text you want to put in. I understand that it is only an opinion you want to use, but I don't see how the opinion is notable, and I don't see the website as RS for use on the english WP, you may have better chances with WP in other languages (is there a Hungarian WP??), as the rules we use here are only in use for the english version (please note, I do *not* have any problem with the site being in Hungarian, that is not a problem). I understand the connection you want to make between the two spaceships, but unless you can find someone notable, or someone involved with the show to say something about the connection, there is not really any basis for it to be in an encyclopedia article. If it's an obvious link, many readers will already draw that conclusion. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on my own observations, it seems to be blog-like with no editorial oversight, writers are anonymous. Яehevkor ✉ 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Many Hungarian big web sites miss data about writers. Usually at the big news portal known the writers name only nothing more. And the special portals like some filmportals sometimes writers use nick names only. --Szente (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This change amounts to one minor sentence in the SGU article, which does not appear to be supported by its creators or writers. It has been discussed on the article's talk page and it has been discussed here: there does not appear to be consensus to add it. I have noted above the other steps you could take; it's up to you if you want to invest the effort in a RfC to prove a point. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rules of WP do not change because it's "just done that way" in Hungary. The policy applies to all sources, regardless of locale. If it's really uncontentious, and an improvement to the article, you can always fall back on

WP:IAR, but if it's not with consensus, I suspect you will just be reverted. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative therapies in health and medicine

Phytotherapy Research

Thanks, Ultra Venia (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative therapies in health and medicine claims peer review, but you'd need to provide at least one example use, following the clearly indicated instructions at the top of this page, at the top of RS/N's edit window, and in the RSNVague template. Remember that case studies are PRIMARY for medicine, and unacceptable. Phytotherapy Research may have some reliability in chemistry related articles, but again, you'd need to provide at least one example use, again following the instructions. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask a third opinion with regard to the book Bobelian, Michael. Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-long Struggle for Justice. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009, and its use in the article about Gourgen Yanikian. The book could be previewed here: [14] In my opinion, this book should be used with care, as it tends to romanticize the person who murdered 2 Turkish diplomats in 1973. It is not just my personal opinion, such notable reviewers as The Washington Post and Publishers Weekly also note that Bobelian is hardly neutral in his depiction of Yanikian. In particular,

The Washington Post writes that "Some will flinch at Bobelian's lionization of Gourgen Yanikian, an Armenian who shot two Turks in a revenge plot hatched in the 1970s" [15]

Publishers Weekly: The victimization of the Armenians' excuses much for Bobelian, who blames Armenian terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s — he sympathetically profiles an aging survivor who assassinated two Turkish diplomats — on “frustration and rage” over Ankara's denials. One leaves this j'accuse wondering if the quest for justice can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. [16]

The murder of the Turkish diplomats received plenty of coverage in the contemporary news reports, so the book is not the only source about the topic of the article. Also, some facts mentioned in the book cannot be found in other sources. I would appreciate a third opinion on this source, on whether it is suitable for the use in the article about Yanikian, and if yes, what is the best way of doing it. Grandmaster 07:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bobelian is a politically engaged journalist producing a historical biography, it might be useful for limited and unsurprising facts; but it certainly doesn't represent an authorative opinion or analysis. Confer with

WP:HISTRS for how to use sources in historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk

) 07:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this book has won plaudits by at least half a dozen other reviewers, including a professor of history from UCLA and reviewers writing for magazines and journals. Further, at the moment the book is not being used in the article as a source that trumpets all other sources but it clearly is the best researched by an author (as a cursory look of the endnotes will demonstrate). Nor for that matter does Bobelian ever "lionize" the individual in question or praise his actions, something that can be easily demonstrated by quoting lines from the book. And I would also ask that Fifelfoo to please clarify if his comments of Bobelian being a "politically engaged" journalist means or implies that his reliability as a source is somehow impaired. Would he raise any similar objections to a journalist and legal analyst from CNN who has written a biography on a Supreme Court justice?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This kind of book is a particularly difficult case for us. A journalist writing about history, a common case and one where we have to look very carefully at the reception. From what I've seen so far, it has been widely reviewed in the serious press, but the reviews were mixed. If someone wants to show that nearly all the reviews were favourable, then we will have to look at that. In the meantime, the very critical comments in Publisher's Weekly and the Washington Post wave big red flags at us. Leave out unless there are compelling arguments for using it. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bobelian is politically engaged in the sense that their work is bound up in the nationalist narrative of Armenianism. This isn't good or bad. It tends to be expected of journalists when they write "history." Journalists do not have the training to place a system of producing disciplinary knowledge above their own engaged interests. In fact, Bobelian being politically engaged is kind of a good thing, we know what the flaws in his work are up front and central, that Bobelian is producing an Armenianist history. The bigger problem is that even though he's writing for Simon & Schuster that he's a journalist. Also, newspaper book reviews don't interest me as newspaper book reviewers lack the scholarly specialisation and disciplinary methodology to make a significant review; scholarly book reviews in historical journals interest me. I would again say, provisionally use for uncontroversial and unsurprising facts; but steer clear of any interpretation or contextualisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would venture out and say that the two quoted reviews notwithstanding, the book reviews were generally positive. Every book is going to have its detractors, but even the review by the Washington Post, as quoted by Grandmaster, is misleading because he leaves the sentence incomplete. The full quote reads: "Some will flinch at Bobelian's lionization of Gourgen Yanikian, an Armenian who shot two Turks in a revenge plot hatched in the 1970s, but the author stumbles only when he strays into Armenian exceptionalism, the idea that 'no other people have suffered such a warped fate -- a trivialization of their suffering and a prolonged assault on the authenticity of their experience.'" The absence of the second half of the sentence is a significant omission, particularly where it begins from "but," since the line quoted by Grandmaster is not what the reviewer is objecting to. In any case, it we should take into consideration the opinion of all the reviews and then come to a conclusion. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I quoted only the part that was relevant to Yanikian, as the article about him in Wikipedia is where the source is used. But I also provided a link to the whole text of the review, so that everyone could read it and form his own opinion. I don't think that I made any misleading quotation. My concern here is how the book treats the subject of Yanikian, and this is where the reviewers note the tendency of the author to "lionize" or "sympathetically profile" this person, taking the "quest for justice" to an "unhealthy extreme". There might be some generally positive reviews of the book, but those do not mention how Bobelian treats the subject of Yanikian. Grandmaster 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I found this at a search of Google books. It contains a claim that

It is a non-scholarly tertiary source inappropriate to cite (cf: Our Print Publications). You might get something out of chasing the sources that it itself cites, but it isn't an appropriate historical source as

it is a non-scholarly non-signed tertiary Fifelfoo (talk

) 10:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an indexed collection of primary source documents, some of them full text, others summarised. In this Middle East collection, many of the documents are from political groupings that might count as extremist. Collections like this are used by specialist researchers who need access to obscure documents. Not reliable to use alone, as Fifelfoo says, also not particularly useful for tracking good sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm going through an AfD for

No. Their editorial policy is to receive consideration for their production of content disclosure. Additionally, they rely heavily on user submitted content and internal features of the page in question indicate that it was submitted by the individual concerned and lightly edited (see: hermeneutics, or literary criticism, for an outline of close text reading). As such, it is unedited and almost certainly SPS. SPS can't confer notability, and neither can an unedited publication online. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. There's no evidence of professional editorial oversight, and the site seems to exist mainly to promote a book. Barnabypage (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not find this to be an RS source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[18] is presented in

Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota, wrote an op-ed in 2012 for the Minneapolis Star Tribune stating that the brothers created the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - which tries to influence legislatures across the nation.[29]

The claim is based on this single sentence in the op-ed:

It is a product of an organization known as ALEC, which is the creation of the Koch brothers, who amassed their fortunes in oil and who live in Florida

There is a caveat here - the Koch brothers, quite easily sourced , do not live in Florida. Unless Kansas and New York have moved.

I rather think that op-eds are bad sources for claims of fact in the first place. Second that the single sentence is a bad source for the claim about the Koch brothers per

While I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find out that the Koch brothers own a home in Florida, which would make that claim at least understandable, the fact that the quote comes from an opinion piece makes this source unreliable for a BLP claim, there is no editorial oversight on opinion pieces. It *is* RS for the opinions of Walter Mondale and Arne Carlson though, but I think the text overstates the claims made by the source, particularly the last phrase. Also, if this organisation and its goals are that important, there is a better source for who founded it than an op-ed piece. I would not use this. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My position <g>. Meanwhile the "fact" bit is back in the article, which I find quite unfortunate. There is another editorial used to make a point about ALEC and the Koch's (articil is titled "Savage assault on democracy" which gives a taste of how reliable I think that source is for a "fact" as well <g>). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Despayre regarding using opeds for BLP facts. Good luck Collect, maybe take this link to BLP/N? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My question is about the following book:
Elena Iur´evna Zubkova, Pribaltika i Kreml´ 1940–1953 [The Baltics and the Kremlin, 1940–53]. 351 pp. Moscow: Rosspen and Fond Pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B. N. El´tsin, 2008. ISBN-13 978-5824309096.
The review on this book says:

"For this we must turn to two recent publications of documents prepared by Russian and Lithuanian scholars but published outside Russia in Vilnius and Stuttgart. The main achievement in studying this period so far was provided in 2008 by one of the leading experts in postwar Soviet history, Elena Zubkova."

"This volume is a gift for anyone interested in Soviet foreign policy and the fate of the Baltic states. The same can be said about Elena Zubkova's study. Her book on the Baltic states and the Kremlin, 1940–53, fills a gap in Russian historiography of the USSR and has received attention in the media. Maybe the best thing one can say about a book analyzing these crucial years is that the author does not take part in any of the political disputes of the day." (Karsten Brüggemann. Russia and the Baltic Countries Recent Russian-Language Literature. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 10, Number. 4, Fall 2009 (New Series), pp. 935-956 (Article))

My questions are:

1. Is Zubkova's book a reliable source for historical facts and opinia it discusses?
2. Is this source mainstream, significant minority or fringe?
   

Thank you in advance.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Some_quotes_from_Karsten_Br.C3.BCggemann and adjoining sections for the context of this inquiry. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, you guys have gone done goofed. Take a look at

WP:HISTRS

in particular the section on topic and weight. We work topic and weight out from an ordered list of desirable works. Find your literature review first to contextualise the historiographies so you're mirroring the scholarly debate on the historical tendencies themselves. For instance, I note Nug making an argumentum ad Americanum by suggesting that the Western historiographical narrative (and thereby the Baltic official narratives) are justified because they are Western. This isn't the right way. The right way is to find the field reviews, or the introductions to monographs that are field reviews, and use them to go "In 1997, X claimed 4 major narratives existed, two of which are scholarly; in 2010 Y claimed 3 major narrative exist, two of which are scholarly." If you approach every problem in Baltic occupation studies from this perspective, then you'll have a shared conception of the necessary basis of WEIGHTing and attribution of encyclopaedic opinion to sources. The "Western" historiography is superior, not because it is "Western," but because that historiography included in that group is widely acknowledged by historians as being fundamentally superior historiography to that produced within the Soviet state's preferred narrative, (and by the way to the narratives produced in the Baltic states that put nation above historiographical discipline). We don't deal in "Truth," but in the preponderance of scholarly opinion. In this regard, Zubkova obviously contributes to a valid historiographical tendency.

Zubkova is of course fine, and as a published monographical historian with an excellent review in a peer reviewed history journal (Good old Kritika) her novel opinion bears sufficient WEIGHT based on her professional standing to be worth mentioning in the briefest possible form; she's a "significant" and "scholarly" minority view. I would be surprised if her view regarding "occupation" couldn't be expressed in a single sentence of 20 to 40 words ("The historian Zubkova in 2008 described "occupation" as the only temporary military rule by expediency, the permanent integration of the Baltic States into the apparatus of the Soviet Union being far worse than mere occupation.") Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! There is a discussion at Talk:Homophobia going on as to the bias of the article and as to what constitutes as a reliable source. My point is that there is no such thing as homophobia... nobody is afraid of gays. Some opponents say the sources I put up are unreliable; I feel their sources are pro-gay liberal fodder. So far I have referenced:

http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1cBFjG7MGg&feature=share Vatican, Code of Canon Law, Catechism of the Catholic Church, SSPX, FSSP, MHFM, SSPV, CMRI, http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/does_God_create_homosexuals.php http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/ http://americansfortruth.com/ Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church. isbn: 978-0895261441, Canon 159

And somehow these are unreliable. I would like a review of these "unreliable" sources, please. Thank you in advance, Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Narth one would be reliable as the opinion, but due weight might push it out, just for the fact that it's kind of old (2003) and the sources it was using to write the report are extremely old. This alone makes it likely to not be very useful as a current definition of what homophobia is, as definitions change over time.
• What exactly makes RealCatholicTV reliable? And why is their opinion important enough to include? Are they notable?
• The Vatican, Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism would all be good as an opinion from the church in the article, but they wouldn't be good to use as a definition, since they're clearly opinionated on the subject.
• I don't know what any of the acronyms are, so you'll have to define them.
• The Most Holy Family Monastery doesn't appear to be reliable or notable. Reliable for their opinion, sure, but members of a random church aren't really important enough to include in such a broad article.
• I already explained the Catechism above, though I don't see what this Homosexuality Sin article is good for. It doesn't even mention Homophobia in it.
• Wordpress
  blogs are, for the most part, never reliable sources.
• Americans For Truth would only be good for their opinion, not for a definition. And you didn't link to an actual article anyways.
• As for the book, it's published by Regnery Publishing, which is okay. But since it's a "alternative conservative" publisher, which means all the books coming from it will be POV to some degree (much like an "alternative liberal" publisher would be), it has to be taken with a grain of salt and not emphasized overly much. And it also appears to only use the term homophobia twice in the book, neither of which is even a definition, so i'm not sure how much use the book is at all.
• Is that everything? For the most part, they are unreliable, not relevant, or can only be used for opinions. Nothing altogether useful for the article as a whole. Silverseren^C 02:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable to support what edits exactly? Without context, there can't be a definitive answer. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would modify that slightly by saying "without context, there can't be a definitive answer unless the sources are generally unreliable". Taroaldo (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that a generally unreliable source could be RS for an article about that particular source itself, (granted, that particular situation seems unlikely in this case, but I don't like to make any assumptions here ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 04:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication that any of these sources are reliable for the definition of homophobia. They're certainly unreliable to claim that homophobia doesn't exist as a fact. They don't represent the preponderance of scholarly or professional sources in the area. They lack field specific expertise. Some may be valid for other things; but, this request is specified so poorly that it would be hard to say what they are reliable for (I'd suggest as complex primaries, we should rely upon scholarly theologians to interpret catechism for us). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue previously

• the article involved is Machine translation
• I've been trying to insert information about Universal Semantic Hierarchy and ABBYY Compreno technology in different ways. It has been repeatedly removed by User:Glrx, who argues that there are no reliable independent sources. I tried to gradually reduce the amount of information to avoid excessive details, but the edits were still removed by the above user, who accused me of edit warring and trying to advertise new products. Finally it was reduced to a mere one-line link to the technology, which is similar to what all other translation systems on that page have (many without any secondary source at all), but even this was removed. Some example diffs are here: 1, 2, 3
• Now I've got some yet more sources and a PDF from a conference which describes the approach. Since it's a lot of links, I'm not repeating them all here. They are all on the article discussion page, as well as the proposed text to be included into the article. I don't want to include it again myself without prior discussion due to previous accusations of edit warring from User:Glrx.
• It's not really critical for me in which specific form and wording the information will be included into the article. I just find it noteworthy and fitting there. I'm open to alternative suggestions as to how to put it properly and what to cite there from more experienced editors.
• the key subjects to describe should probably be:
  • USH (Universal Semantic Hierarchy) approach to MT, its brief essence and potential applications;
  • building of Semantic Trees for various languages;
  • high expectations as to the technology's potential capacity to overcome many of the hurdles met by current approaches, as expressed by independent reviews;
  • some information may be included about ABBYY's planned schedule of implementation of this technology in real products, about what has already been done and what kind of work has been involved (this last point is not of utmost importance and can be minimized if accusations are made about some kind of advertising, but I personally think it's relevant to at least mention the development process timeline and who was/is responsible for it)
• the most detailed independent sources and reviews to start with would be:
  1. http://www.computerra.ru/sgolub/663954/ Голубятня: Чудо Compreno
  2. http://www.dialog-21.ru/digests/dialog2012/materials/pdf/Anisimovich.pdf Syntactic and Semantic parser based on ABBYY Compreno Linguistic technologies
  3. http://www.3dnews.ru/software/624398 Лингвистические технологии ABBYY. От сложного — к совершенному
  4. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1822898?stamp=634588995841938586 Программисты считают, что научили машину понимать смысл текста
  5. http://www.pcweek.ru/business/article/detail.php?ID=139282 ABBYY: через мобильность и облака к интеллектуальной лингвистике
  6. http://www.pcweek.ru/gover/article/detail.php?ID=129782 Прорывная технология машинного перевода и вокруг неё
• There's a dozen of additional sources mentioned on the talk page, but these are either complementary, or speak of major financial investments into the technology, or are directly from ABBYY. They may be used for context information, but here above I'm giving only some of the more detailed secondary ones.

-- Nazar (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For each source listed, supply a full citation with translated titles and dates. For each source listed indicate what claims you intend to draw from the source. This is way, way too general an inquiry; with too many sources presented with insufficient quality of citation. By making editors individually inspect each source at its origins, you're amplifying their work massively, and doing so for each RS/N editor who seeks to engage with your question. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, to make it simpler and avoid unnecessary extra translation, let's start with an English source we've got. It's the second one in the list above (namely http://www.dialog-21.ru/digests/dialog2012/materials/pdf/Anisimovich.pdf Syntactic and Semantic parser based on ABBYY Compreno Linguistic technologies). It's a presentation made during the 18th annual International Conference on Computational Linguistics, held in Moscow from May 30th to June 3rd, 2012 (an English link as well, to make it simpler: http://www.dialog-21.ru/en/dialog2012/ Dialog 2012, the 18th annual International Conference on Computational Linguistics). The information from that paper to be used might be, e.g.:

"The syntactic structure of a sentence is represented as a syntactic tree, augmented with non-tree links. Tree links encode syntactic dominance; non-tree links capture conjunction, anaphora, distant agreement, and other non-local dependencies between nodes.

The syntactic trees modeled within the Compreno framework may be seen either as projective dependency trees or, alternatively, as constituent trees, where every non-terminal node has one terminal child (its lexical head, or core) and zero or more non-terminal children.

...

At the core of the Compreno framework lies the notion of syntactic paradigm.

...

Compreno captures the distinction between words and their meanings in the following way. On one hand, for every language in the system there is a collection of “words”, or lexemes, based on a standard morphological dictionary. On the other hand, there is a collection of language-independent “meanings”, or semantic classes, in the form of a thesaurus hierarchical tree. Finally, there are language-specific lexical classes, which serve as points of contact between the two collections. They fit into the universal semantic hierarchy (as children of semantic classes), but they also have a language-specific lexeme, or several morphologically related lexemes (e.g. face and facial).

...

Phraseological and terminological collocations can serve as children of semantic classes as well.

...

In Compreno, we talk of homonymy (not distinguished from polysemy) in a situation, when one lexeme belongs to several lexical classes, and of synonymy — when one semantic class has several lexical classes with the equivalent set of semantemes.

...

At the early stages of parsing we build the syntactic tree from lexemes, leaving the semantic ambiguity unresolved as long as possible. By delaying the choice of a specific lexical class, we gain computational efficiency.

The Russian links basically all discuss the same technology from various perspectives. Some describe the technical details and explain what benefits this approach may bring compared to the currently used ones in Machine Translation (and they say the benefits may be great). Others describe the multi-million dollar financing and large amount of work invested into the project by both ABBYY and

Now, all I wanted to include into the article would be some short info about the existence of such an approach (USH), its difference and potential benefits and about ABBYY's related projects.

The latest text for inclusion into the article I proposed to start with on the talk page was as simple as:

Universal Semantic Hierarchy approach had been used in the upcoming ABBYY Compreno technology and presented in several reviews in Russian IT press, as well as analyzed in a presentation during Dialog 2012, the 18th annual International Conference on Computational Linguistics, held in Moscow from May 30th to June 3rd. It is aimed at building an accurate natural-language-independent semantic model of the processed source text with the help of USH trees.

-- Nazar (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazar introduced some material on the MT page that sounded in advertising for an upcoming ABBYY product. I am not the only person removing the content; diff removing as speculative. It was removed under

WP:BRD. Instead of getting a consensus on the talk page, Nazar would comment and insert new versions that he thought were acceptable; see Talk:Machine translation#ABBYY Compreno. See also User talk:Nazar#Machine translation

Glrx (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed analysis. I'd point to the following:

1. The article in question is about Machine Translation in broad sense, and not a list or overview/discussion of already existing and functional products in this area. It is supposed to describe both the existing and upcoming approaches, challenges met, theoretical research and attempts of new developments in the area. When speaking about major players in the area, the same applies. Since the article has a full chapter of all sort of big and small MT providers (see Machine_translation#Applications), many without any independent sources at all, it should likely also speak about developments and beta products, if these are sufficiently discussed prior to the final product release.
2. There's a lot of talk about Compreno in Russian Internet for the last half a year or so (it's mostly in Russian, because the system is being developed for Russian-English-Russian translation in its first implementation). I find the accusations of advertising to be inconsistent with reality. I'm just a usual guy, who is interested in Linguistics and Translation (therefore I've heard much about the topic). I'm not associated with ABBYY in any direct way (well, I'm an advanced user of their dictionary and OCR software, to be precise, and I know these are quality products -- but this does not necessarily make me an undercover ABBYY advertising agent here on Wikipedia, I hope; most linguists in Russia, CIS and its periphepy area use ABBYY software daily). Finally, if ABBYY wanted to advertise the upcoming product, why would it start pushing it covertly into Wikipedia, without even publishing an official Press Release or some advertising materials about it on their web-site? There's nothing like that there, save for the brief descriptions about the on-going developments.
3. The links above are independent. Yes, some parts of them are based on interviews with ABBYY officials to some degree. But the conclusions and evaluation is made by the reporters themselves. They are published in independent and wide-spread Russian IT-magazines. Even if they were nothing but interviews (which they are obviously not), they would still probably be independent enough, because of being reviewed and presented by these IT-magazines.
4. There are also many other publications which speak about major financial investments and allocation of large number of qualified specialists in computational linguistics to the Compreno development. Two Computational Linguistics chairs are being dedicatedly opened. This, I think, speaks about serious attitude in academic circles and significance of the technology discussed, which, in my opinion, also deserves a mention in the general MT article.
5. A presentation from the recent Conference also signifies the subject being reviewed and discussed by professional and academic community. The block quote above actually describes technical and theoretical details about the parsing of source text by Compreno, which parsing is a core basis of any analysis-based Machine Translation system, because it is the method used by the system to "understand" the source text.

Now, to summarize it, I really don't understand why is there so much opposition from Glrx about the whole issue? As I said above, there are dozens of much smaller and insignificant applications listed in that article, which do not have even a fraction of notability that Compreno has got now. So, this removal, I'd say, goes way over the top in beating down any mention of what I was trying to insert.

I'm not really in a hurry here, as I'm just an amateur in the field, and I'm quite sure there will be more publications about Compreno in the coming months and years. Even if it proves to be a complete failure (the worst scenario), it will still be broadly discussed at least in Russia, because of multi-million dollar financing wasted on it. And, even in that case, the technology would still be notable as an approach and a theory, as well as a historical experience in the field (like, what have those 300 experts and specialists been developing for 15 years...?).

In the same time, I think at this stage and with the existing number of reviews and publications we've got, it complies with all the notability and weight requirements to be mentioned there in the article.

-- Nazar (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Last paragraph states it is too early to ascertain Compreno's impact" -- it actually says that it's too early to ascertain how great the impact will be (implying that it will be significant in any case), and how much this ambitious project will change the life in future. And it goes on to say that it is possible to ascertain with surety, that it will be a significant progress in modeling of natural language, and a completely new technological basis. Similar evaluations, hailing the technology as "revolutionary", "unprecedented" etc. are made by other reviews. -- Nazar (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm updating the thread here to mention, that, since because of many non-English refs involved the topic seems not very comfortable for RS/N stewards, and there was no reaction for a few days, I've addressed

Do you think it's a reliable source? Or it's just about the views of a writer which has to do nothing with the actual things that happened? Since we have seen so many other books related to popular figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Elvis Presley which have been dismissed because of lacking of any credibility or reality.Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is published by

WP:WEIGHT. I would not use this source for anything controversial, but for general information it may be useable. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

An academic press would not publish a book written by someone with no expertise, and the book will have gone through peer review. From the book preface, the author seems to have been at the University of Mississippi. Standard academic research, should be useful. Probably rather favourable to US foreign policy under Reagan. Balance with other academic perspectives if you can. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A book in an academic press has no problems it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• "ضابط يكشف "خطط تجسس" المراقبين الدوليين على سورية" [Officer reveals "spy plans" of international observers in Syria]. Ad-Diyar (in Arabic). Beirut, Lebanon. June 9, 2012. Archived from the original on June 20, 2012. Retrieved June 20, 2012.

A translation made by a Wikipedia translator can be found here. I made a request for translation prior to taking the matter to WP:RSN based on previous experience. I also asked the translator, User:Haytham abulela to look for information that could assist in the assessment I want to have made. The user writes: "I also checked the website and the PDF online version and both show no editorial policy or even its editor-in-chief."

I have collated a chain of articles in more or less mainstream media that are based on this source. See Talk:Robert Mood#Allegations of spying in Syria.

How is this situation to be interpreted? I'm sensing an analogy with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is widely used as an original source for narratives of military action in the Syrian conflict. I'm sure nobody here at this noticeboard would have tolerated a reference made directly to claims posted on the website of this group, but as major news agencies and international media reference this outfit we accept this information as "vetted" somehow by these other sources.

Is the same dynamic applicable in the present scenario? I.e. do Press TV and RT sanitize this information to some degree? An intermediary between Press TV and RT seems to be an article in Syrian Radio & TV which RT refers to as "Syrian state media". How do all these interdependencies work out with regard to making the information which is carried throughout this chain acceptable for inclusion in for instance the biographical article about Robert Mood? As I review media covering this story I now see that two more have surfaced the last 24 hours, OpEdNews[19] and The Arab American News [20]

Is the format of this presentation difficult to deal with? Should there perhaps be made sub-sections for each media outlet with a summarizing discussion section at the end? __

The passing of source material through to a different outlet, via syndication, or other means, does not enhance the inherent RS value of a source. To evaluate the source, one must go to the source. If as you say, the source is a website that has no editorial policy, or even editors, listed, it is very unlikely to be RS. If the author of that specific report is somehow relevant, there may be an exemption for his opinions, but it doesn't sound like that's the case here. According to my understanding of the translation, this is a Lebanese paper, written in Arabic, talking about events in Syria, regarding Jordanian officers, in conjunction with the UN, and it's Norwegian General? Why does this not enhance my feeling that this is RS? . In case you missed my conclusion, I do not find this source to be RS for any claims regarding the UN Observers in Syria. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 04:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

Then let me have an assessment of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the way this outfit is typically cited by mainstream media.

• Jordan, Rosiland (May 26, 2012). "Syrian activists decry 'massacre' in Houla". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on May 26, 2012. Retrieved May 26, 2012.

In the article Houla massacre the Syrian Observatory is cited in the following statement: "According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the massacre was perpetrated by the Syrian army, which attempted to break in to Houla after the town saw many anti-government protests."

Is Al Jazeera quoting the Syrian Observatory allowable? I.e. we do have information on the Syrian Observatory which should make it possible for us to decide whether or not to consider it a reliable source. Is it? __

Do you mean is it allowable as a source? I suppose with sloppy editors it would be. The source is the source, not whoever passes the source along, as I said above. I don't see where you've cited the SOHR, only the link to "The Independent" newspaper report. If you want an opinion on SOHR for that statement, I need to see the SOHR source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, well here's where I get thrown, so I hope you can help me comprehend the significant distinction between the two situations. (Also, I take it you meant Al Jazeera, not The Independent?) We have two scenarios:

1. A Lebanese newspaper which does not qualify as an RS reports allegations coming from an unnamed Jordanese UN observer. This gets picked up by other media.
   Conclusion: The allegations cannot be presented no matter the RS status of the media organization which promulgates the story.
2. An information office provides unvetted information to mainstream RS media.
   Conclusion: The information can be presented without the need to consider the RS status of the information office.

Isn't there an inconsistency at play in this? Can we make a blanket (and I would say superficial) distinction based on one original source being classified as a media organization and the other not? __

talk

) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is Al Jazeera is quoting the opinion of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If Al Jazeera had fact checked that the Syrian army perpetrated the Houla massacre, then Al Jazeera would have said that the Syrian army perpetrated the Houla massacre. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But isn't there an equally reserved or qualified claim in the other example? "A Lebanese newspaper reports that a Jordanian UN observer claims" – wouldn't that work? __

talk

) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Both are bad weighting. When a credible newspaper directly assigns culpability to the Syrian government then we do too. We don't quote opinions for facts. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think anyone has a problem with seeing why "Bob said that Sandy told Joan that her brother bob told his friend eddy, that his mom and dad are divorcing" should be cited to Bob and considered reliable, which is where your line of reasoning takes you. Get a quote from the parents. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case I appreciate both your considered opinions. I'm still not at ease with all of these matters, but I shall retire to my abode and sharpen my analytic mind and think of more questions. __

talk

) 12:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Source: [21]
• Article: Loaded

That first episode lasted into the year 2000, when McKagan found himself left on his own, recruiting guitarists Mark Fain and Dave Federer to continue rehearsals without a drummer for a while.

User:Wonderlust17 has been adding guitarist Mark Fain to the Loaded article on occasion but failed to provide sources. After getting in touch through email, they provided 4 sources, 3 of which where not reliable (one was a copy of an earlier version of the wiki article while the other 2 were just lists with no supporting information). This one I am unsure of, it doesn't seem reliable to me (it also contradicts how the band began) but thought I would double check. Thanks in advance. HrZ (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Concreteweb.be is not an RS source for statements about the band Loaded. No expertise shown by reviewer, no notability shown by website, no editorial policy for errors/fact checking indicated by website. According to WP policy, this is not an RS source, regardless of the accuracy of the content within it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thanks all, updated article with "Iran has said" suggestion here. 84user (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already asked for a loose translation of what the Iranian Space Agency claimed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Moon mentioned by Iran space agency page in Persian, but I would also like to determine the reliability of space.com for a claim made earlier.

Most Western sources all lead back to space.com which attributes the claim to either "Iran" or unnamed officials:

• This space.com page by Jeremy Hsu (Senior Writer) states "Iran has its sights set on putting an astronaut on the moon by 2025".
• This csmonitor page by Tariq Malik (managing editor of Space.com) claims "Iranian Space Agency officials have said in the past that they are aiming to launch a human into space by 2020 and land an astronaut on the moon by 2025."
• This space.com page by Clara Moskowitz (Senior Writer) states "Ultimately, Iran has said it aims to launch a human into space by 2020, and to put an astronaut on the moon by 2025."

So, are space.com and these writers reliable enough to use in support of the sentence "Iran has plans to land an astronaut on the moon by 2025." ? Or should Wikipedia modify it somehow, for example: "Iran has expressed wishes to land a human on the moon"? Or must Wikipedia write more cautiously as in "Space.com claims Iran has plans to land a human on the moon."? I am posting a linkback to here from Talk:Iranian Space Agency#Moon program claim. -84user (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Space.com is reliable for the claim, if you say "Iran has said it has plans to land an astronaut on the moon by 2025", those first 3 words are fairly important here, as Space.com does not have any access to what goes on inside the Iranian govt's space program, only what info the Iranian gov't releases (space.com does not actually *know* if there is such plans, only that it's been announced that there is, it's clear from the sources that they have not actually seen any plans, timetables, etc). Personally I have massive (did I mention massive?) doubts that this is going to happen, but your source is definitely RS for the claim as I've phrased it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Space.com is reliable and as Despayre points out, it should be phrased "Iran has said" or something similar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death on the articles talk page. The Iranian government has never made the claim that it has an intended manned-moon mission planned. Only a single oftern sourced writer at Space.com, who offers no sources himself. That is why it has not been included in the article. As for Space.com being reliable...In the same sense as the National Inquirer, I suppose. The Scythian 05:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a very poor analogy. It's not about what is true, it's about what is verifiable. Please see this page in particular for editorial control as well, Clara Moskowitz has the following credits, "Clara has a bachelor's degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. She writes for both SPACE.com and LiveScience", I think that qualifies her to write on space articles. Along with the rest of the staff at Space specifically. What makes you think space.com is problematic? FYI, I don't make any claims here about what should or should not go into articles from here. It is only about the sources here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 06:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The user:Scythian77 has been deleting this info and sources on that article for over almost a year now in order to push his/her POV which is only his/her subjective "feel" over the matter. He/She has provided no credible sources or links to back up his/her POV. I think Space.Com and the other sources mentioned are reliable enough to be quoted on Wikipedia. --182.185.2.0 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is

• wikinews, a publisher with an incredibly poor editorial policy, reliable for
• claims such as "[The ideology of the Modern Whig Party] is instead denoted as "Modern Whig philosophy" and "Methodology over Ideology" […]by others, as the movement takes stands on issues across the political spectrum." (Wikinews interviews Mike Lebowitz, Chairman of the Modern Whig Party, Wikinews, the free news source you can write!, Monday, October 13, 2008, citation found at the third question). I'm quite willing to concede that Lebowitz has an SPS exemption, as speaking in an unremarkable way about his own organisation; my concerns relate to Wikinews deficient editorial policy for Wikipedia's RS purposes, that Wikinews is not reliable for reporting Lebowitz' statements. In the
• article Modern Whig Party? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe (but haven't checked lately) that the policy is that Wikinews is an RS for original reporting if the editor passes the site's accreditation process.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia believes not (ie: SPS exemption is required); Wikinews believes otherwise Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews is not self-published. It is peer-edited.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I draw your attention to their editorial process, which lacks the standards of an editorial process acceptable for a reliable news outlet; they are the 2nd through 4th links in my comment of 01:44 25 June 2012. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if the editorial process was inept, Wikipedia would not link to Wikinews to show how Wikinews articles can be used as references on Wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, immediately below an SPS warning, in an obscure unmarked page last substantially edited in 2009. The last substantive discussion emerging from RS/N was this 2010 RFC at IRS with strong opposition. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You would draw that conclusion if you looked only at drive-by voting rather than the actual comments that users left.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding the question of wikinews for the moment, I think, as you said, it's an unremarkable claim, unlikely to be challenged, *this* would be a semi-unique occasion where I would be tempted to use IAR. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this element entirely: Lebowitz is fine for those statements. I'm unsure as whether wikinews can be trusted to publish Lebowitz accurately and honestly, but that's the other element of this RS/N request. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I started an RfC at

Regarding this talk page [40]

Sources IfAmericansKnew [41] and the JCPA [42] led by Dore Gold.

No. The Headpage of www.ifamericansknew.org and the wikipedia article /Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs' section #Points of view are not reliable in this context. You may wish to ask your question in an answerable form. See the template below, the top of this page, or the edit window's instructions when you edit this section. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat borderline as far as this site goes. It looks a good sight better than a lot of other review sites out there, but I've not really heard of it before so I'm not sure if I could consider this site reliable or not. It appears to review only movies from Singapore, so that would probably explain why I haven't really looked at it beforehand. In any case, if the site is usable as a RS then it'd help out greatly on an article for

It depends in what capacity you wish to use it. It seems to be a Singapore retailer—like a Singapore equivalent of Amazon. I'd say it is probably reliable for release dates, credit information, genres, things like that but for critical reception there probably is a conflict of interest. We certainly wouldn't be able to use reviews off Amazon. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article (section): Biology_and_political_orientation#Heritability

Diff of added text and references: [44]

Content:

One approach to studying the role of genetics for a characteristic is to calculate the heritability coefficient. It describes the proportion of the variance that is due to genetic factors for some characteristic that differs between individuals. A 2005 study examined the attitudes regarding 28 different political issues such as capitalism, unions, X-rated movies, abortion, school prayer, divorce, property taxes, and the draft. Participants were asked if they agreed or disagreed or were uncertain about each issue. Genetic factors accounted for 53% of the variance of an overall score. However, self-identification as Republican and Democrat had a much lower heritability of 14%.

This may be due to party affiliation being more sensitive to factors such as upbringing and life experiences. Another explanation is that some persons may remain loyal despite their party changing its ideological stance. When asked about the study, Zell Miller thus argued that his views remained unchanged but that the Democratic Party had changed its party line greatly. The strong heritability regarding political attitudes may explain a strong political polarization and why bipartisan compromises are difficult to achieve. Furthermore, men and women tend to marry persons with similar political views suggesting an increasing future divergence between the two sides

Sources: Alford, J. R.; Funk, C. L.; Hibbing, J. R. (2005). "Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?". American Political Science Review 99 (2). DOI:10.1017/S0003055405051579 and it's coverage in the New York Times BENEDICT CAREY, Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes, June 21, 2005, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html?pagewanted=all

These sources are being used to make claims that are outside the expertise of the peer review of a political science journal. Namely biology claims requiring expertise in genetics and heritability?

Short answer: no. Especially not when a single study (which may or may not be notable or even reliable) is summarised in wikipedia's own voice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not mean "summarised", surely.

WP:SUMMARY. I think you are referring to drawing conclusions from the data? Anarchangel (talk

) 03:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a minority view, not supported by scholars, certainly none found in the

twin studies article. And I have to say, I am disappointed to see you use sources equivalent or inferior to the one you disdained, to make a point against it. Anarchangel (talk

) 03:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, as per Maunus, not RS, probably not notable either. Claiming it in WP's voice is completely off the table, even if it was RS and notable. It's *1* study. That study would have to be peer reviewed, probably by psychologists, or biologists, certainly not by political scientists, before it could be considered. Submitting it to APSR seems like an end-run around legitimate peer review. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why is it cited by 397 sources? Anarchangel (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, it is a single case study, that is for an experimental social science effectively a primary source. Very bad misweighting as well. Field reviews would be the appropriate source here, summarising multiple case studies and giving a definitive answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of separating the material into two paragraphs; the second paragraph is OR, which I would be willing to remove. I am not convinced by any reasoning here. The fact that the second paragraph is OR and there were objections to the material seem almost coincidental. I oppose removal of the text as a whole, all the more because the deletor, 'nominator', and one of the 'voters' are all one person. Anarchangel (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that Maunus and IRWolfie are both editors involved in the same side of the argument on the Talk:Biology and political orientation page, which I had not previously contributed to. So the question and answer form of the initiation of this discussion is disingenous, to say the least.

And then the discussion at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Acad.C4.93mica_Orient.C4.81lis.2Fformerly_Miradre which will probably end up in Archive 757 or thereabouts. So it seems likely that perception of the difference between good material and bad is here subjugated to perception of the nature of the contributing editor. The very definition of ad hominem, and misguided behaviour. I hope you learn from these mistakes. Anarchangel (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"I am not convinced by any reasoning here."

WP:IDHT is a conduct issue. Please stop. Fifelfoo (talk

) 04:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No it is not. The reasoning here, minus any effort to address its shortcomings in the face of reasoned criticism, is a

WP:COMPETENCE issue. Anarchangel (talk

) 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Turns out Fifelfoo has also been arguing on the Biology and political orientation page. So that makes Despayre's the only vote here that does not have an interest in the outcome. Despayre made the same points as I have already addressed, from the other three. Anarchangel (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

These aren't votes, and your conduct in the form of Badgering is no longer welcome on this page. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Two sources by same author (Nick Nicholson) which appear in a reliable source: [45] and [46].

Article to be used in: Shawn Welling

Content: To be used to establish the notability of Welling as an "award winning" film maker.

Complication: In the AfD there was concern that the awards at that particular festival were numerous and not notable, and the above named sources were used to claim notability of the awards (which in turn would make the article subject award winning, and hence notable). Investigation of the two sources turned up a potential complication in that the author (Nick Nicholson) has a direct financial connection to the subject of the article as he is an associate producer of the subject's films (documented here [47] and here [48]). So the question is if a personal with a direct financial relationship to the success of an article subject writes an article in a reliable source, can that writing be used to establish notability for the subject in which the author has direct financial interest? Or would independent reliable sources be needed to establish the notability of such claims? -- ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...my initial reading of your question is that if Nick Nicholson is notable himself as an expert in this field, then his opinion may be RS (it's still going to be slightly tainted because of the connection, but I think RS anyway), otherwise, it's just SPS, which cannot be used to prove notability, as per

WP:SPIP. I'll be interested to see how others here read this situation too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the exact question - if someone has a financial interest in a subject and writes an article in a reliable source claiming notability for the subject, is that considered a valid independent reliable source or a selfpub? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say my search was exhaustive, but I did not find any evidence that Nick Nicholson would qualify for any SPS exemption based on expertise, ergo, my answer is still "Not RS". However, if someone can show me some expertise that I've missed, I'd be willing to look at it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... winning a trivial award is still winning an award. For a source to really be unreliable on this point, it would have to say that he won awards when he never did win any awards at all. This is really a question of

WP:DUE weight: should you call someone "award-winning" if what he won wasn't much more important than a door prize? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a special notability guideline for Movies, at Wikipedia:Notability_(films), which says notability is inferred if he's won a "major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking", and the footnote to that expands the meaning by saying "Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected to fit our standard as well." So I guess it comes down to what awards has he won? Is it on the level of a major film festival at least? Trivial awards aren't going to make that cut I don't think. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a local festival in his hometown that gives approximately 800 awards per year. On Nicholson I would say he is likely a expert on the film industry in Texas, but it appears to me at least that he has a conflict of interest (not a Wikipedia COI, just a good old fashioned real-world conflict of interest) since he is involved as an associate producer with Welling, and as such would be problematic to accept as a sole verifiable claim of the notability of the awards. If the awards were notable, wouldn't they appear in independent reliable sources? The crux of the question is if him reporting on the awards (taking into account his interest in the matter) makes Welling notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, or does it amount to something equivalent to a selfpub and not qualify? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sundance Film Festival can be the "local" festival to authors in tiny Park City, Utah (Population 8,000+).

Cannes, France

(population 70,000+).

WorldFest

is the "local" festival to authors in Houston, Texas (population 2,000,000). So what? Being "local" to someone or in their "hometown" does not negate notability.

Just as do those other notable "local" festivals, WordlFest has worldwide coverage.[49] Coverage which, just as with the other examples of "local festivals" from those far smaller cities, allows it to be recognized as notable enough for Wikipeda. Their giving awards to only some 17% of the films screened does not maen the awards are meaningless. And yes, awards given at WorldFest have been reported in places outside of Houston, outside of Texas, and outside of the United States.[50]. Nicholson's professional interest in a film festival held in Houston or in Houston films and filmmakers is expected. A reporter is expected to write about topics after having done research and gained knowledge. Such research and gaining of knowledge by any journalist is not to be called "conflict of interest" but instead is them simply "doing their job". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is easily solved. Please list the specific awards at whichever specific Festivals we are talking about, there is no need to be generalizing here. The attendance at Sundance last year was estimated to be around 60,000. If you have attendance numbers for the Festival you are referring to, please provide those and their cites as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's focus on specific awards. One example is the "Platinum Remi Award" from the Worldfest festival as documented in this primary source: [51] (Note it is a PDF file that requires Adobe to read). You can find Welling on page 2 about 10 lines down. Another are 2 "Gold Remi Award"s from the Worldfest festival once again as documented in this primary source: [52] (Note it is an Excel file that requires Microsoft Excel to read). You can find Welling on lines 594 and 595. The awards are covered in a reliable source article written by the associate producer of Welling's film Nick Nicholson here [53]. Should that coverage by Nicholson provide sufficient notability for Welling to have a wiki article? Or is it basically a selfpub since Nicholson is closely affiliated with Welling as an associate producer of one of his movies and an actor in another? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reliability issue is "Does Welling or Nicholson control the Fort Bend Star's editorial policy?" No. Nick Nicholson, (20110420) "Nick's Picks" fortbendstar reliably reports those matters. There's a separate board for notability, but that particular article is reliable for the claim that Welling's film won an award. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We do have more than just one award. We have 8, verifiable over a six-year period:

2006, won Gold Award for 'Best Director' at

WorldFest

2007, won Platinum Award for 'Best Director' at WorldFest

2009, won Gold Award for 'Best Director' at WorldFest

2009, won Festival Award for 'Best Documentary' at

Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival

2011, won Gold Awards for 'Science Fiction' at WorldFest

2011, won

Critics Choice Award

' for 'Best World Premiere' at WorldFest

2012, won Grand Remi Award for 'New Media Web Seriess' at WorldFest

2012, won Gold Remi Award for a "Best Screenplay" at WorldFest

In understanding that verifiability is a different issue from SIGCOV, is an organization itself listing their winners or nominees suitably reliable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's generally a reliable a source for that information (there are probably exceptions, but not likely in this case), but that in no way gets you past the 2 immediate issues I see with SIGCOV. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources on Shawn Welling

Do the following noted sources, in Shawn Welling, establish Welling as an "award winning" film maker. In particular, are the sources a) independent of Welling; b) provide significant coverage specifically of Welling? (The content of this sub-section has been reorganised to encourage better reliable sourcing analysis. The main changes being reduction of indentation, application of source specific headings, and moving a general signature by MichaelQSchmidt to a signature after each group of sources). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from lower section) Sources toward the topic and his works... reliable or unreliable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Focus on Women

"Focus on Women Magazine - "Planet Funk’s Shawn WellingKicks It Up" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

C47 Houston, article and videos

C47 Houston Entertainment Magazine - article Mr. Nick Nicholson, Film Critic and President of The Houston Film Critics Society

C47 Houston Entertainment Magazine - The July 2010 Issue of C-47 Houston with Shawn Welling

C47 Houston Entertainment Magazine video interview: Houston Director and Filmmaker Shawn Welling talks to C-47 Houston Entertainment Magazine 05-10

C47 Houston Entertainment Magazine video interview: Houston Director Shawn Welling talks to C-47 Houston

C47 Houston Entertainment Magazine video: Producer and Director Shawn Wellng talks to the Audience

C47 Houston Entertainment Magazine News from Houston, July 20, 209 & August 18, 2009, and announcement of Gulf Coast Film Festival winners Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

Houston Chronicle - Hip-hop dance moves infuse fitness classes with funk

Houston Chronicle - Jazz up your moves at Planet Funk

Houston Chronicle - Worldfest's weekend international lineup Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Longview news journal

Longview News-Journal - The 'Grinch' is coming to Spring Hill Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Longview News-Journal - Feelin' FUNKY: Hip-hop group teaches, shows off dance moves Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Victoria advocate

Victoria Advocate - Victoria native lands role in independent dance film Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate clear lake

Ultimate Clear Lake Webster dance studio to hold 'I Love New York' show Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Nick Bostrom "A history of transhumanist thought"

Philosophy of science has a large number of peer reviewed journals available. By avoiding peer reviewed outlets, and publishing novel conclusions regarding philosophy of science, and the history of the philosophy of science, in FRINGE journals Bostrom loses his "EXPERTise" regarding the philosophical or historical practices of others. Bostrom's work "A history of transhumanist thought" in Journal of Evolution and Technology is only really reliable for Bostrom's opinion on Bostrom. Other works by Bostrom may be more reliable, particularly if Bostrom exposes his views to the community of peers in philosophy of science / history of philosophy of science. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

From

Journal of Evolution and Technology

wiki:

"The Journal of Evolution and Technology is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies"

So is it peer reviewed or not? Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that Human 2.0 and I are thinking somewhat alike: What is the reputation of the publication in question? A quick glance seems to indicate that it's not an obvious collection of quackery (or at least it's a well-put-together one that's been around for nearly 20 years) but this is so far outside my field of expertise that I'm in a poor position to evaluate this journal. It's so far outside my expertise that I'm not even sure who I'd ask for help. Is there an appropriate Wikiproject from whom we can ask for input? ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your last bit seems to be part of the problem. I'm in this from the Transhumanism pages (and I see no real fault with the sources used and the way they are used), I found this post by Itsmejudith due to issues with/from people in the WP:Fringe project (who has suggested removing all mention;the 6 sources out of 130), so this would seem to be the logical middle-ground. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly standard practice for fringe journals to claim peer review. The journal is FRINGE by design, "JET's raison d'être is as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, publishing academic-quality research, which welcomes submissions on subject matters that many mainstream journals shun as too speculative, radical, or interdisciplinary, on all issues relating to the future prospects of the human species and its descendants. The founders felt that the time was ripe to begin to discuss such issues in a more systematic and rigorous way than is usually possible in journalistic or popular publications." [54] and claims no competence in the area of history and philosophy of science. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, so is your belief that it isn't peer-reviewed OR, Synthesis, a hunch, or do you have evidence to the point? The same goes for your statement that it "claims no competence in the area of history and philosophy of science".

You also missed quoting this part, "All submissions that the editor-in-chief deems to be of sufficient quality to merit consideration are passed on for review to members of the editorial board and frequently to outside experts. Historically, the journal has had an acceptance rate of roughly 25%."

Basically, I'm just asking for a response that isn't based on your own personal viewpoint, especially when you're basically saying "they are liars." Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking around, the journal seems to be included in many reputable lists of scientific journals, and is looked on favorably by the Australian Research Council, a government orginization who's main point of criticism seems to be "they like to allocate too much money on projects" (not "they are crazy fringe nutjobs"). Also by looking at a good number of people published in the journal, they certainly seem to also get published in what you might consider more "mainstream" publications. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. You are badgering editors through excessive contribution. I stated my belief clearly, that Nick Bostrom "A history of transhumanist thought" is not reliable, as the journal has no field specific expertise (history and philosophy of science), and because it has a FRINGE mission. Acceptance rates mean shit and I refer you to literature on scholarly publishing in this regard. My personal "Hunch" doesn't come into it, the journal has a mission that is clearly stated FRINGE, and the journal makes no claims regarding HPS (a standard scholarly discipline). As you'd know from your extensive experience in the Australian tertiary industry, the ARC journal lists mean shit, and I refer you to AUR in that respect. This conduct, "Basically, I'm just asking for a response that isn't based on your own personal viewpoint, especially when you're basically saying "they are liars."" does not belong on RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is the ARC's ERA2012 definition of the journal, "41083 Journal of Evolution and Technology 1099 Other Technology 2201 Applied Ethics 2203 Philosophy 1541-0099" You might notice that the four FOR codes listed by the ARC, none are 220206 History and Philosophy of Science (incl. non-historical philosophy of science), and none are 2202 History and Philosophy of Specific fields. There's no ranking criteria, and the 1099 code "Other Technology" means that papers in this journal will be primarily assessed by citation metrics by the ERA exercise. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of transhumanism, in the article transhumanism, this journal and this author are worth listening to and we have no reason not to cite them. The statement Judith asked about isn't even controversial. Of course Haldane and Huxley foreshadow this stuff: who on earth would deny it? Andrew Dalby 09:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My question was not whether we should mention the journal and authors, of course we can because they are part of the topic. It was whether we should use a particular piece from the journal for the history of the movement. At the moment that piece is our main source for that history. Haldane and Huxley are discussed in more detail by Mary Midgely, which would seem to be a much better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] I see, sorry Judith, I focused on your last line rather than what preceded :) In general, about the history, my thought would be: Bostrom should be a useful source, not to be excluded, but potentially POV; therefore preferably to be named inline and to be balanced with other sources where we can. Remembering a recent discussion, a bit like Horace Kinder Mann on the biographies of the Popes. Andrew Dalby 11:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am currently sitting on a source (literally, just got home, dumped the cycle bag, Tyrrell on transnationalism in US historiography, JAH 86:3 1999) regarding the politicisation of historicisation, and the dubiousness of historicisation outside of professional history. A journal that didn't bother to register Field of Research Code 2202, that has no history and philosophy of science background, and that has as a mission the pushing of a politicised view of science is not in any way reliable for the history of science. FRINGE movements, such as transhumanism, regularly claim a greater historicity than they possess, and Bostrom appears to be scholarly enough in his own field that he is aware of the publication methods for history of science work but has chosen instead to submit his piece to a journal where it will not get adequate history of science review. Yes, JET is more than adequate for representing notable opinions in relation to transhumanism, no JET can't produce an adequate opinion regarding Haldane or Huxley because is exceeds the scope of JET's competence greatly; because it is an exceptional claim (requiring an exceptional source); and because Bostrom is pushing a FRINGE oar in a FRINGE journal and making exceptional claims that ought really be sourced to a HPS journal. The claim may well be true, but Bostrom can't make it reliably for encyclopaedic purposes in JET. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On indicators of mainstream/fringe in journals, there are two that I find particularly useful, would be interested in reading comments. 1) I look at the publisher. A journal is usually published by one of the academic publishing houses: Sage, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Taylor & Francis, UCLA, Brill, Springer etc. A scholarly society may be named as co-publisher. This situation may change, as many academics are keen to break publishing loose from the publishing houses, but it holds for now. 2) I look at the editorial board. It should give the names of the individual members and their institutional affiliations. Often there is more than one level of membership: an editorial board and a wider advisory board. The journal home page does not have to scream "peer reviewed"; it is more likely that details are given of the refereeing process. Many journals carry editorials, commentaries and other bits and pieces that are not refereed, in applied research fields they may carry opinion pieces by practitioners. The status of each item will be clear, and we should bear it in mind when evaluating sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized that a version of my question was offered above. Still though...

The situation: We have a

1. WP:COI
   is a policy toward Wikipedia editors and their writing about things they have too-close a connection. It does not, nor is it intended to, deal with real-world journalists writing about topics with which they have an affiliation.
2. Policy
   WP:SELFPUBLISH
   is about someone publishing their own book or creating a self-published media, and THEN claiming themself as expert. Such is not the case herein, as this journalist/critic is long-established by earlier works in reliable sources with editorial oversite.
3. The related
   WP:SELFPUB
   speaks toward someone writing about themselves and their personal activities, instructing that such MAY be used as sources of information without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field. If someone were NOT an expert, they could be used as a source so long as 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, 2) does not involve claims about third parties, 3) does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, 4), there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. So... we can use such from non-experts, as long as they are not the primary sources. But as I am speaking here toward an established expert, and as the expert is not speaking toward his specific participation in the events, I wonder at the applicability of SELFPUB and its speaking toward non-experts.
4. Guideline
   WP:RS
   instructs that "reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." In this posed question, I am speaking about someone who fits these criteria.
5. Guideline
   WP:USERGENERATED
   tells us that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Again, this is an established expert who fits the criteria.

Note though, that I am not in this case speaking about this jouralist's personal blog, but instead about his continued writing for reliable sources... sources themselves exercizing editorial oversight over his work. While certainly a reliable source itself should be independent (with caveats) of the topic being discussed, we are discussing items written by an established expert in otherwise reliable secondary sources having the requiste editorial oversite over his work, someone who for a very brief time in two different periods was a very minor part of those things of which he wrote. Keeping in mind that such as

Ok, right about the point where you wikilinked "journalist", I stopped reading. Really?? What am I, 4?

WP:TL;DR. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

17:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I will restrict my answers to the queu above this and find someplace else to ask the broader question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is someone actually questioning his reliability? I don't think this sort of affiliation is important enough to question the pieces he writes, so he should be given just as much credence as we would give any other film critic expert writing for reliable sources. Silverseren^C 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See discussion que above this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't deal in hypotheticals. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I dealt in them only becase elsewhere someone was asserting something nearly as vaggue. Forget I asked. I will find a more appropriate place to ask. Thanks.

This is the place, but your ability to express yourself has proven insufficient to allow other editors to comment. We deal in specifics, Named journalists, named articles reliable for specific claims in specific articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... I was TLDR. The questions then simplifies down to.... for reliability issues, do either Shawn Welling or Nick Nicholson control the editorial policies of Fort Bend Focus Magazine or Focus on Women Magaine,[57] Fort Bend Star, [58] Style Magazine,[59] ABC News 92 FM,[60] CBS/CNN 650 AM,[61] the

WorldFest itself? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you wait on this question until the issues in the previous section are dealt with, it's likely to come up there anyway. Also, your question implies that we know who runs those places, you would be better off using the form of: "Are these reliable sources for the quote that "[whatever you're trying to prove here]", source1, source2, source3, source4, etc.", and be sure to provide links directly to the supporting document, not just to the front pages of your sources, I don't want to hunt through the Houston Chronicle, I just want to read your cite. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)