Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171

I searched but couldn't find anything on this specific issue. For the Almohad Caliphate, would this page from Qantara (not Qantara.de) and this page from History Today count as reliable sources? They're both short and are mainly relevant to citing basic info, though I am also trying to figure out whether most mainstream scholarship refers to the state as a caliphate or dynasty as well (and if there's any actual difference). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about this page from The History Files. It seems decent but there's no mention of editorial oversight or academic sponsorship. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There are much better sources than either of these. Look for academic books specifically on the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith, I just ordered US$300 worth of books about the Almohads on Amazon, and they should arrive within a month or so. I'll just drop these sites and wait for the books to arrive in that case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember Wikipedia's judgement about

Not reliable. In the same category as thousands of other genealogy sites: great for amateur genealogical research but no good for an encyclopaedia. It specifically says "no doubt there are many errors". Genealogy is generally a work-in-progress. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things. This seems to be asking about a reference I used for the only dating the birth of Kānekapōlei.

First, the website itself, is the official site of the Kekoolani Famiy and is administered by a professional genealogist and family member. The data is collected not written and notations exists for every person listed to the location of the originating data. In this case to the LDS Genealogy official webpage. Some of the information is also from SLK Peleioholani, who was the genealogists for the ali'i and worked for the Bishop museum until his death in the late 50s. The site itself is not a simply genealogy website. Its a database of the Hawaiian Royal family and the ruling chiefs. Its an actual official site of a notable ali'i family. I have used it way within limits and only when a date of a historic figure had no other source such as Fornander or S. M. Kamakau. SLK Peleioholani is a published genealogist as well. An official site can be used to site some information when it is about the subject. In this case this line of ruling chiefs.

But the I should mention that the first discussion linked above was that sources about historic figures should be notable and referenced. Not whether an official site of a family existing today can be used as a reference for a date on someone from about 1753. This is not an unreferenced piece of material. It a reference that states where the information comes from. The JDS listing have been used extensively. I don't know the status of that. The second discsussion concluded that the source being discussed was a god collection of primary sources. Primary sources are not banned but should be limited in use. These types of sources will be used. It was felt that we have no preference for using the more established authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Genealogy by SLK Peleioholani, a noted Hawaiian genealogist, can and should be used if it can be cited properly but the other stuff in this site, the amateur opinions and interpretations of the site's master should not. Many thing stated as fact such as hypothesize birth years are independent of the source it uses. It's hard for me to prove that since I don't have access to the LDS genealogical data bases in order to cross check everything asserted prior to a citation mark. We find this all the time on Wikipedia with editors writing a paragraph of facts follow by a citation which validates everything before and then we have another edits later that is added onto it, could be just one sentence of untruth/amateur speculation in a mountain of reliable words.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to continue what I mean by the site master's amateur opinions and interpretations, the site contains a paragraph being used to cite the parentage of Kamehameha I, an interpretation made in c, 2010 "THE IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF KAMEHAMEHA THE GREAT". It asserts one truth: that Kamehameha's father is disputed, reliable sources stated that it could be Keoua or Kahekili, but his paragraph also asserts things which are not found in any other reliable source. 1. That Kamehameha was adopted or hanaied by Keoua and Kekuiapoiwa, 2. That Kekuiapoiwa II was not his mother, sources never dispute his mother's identity, this one does in order to explain his niau pio rank (reliable source also contradict and said Kamehameha was a chief of the wohi rank) 3. That his mother is instead Ku, the sister of Kahekili. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the disputed words from the paragraph: "Kamehameha was not the natural biological son of Keoua Kalani-kupu'uapai-kalani-nui Ahilapalapa and Kekupoiwa Nui but rather given as a gift to them by his true biological parents from Maui. These biological parents were Kahekili (Ruling Chief of Maui) and his sister Ku, the son and daughter of Kekaulike (Ruling Chief of Maui). This Maui genealogy would make Kamehameha a full NINAU PI'O chief (the mother and father are full blooded brother and sister and children of ruling chief)." I keep saying source but not stating them only because I want to save time and I haven't read them in while but I will find them for you if you disbelieve.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also the names located in the parentheses in some of the entries indicates that the site draws heavily from whatever is on the Internet including stuff like ancestry.com, royalark, and geni.com or even Wikipedia. One example is the alternative spelling Keawepoipoi in the site's entry for Keawepoepoe. Searching Keawepoipoi -Wikipedia, we see that the site draws a significant portion of its work from unreliable sources such as the royal ark. You can do cross check this with some other of its entries. The site is riddle with mistake. Another is the assertion that Queen Kalama's mother was I-Kape'ekukai. (Also editors using it could mistaken that Kalama's mother died in 1825 at Chile, when in fact it was her father) This is only found in royalark and geni.com. Most sources indicate it was Inaina. I can find more discrepancies too. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am attacking a source which I have relied heavily on and used in the past when writing articles, as lazy way to get sources. But it's unreliability outweighs the benefit.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To those currently uninvole, please help square this out and add in your opinions as editors and users of reliable source. I don't want this to be archived again without discussion. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR please calm down and take a breath, Yes, I am almost certain I did add the Kekoolani reference. But you are very much leaping to conclusions about using anything of Mr. Kekoolani himself as he only adds notes and I have never used the notes to reference anything. There are other sources that have Kamehameha's parentage and the controversy. It is not new and the article was already discussing the fact before any change I made. It appears you have an issue with Mr. Kekoolani's opinions. This is not the place for that but be aware there are no "right" answers to much of this content. Genealogies differ depending. The two major genealogists of the day, Fornander and Kamakau differ greatly. The royal family even kept their own records and Kanaina was one of the main researchers. I should ask however, for you to please be a little more sensitive about living persons you are discussing here. Much of what you take issue with seems to be Mr. Kekoolani's opinion. That is fine, but this isn't a platform for you to vent at the author of a source. You have already been told he is a professional researcher.

Sorry it is my style as a history major to call out questionable things and point out blatant contradictions when I see it. You said it yourself that its his opinion. Does the professionalness a person or occupation of a person indicate anything he say is reliable? My problem is the site's inconsistencies and habit of compiling whatever is on the Internet and use of unreliable sources such as royalark, geni.com, and ancestry.com. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No one genealogy is wrong, it is one version of the events and people. If you are attempting certainty where there is none, I have no access issues with the LDS genealogy website.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. I certainly can claimed that I descend from the first emperor of China when reliable sources say the entire Qin imperial clan was eradicated by Xiang Yu after he deposed Ziying. My stance is still that Kekoolani site is an unreliable source for Wikipedia and should not used at all here, which is the key issue we should be discussing here. I presented my take on it. I will wait to here what other have to say. I hope there will others. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith what do you think?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Mark Miller would you mind if I ask editors who've made comments in the past discussion on this same topic (the use of genealogy sites on wikipedia) about their opinions. I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since they fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Also to not influence the result I will merely word it: "Hi, can you give your opinion here?" and contact all editors involve not just a select few. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything special about the LDS research in relation to Hawaii? Because I'm familiar with their familysearch website works in relation to Britain and Ireland and there is no way it is a reliable source for WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Hi User:Itsmejudith. Not to my knowledge. It (the LDS record) would probably the last place any serious researcher in Hawaiian history would look to for reliable source (for whatever my opinion is worth). Maybe they would have more reliable ancestry on people who've live closer to the present or are Americans or Europeans. It heavily focused on the West, for example you can't find much Chinese genealogy on the LDS records either. What is you view on the other points I've brought up? Also do you think I should unbiasedly ask the view points of other users in the past discussions? Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what else you're asking about. If any other RSN regulars want to chip in, they can do so now. The main point is that genealogical sites are rarely RS for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Yes which is what I agree with. I have also presented other points for reasoning that Kekoolani is an unreliable source. But now it is only me, Mark Miller and you discussing. I was wanting to contact other users who have discussed similiar discussions in the past to put in their views.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Alert them to this discussion but you may not find that they have anything to add. If Mark Miller wishes to put forward the argument that the source is reliable, it will be read here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@

Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter#References? This is my ultimate goal. I ultimately plan to replace them with better sources. I need support for such a bold move since Mark Miller believes it to be reliable and I don't. Or does the board have no such power? If so where can I seek such a move. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk

) 10:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I only alerted the editors in the Cawley discussion since I believe this is the more similar (on online genealogical database) while the other discussion didn't really deal with a source. Thanks..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example why I believe this site to be an unreliable source is the text which follow this entry, a exact copy of the Wikipedia article Abigail Maheha.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is another entry where the site combine two different people into one, click on the two different marriages of this "Hinau (Hinai)." In reality, Hinau was the son of Bennett Nāmākēhā while Hinai was a late 18th century chief of Waimea who assisted Kamehameha I in his unification of the Big Island and was the father of Nuhi, grandfather of a wife of Namakeha and a stepmother of the much younger Hinau, whose father Namakeha wasn't born. The two, Hinau and Hinai, lived more than two generations apart but because of the similar sounding name the Kekoolani site combines them into one person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the previous discussions about Charles Cawley's medieval lands website. My own summary about that case would be that what could be most easily agreed is that there was no need to argue, because Cawley's website mainly simply collects and collates from other sources and does not add much secondary/tertiary interpretation. Therefore we could get around the need for further debate by simply going to those sources and citing them if they were appropriate. If there had been debate about a particular issue where Cawley had been a bit more original then the procedure next would have been to research whether Cawley's website, or Cawley as a researcher, are treated by experts in that field as a citeable reliable source. We did not need to have such a discussion. I am not sure if this summary helps in the current case being discussed here, but it sounds like there is more originality involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Like

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (and once his source is checked by a Wikipedia editor his cite can be dispensed with). However sometime you see on Lundy's website information (often the children of a otherwise reliably sourced subject) where Lundy cites an email from another genealogist which is not a reliable source and so such information should not be included in a Wikipedia article. I have not looked at the source that is a subject of this thread but I hope this the comparison of these three sites will help others deciding if it is a reliable source. -- PBS (talk

) 18:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we are way off topic, because also I am just talking about the old examples, and not sure if relevant. However just to clarify, I agree that Cawley mainly uses primary sources. Primary sources are however not forbidden and in certain types of case can be quite useful, for example simply listing out dates or documents (which can be quite appropriate to some types of history article). We should in other words always be careful not to treat all usage of primary sources as bad, and the critical point is whether something non-obvious and original is being synthesized from them (which Cawley does not often do). Furthermore, I just point again to what I said about the fact that I do not think I recall ever seeing anyone here make an effort to check whether Cawley is ever cited by respected publications. I mention this partly because I recently noticed him being cited in an article in Foundations (the journal associated with the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy, fmg.ac, which also hosts Cawley), but as this publication is itself not a super strong one, I only point out that there might be more to be investigated if this subject is still really still causing any big disputes. My main point was that I doubt that it needs to anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a question of using the official site of a family to show some facts, such as dates of historic family members where they themselves have references. The notes section the OP refers to is not an interpretation it just sets up a quote from the author. I cannot locate those sources at this time but if i do i will switch references. The OP is trying to state the site has errors because some genealogy content differs from his/her understanding of the limited number of genealogies that they know of. Many of them differ.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't about me imposing my interpretations or showing the genealogy I want from my "limited sources." I have accepted conflictory genealogical interpretations when it comes from reliable sources. The problem is that I don't see Kekoolani as reliable source (my opinion is useless in such a divided argument but my examples of mistakes drawn from the site should be considered). Miller seems to believe that this is my petty retaliation against him for our disagreements on Talk:Kānekapōlei (even after I've stated before that I have regrets about using this source in the past and have since seen to the unreliability of it all) and believe that I think Hawaiian genealogy is totally one sided with only one correct viewpoint (and I'm trying to assert something) and that I actually don't think the claim of Kahekili as Kamehameha's father is a valid claim. But I do because I have seen reliable sources written as far back as the 1860s arguing this claim. The site's reliability is my main problem.

The unreliability of the site is my main issue here not because there is a difference to my interpretation (I have none, I should have none, it should be what reliable source state. Period). I have shown cases of many unreliable entries where the site copies or draws directly from unreliable sources such as royal ark and even Wikipedia. Cases where the site misread reliable sources (many of then "the limited number of genealogies that [I] know of") and combine two distinct individual who lived two generations apart with similiar spelling names into one person, as I have shown with the Hinai and Hinau example. One laughable mistake that I helped proliferate which I can thank the Kekoolani site for is the parentage of George Naea and

Keliimaikai and Kalikoʻokalani[55]. Kekoolani copied this mistake from Royal Ark and ancestry websites online. I thought back then because it could br found in the Kekoolani site and Royal ark site that it was supported by two what I then in my naivety considered reliable sources and thus proliferated the mistake when I edited on pages related to this such as Queen Emma of Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk

) 04:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The website is not rs, per the previous discussion on RSN. TFD (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. If the website is that of a well-known family then in theory maybe it can be used if we need a source for stating the opinions of that family. But I understood this was a question about whether the website could be seen as an expert source for what is essentially history (genealogy of someone important being effectively part of the study of history). What I have not seen in the discussion so far is any discussion of some of the main indicators of expertise: Do published experts cite the website? Are any of the authors well-known in the field for some other reason? And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My contribution was explicitly solicited, based on my involvement in past discussions on similar topics. Neither Dean P. Kekoolani nor Solomon L.K. Peleioholani are acknowledged as scholarly historians, nor do they possess the capacity to act as such. Its not reliable for historical articles. The editors of the work acknowledge that it is traditional and genealogical knowledge, "Nonetheless, we do ask that you request permission from us before browsing these pages. This is a private family family website and this information is presented for the specific benefit of Native Hawaiian people, preferably related to us by blood, who are conducting research into their own personal genealogies. This is not an academic, scholarly or general information resource for the general public." As such I believe the genealogical standard it meets may be traditional in nature and not compatible with wikipedia's standards in terms of genealogical or biographical articles regarding the deceased. Additionally I would suggest that explicit permission is requested prior to reading the work, that licensing restrictions may additionally prevent the use of this work: something for another noticeboard. Not good for historical articles, per HISTRS and the arguments underlying that essay, not good for genealogy given that the genealogical purpose of this text is not congruent with genealogy or biography as practiced in reliable sources. (Yes, I am aware of the first world bias issues wrt traditional knowledge systems, but the document makes clear that the relevant traditional knowledge system collapsed in a way that means that SLK Peleioholani's traditional knowledge was not subject to expected traditional review structures.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, not sure if this is even relevant, but do you think the website is potentially useful for expressing the opinion of the family? (For example with attribution, and in the event that it was clear that the family's opinion had separable notability.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, "There can be no doubt that there are many errors. We warmly welcome and will sincerely appreciate any corrections—whether of facts or typography—from our readers. We will continue to amend, correct and clarify the data as we develop this website in the future. We apologize in advance for any mistakes you may discover in the meantime and thank you for your understanding." Editorial responsibility for correctness has not been exercised. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, without requesting permission as it was for a fit scholarly purpose, I consulted the database regarding the Editor's immediate siblings, and viewed the Editor and a deceased person's entry. Neither entry was sourced. Given that neither was sourced in a highly sourceable context, and that the editor has refused responsibility for errors, I do not believe that the Editor can be trusted regarding the Kekoolani family's opinion. There is no evidence the editor embodies modern or traditional authorisation to speak for the Kekoolani family. At best, the source would be viable for Dean Kekoolani's opinion, if it was ever of encyclopaedic notability or weight. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The website http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ is extensively used in I think British railway station articles (see

As I noted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Template:Disused-stations, the maps included on these pages are Ordnance Survey, which are Crown Copyright (50 years from date of publication), so copyright will have expired on most, if not all, of these old maps. Are there any that date from 1964 or later? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think any does. I'll strike out the copyright allegations completely. My apologies. That's not what I was focused on. Looking at the Marchwood example, it's not being used for any of that, it's being used solely as a source of when the train stations were closed. As you can see here, the images, maps, etc. do nothing to support when the train station was closed. For the dates of the train closures, I am guessing there is either no source or perhaps it is referencing the book in the further reading section. So either: (A) If it has no source, then it's not a source for what it's being used for and I think it could be dropped to an external link but not a reference for those facts. (B) If it from the books, then we should follow

ISBN 0853615845, cited in Disused Stations." -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 04:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - experience similar to OP. In my experience the historical information is generally sourced from the standard or common books on the topics (based on my readings of both). I've never found it (disused-stations) unreliable. In many cases it's a valuable source of modern information, often as yet unpublished. eg redevelopments. It would be preferable in most cases to replace the historical information when possible references with ones 'closer to the source'. I think there are a number of contributors, so the quality may vary. I don't know how consistent editorial oversight is.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material) is based on a network of flimsy sources that should be analyzed and removed at the discretion of the largest consensus possible. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I encourage sharing such analysis in the deletion review for the page. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having way too much trouble locating RSs in there, demonstrating an

WP:UNDUE problem if there are indeed any RSs in there. Fringe sources are not RS, even if we allow (academically sourced) articles on fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk

) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This inquiry stems from a dispute on Jonathan Lethem; please see Talk:Jonathan Lethem#WP relies on Reliable Sources, not non-commercial sources. BMK (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

At the video games project, we specifically exclude any storefront as a reliable source for a future release date because they are going to put in any placeholder they can as to get you to pre-order, and as such the date could be fake. I would apply that across any media source. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you read through the instructions above, please, and provide the exact source and wording in the article? Amazon can be a reliable source for some things. As for future works, Amazon is going to be as reliable a source as the publisher, surely? --Pete (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an entry of a future publication of a book in a author's list of works, that's about all there is to it. BMK (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that different fields tend to have different standards of honesty and trustworthiness with regard to release dates. While vaporware and badly-slipping release dates are part and parcel of the software world – and particularly the video game world – the same is much less true for conventionally-published books from established publishing houses. Book publishers generally have the actual manuscript in hand many, many months before the title appears on shelves. Cover art is commissioned; text is edited; advertising campaigns are planned. Sometimes it can take more than a year for a publisher to have a slot open in their publishing schedule. If Doubleday says that the hardcover is coming out in February 2015, I would be rather surprised if it did not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I think using a publisher's announcement would be fine, despite being a primary source -- but are we really satisfied to rely on Amazon's non-existent "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? Amazon has an excellent reputation for service, at least as far as my dealings with the company have gone, but that's not the same thing at all.

BTW, there are many, many examples of books not making their scheduled publication dates. The production gears start turning well before all the necessary adjustments to the manuscript are completed, if not, they would never be ready on time, risking the book being stale upon pblication. They may have an author's final version of the manuscript in hand, but it still has to be edited, copyedited (several passes, generally), vetted by lawyers, referenced, pictures researched and selected, intros written, blurbs collected etc. etc. Given the current "just in time" ethos prevalent in business, the idea is that this all gets done at the right time to put it into production, start promotion, and then ship it to the stores, so an announcement of future publication is certainly proof that the publisher believes everything will come together on a certain date, but it's no guarantee of it. BMK (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So what if we say the author's next book is to be published in June and it doesn't hit the shelves till August? We source the information as best we can, and when June comes and the book doesn't, we update our article. We can't be 100% accurate on the future - nobody can. In this case, I say that Amazon is a good source for future publication dates, but the publisher is an even better one. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We're really not asking if Amazon is a good enough source to base one's future purchasing plans on, I'm sure it is. We have a somewhat different concern: How do you get around the policy requirement for "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with Amazon? BMK (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking back to the first post in this discussion, I'm seeing phrases such as "In my opinion", "My assumption is", and "I also assume". I don't think we can base Amazon's business reputation on your assumptions. Do we have anything more concrete?

Do we have any examples of Amazon pulling future titles out of thin air, or getting things wildly wrong in their notices of future books? And if they are getting their information on upcoming titles from the publishers, just how are they supposed to fact check? "Ah, we just want to check on this list you sent us. Is it complete bullshit?" Maybe they could wring up individual authors. "Your publisher tells us that your next book 'True Confessions of a Merchant Banker' is going to be published in July. What's the strength of this?"

I'm finding this whole discussion rather bizarre, to be honest. A reasonable person would accept that if Amazon says a book is going to be available on a certain date, they got that date from their suppliers, they didn't just think of some random date so they could ship books that hadn't been written. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the publication/release dates accurate? Since the information comes directly from the publisher, there is not doubt to their accuracy. But what you are getting hung up on is the "fact checking" bit. How does one fact check a future publication/release date? Here is a hint. You can't. Either Amazon, or any other source, trusts the accuracy of those dates they get from the publishers or they don't publish it themselves. And in cases where the publication/release date does change, Amazon updates it to the new date.

I also see a bit of rules layering going on here. No where does

WP:RS does is set guidelines on how to identify a reliable source. That doesn't mean that those are the only standards that apply. What we are more concern with is the accuracy of the information. And since there is no doubt that the publication/release on Amazon is accurate at the time, Amazon is a reliable source. —Farix (t | c

) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of source - amazon, publisher, author, etc - doesn't

WP:CRYSTAL apply to all future events, including book publishing? Martinevans123 (talk

) 11:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No,

WP:CRYSTAL. —Farix (t | c

) 11:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

More to the point,

WP:CRYSTAL point #5 explicitly mentions product announcements normally do not lead to separate articles, but are perfectly acceptable within a related article (product creator, product series, and the like), so long as we stick to the bare facts of the announcement. As a more extreme example, Jasper Fforde lists several vaporware titles, some of them have been there for years. I see nothing wrong with this: information about JF should include the titles he's been parading around for years, and absolutely no one reading the article thinks of it as anything but that. And if someone wants to commit wikicide, why, try removing the several paragraphs from J. K. Rowling about planned work, including ohhhmyyyygossssh, three more Harry Potter universe movies!!!! (Sourced to NYT, by the way.) Choor monster (talk

) 12:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarifcation. But, yes, wikicide never looked more inviting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I quote from Wikipedia:Book sources#Online text (the source text for ISBN invocations). These are the first external links on the page, before all the world's national libraries and so on. (I leave out the actual links):

For verifying citations in Wikipedia articles, and finding more info.
These sites can search within some books, and show some or all pages
of some books. See digital libraries also.

    Find this book at the Open Library
    Find this book at Google Book Search online database
    Find this book on Amazon.com (or .ca, .cn, .de, .fr, .it, .jp, .uk)

Amazon is considered good enough to verify that a book cited in a WP article actually exists. Does anyone at Amazon actually call the publisher every time some WP user hits an ISBN link? No. Choor monster (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The key is to phrase any mention of a future release date as being an "estimated" or "expected" release date. Amazon is certainly reliable as a primary source for such estimates... since they are the ones stating the estimation. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• • I don't get this. First, the publisher is the primary source for the estimate (not all sources are published). Second, I assume we write in ordinary English for readers to interpret as ordinary English. And ordinary English allows for uncertainty of the future to be understood without being stated. When you tell someone you have to get to bed early because you have a 10 o'clock flight tomorrow morning, no one is fooled even though you didn't mention it was only the estimated time.

Close to publication, with actual books available, Amazon firms up with a more-or-less guaranteed shipping date for pre-publication orders. That, of course, is a date they know. Choor monster (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster is trying to include the book as if it already exists. That's not what

WP:CRYSTAL advises. If it's a speculative or predicted date, it has to be framed and written up as a speculative and predicted date. It can't be used as a reliable source that the book actually exists as a confirmed and ready product.__ E L A Q U E A T E

14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree here - if Amazon has a future release date for a book and it cannot be corroborated with the publisher or another reliable source, we should consider that suspect, even if Amazon does have a known track record for being right on those dates. Using such a date from Amazon does violate CRYSTAL, while using the same date provided by the publisher directly is not. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the publisher makes an announcement, that can only be written up as an intention to publish, not a magical guarantee that it will happen for sure. We don't list industrial or consumer products as guaranteed to be available in a certain time frame even when announced. We shouldn't list a book that doesn't even have a cover designed as if it's predestined. No publisher is immune to delays or cancellations, and no editor can guarantee they'll watch their addition to fix it if it turns out a book didn't actually happen. This is an encyclopedia regarding things that have actually happened, not a fansite.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is remarkably silly. As I said above, I am writing in ordinary English for the sake of readers who understand ordinary English. No such reader is interpreting a "(2015)" date as a guarantee or destiny foretold or fannish obsessiveness. It's simply the date being passed on from Amazon. It comes with an explicit external link. As I said on the article's talk page, I prefer leaving the link in all its ugliness right there next to the title, the better to encourage its removal once the book is published. I also prefer leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day.

I once came across an article that listed a forthcoming book with an estimated date of publication about two years in the past. You know what I did? I looked up for more information. I edited the article! And fixed it! Yay, Wikipedia. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That proves why we shouldn't put announcements in as fact! If you're putting something unverifiable into an article, it runs the risk of being in there for years if it doesn't happen. As an example of one of the many reasons to not trust a bare announcement, look at what happened here. Book announced, Amazon took pre-orders, "publication date" announced, the book never happened. We can't treat announcements as finished or guaranteed products.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. So the publisher changed its mind. What of it? No one is treating any announcement as a finished or guaranteed product. As we get better information, we edit the article accordingly. For whatever reason, Deen does not have a list of her books. I would be happy if the list were there, the 2014 book remains listed as cancelled, with references of course. The book absolutely does exist, it's just not in a form for sale to customers. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The book exists somehow? What are you talking about? They pre-announced it before it was actually published. Like this one. You have a strange idea of what a published book is, if you don't actually require it to be published.

WP:V is not silly.__ E L A Q U E A T E

15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Deen's book and probably Lethem's book already exist. In a very tiny handful of copies, for internal use only, as part of the normal publishing process. As I said, "not in a form for sale to customers". That you keep harping on blatant misreadings of what I've said with ridiculous claims is simply a waste of time. Updating data as new information arrives is standard WP, so complaining about it and coming up with insulting descriptions of it is simply a waste of time. And relying on more users than just myself is also standard WP, so envisioning the fate of the article without me as something hopelessly irredeemable is simply a waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between updating a fact when new information is found, and putting in something we know from the start isn't a fact. Future events are unverifiable. You seem to be okay with all of the instances of stale announcements such as "This book will be published in 2008", but they make the encyclopedia look bad. (Saying that Deen's book exists is an extraordinary claim, by the way. Do you have a source that a single person has ever read it anywhere? No source means you believe it must be true based on yourself alone. You are certainly not a reliable source that a book must exist. This is fairly conclusive proof that the "Publication Date" on an Amazon page cannot be assumed to be correct.) Now you may think it's okay to add unverifiable things to articles because it will probably be updated when we know for sure, but that's a guaranteed way to include junk in articles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Most simply, Wikipedia can say that someone has invited people to a wedding in a year, if we have multiple sources, but we can't frame it as if we believe a wedding will take place. Individual books get delayed or cancelled more often than weddings. It doesn't matter how much you personally believe it will probably happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems the issue relates to a list of book titles by the author which take the form of:

• Book title (date) <cite amazon>

I would suggest that for upcoming books not yet released this be amended to:

• Book title (expected 2015) <cite amazon>

A very simple change like that would be perfectly reasonable... accurate... and amazon would be a reliable source for the statement. Nothing more to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. This is a reasonable and effective solution.

talk

) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggested this on the talk page, and encouraged him to make the change. Listing the date "(2015)" does not constitute an assertion of existence or guarantee, and I have no idea where Elaqueate gets the idea that it does. And no, it is not an extraordinary claim on my part to believe that mainstream publishers get ready for forthcoming printings as they have been doing for the past several years. As it is, this is in regards to one title.

I should point out I've been following a few dozen authors on WP, and editing in regards to a few, and this is the first time in two years I've seen anyone raise a concern that such listings of forthcoming works could possibly be a problem. In every single case, it has been absolutely clear that the book does not exist yet. Really, I absolutely do not get it. Choor monster (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this, if Amazon (or any other storefront) is the source. I have no problem with the "expected" language if we have a statement from the publisher, the author, or some third-party source with reasonable author that have made the claim the work will be out in some year; we can source that and the "expected" part removes any issue with CRYSTAL. But when it is Amazon or others, you have to beg the question: where did they get that date? With the former case, I can have reasonable expectation of tracking who told whom when to expect the book, but with Amazon, which is knows to assign release dates to populate their database as to allow for pre-orders, there's simply no authority confirmed there. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with using Amazon as a source on the expected release date. Especially if the publisher of the book is an established and respected one. Presumably Amazon is getting their info from the publisher, so no reason to require additional corroboration from publisher. TheBlueCanoe 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree... with the proviso that there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source... any source can be challenged when it comes to a specific fact... for example if the publisher listed some other date, I think there would be a good argument for saying that the publisher was a more reliable source than amazon... and legitimately call amazon's date into question. But barring any such contradicting source, I see no reason challenge amazon. Their "expected" release dates are usually fairly accurate (ie I think they have a reputation for accuracy on such things). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So here is an example of the problem with Amazon: it lists A Different Kind of Tension (the forthcoming book we're talking about here) as being published by Doubleday, but, in fact it is being published by Random House. (The page for it is here) Yes, Doubleday has been (one of) Lethem's publishers, so maybe some intern just assumed, but obviously no one checked, because there information is just flat-out wrong (although they did get the date right). Or maybe Lethem switched it from Doubleday to Random House for some reason, I don't know -- but that's the point, we depend on reliable sources to check these things, and Amazon didn't, which is wny Amazon is not a reliabel source.

I'm off to the Lethem article to replace the reference from a non-reliable source (Amazon) with the publisher's page. I trust that meets with everyone's approval? BMK (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kodansha Comics USA and distributed by Random House, was also listed on Random House database and sure it was there.[56] Same is true of manga that was published under the Del Rey Manga imprint.[57] So you can't use the main Random House database as proof that Amazon isn't reliable. —Farix (t | c

) 22:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why BMK has such a downer on Amazon. I fully support using the publisher rather than Amazon for expected publications, but without we have some clear evidence that Amazon is somehow manipulating the information they get from the publisher, then I see no problem with using Amazon as a reliable source for expected publications. Using language that makes it clear that the publication is in the future is what we should be doing as a matter of course. In the end, listing upcoming works from an author is a useful part of a biographical article (or one on a series of books) and we have to source the information from somewhere. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pete - I love Amazon. I buy a lot of stuff from there, and I've never been unhappy withe either the products or the service. Depending on what I buy it often gets to me the very next morning. It's pretty amazing.

But irrelevant. For a site to be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source, it has to fulfill certain criteria, and Amazon just doesn't, nor does any other store website. It's not what they're about, their function is to sell stuff, not to maintain a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They're not, by our policy, a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. BMK (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And just to make it clear that we are all discussing what we believe regarding WP-vis-a-vis-Amazon, I absolutely loathe Amazon. I purchase dozens of books a year. The last time I purchased something from them was because someone gave me a gift card. The two times before that were for extremely rare books that I found at Amazon affiliates. I absolutely cannot remember any earlier purchases, although I know I must have made them. But the consensus is that for a very narrow range of items, Amazon is

WP:RS, and I absolutely cannot understand how someone can't see this. Choor monster (talk

) 11:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no such consensus in this discussion as you state. BMK (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely here. It is not defined as unanimous opinion or even majority opinion, but simply reflects the weight of the arguments. You and others have given zero arguments against treating Amazon as

WP:RS

. That you keep beating this dead horse shows you simply are unwilling to actually discuss the issue. Your latest folly, where you trumpeted and crowed over Amazon, guessing that they're a bunch of morons who are too lazy to get it right, when in fact Amazon was absolutely correct and you were totally unaware of the concept of imprint and subsidiary (sort of like how you didn't know BookFinder was owned by AbeBooks, which has been owned by Amazon for quite some time) is pretty much proof that you are not bringing anything to this discussion.

As it is, I carefully did not say "this discussion". Unlike you, I knew what I what I was doing. See, for example, [58], and I have quoted above the WP ISBN page. Choor monster (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You have cited the existence of Amazon on the ISBN page numerous times as if it has some relevance here - it does not. There is nothing on

reliable sources page. That fact that Amazon is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, or that it exists on a page with a couple of dozen other sites, and that page comes up when you click an ISBN, has absolutely nothing to do with whether its reliable or not. That you continue to repeat it as if it does concerns me greatly. BMK (talk

) 07:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I cite it because it does have relevance.

WP:RS is explaining how to recognize RS's, not listing them. The ISBN page does many things as a convenience. In this instance, it explicitly goes beyond mere mention for convenience, but explicitly elevates Amazon as a reliable source of certain information for WP citation purposes. That you summarize the ISBN page here without mentioning this significant detail simply says you are just flinging words for the sake of flinging. That you continue to ignore this concerns me not at all. Choor monster (talk

) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster, your interpretation is bizarre in the extreme, really. BMK (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This from the person who thought that WorldCat was 100% reliable, even though its sole data point was Amazon? Or has repeatedly argued that commercial sites are inherent unreliable, even after you've been shown that's now WP policy? Or who can't even admit that he blundered incredibly when he claimed hardcore proof Amazon is unreliable because you were too incompetent to distinguish between an owner and an imprint? You have no arguments, and we all know it. Choor monster (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not true; we don't all know it. Again, you being unconstructively heated and personal. Amazon's "sole data point" are publishers, whose reliability you rubbish further down the page. Amazon's reliability for checking an ISBN of an already published book has nothing to do with its reliability that a book will appear in a certain month a year from now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not rubbish publishers' reliability below. I simply agree that they are not 100% accurate. We do not have a 100% accuracy requirement. For someone who is complaining about me being "unconstructively heated and personal", you have an incredibly poor track record. You repeatedly falsify statements, saying I've included a "guarantee" by including a future date, that if I update information on Wikipedia I'm "massaging" the data, that when I mention completely routine facts like publishers have physical copies of a book long before the rest of the world does, I'm making things up, your claiming that I'm insisting that we treat highly obscure, highly non-notable books on the same level as the big boys, and so on.

The problem is that we're talking about an announcement of a future event. For other media and products, we don't "announce" something in Wikipedia's voice unless one of two things has happened, 1. We have independent sources that say that the producer has made significant investment and concrete physical steps to finish the project (this is the case for films, for instance, which generally need to have started actual shooting) or 2. We have multiple third-party sources that say anticipation for the product is somehow notable in itself. We seem to be throwing all of this out in this case. For books, if we say Amazon (or even a thin publisher entry) is good enough by itself, then we are saying we should add material based on filling in an Amazon form where the publisher can withdraw or significantly delay the title with almost no notice. The book we're discussing hasn't even been the subject of a press release. It's arguably less of an issue for those books from bigger names like this one, but it's still not appropriate to consider Amazon a good enough reliable source for a book that hasn't happened yet. Amazon announces books that don't happen. Amazon announces books that have no notability with any reliable source.[59] Those facts put Amazon reliability at the same level as IMDB. Fine for checking possibilities, but not for certainties. Stale announcements make otherwise good articles look like garbage. When Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize, people around the world saw an article explaining when her next book would come out, two books behind reality. The only argument I've heard for putting in future announcements with no third-party sourcing is that they'll probably be verifiable for some percentage of the times we do it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is rambling irrelevant nonsense. You invent policy regarding product announcements contrary to what I've quoted at you before from

WP:THIRDPARTY by including the one-source item in the Lethem article. And you cite an example of a totally non-notable forthcoming book as if—I give up, I have no idea. How, exactly, has Amazon harmed its reliability regarding mainstream publishers? And your description of the Munro article is blatant falsehood. Her two most recent reprint collections were red-links at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, nothing of concern whatsoever. Choor monster (talk

) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the fact that Alice Munro had mention in the article of her "future writing plans" from the perspective of 2009, that managed to wheeze into 2013. My point was that these announcements become stale very easily, it happens across many articles, and that any editor who puts in too much material primarily based on a speculation, is creating avoidable work that often remains unencyclopedically for years. I never cited

WP:THIRDPARTY so I can't be citing it inaccurately; it's strange that you insist I did. (You really should take back or strike all of your personal attacks about "falsehood" and "misleading" anyway, it's disruptive.) The intent of Crystal is to minimize rumour and speculation. It doesn't mean we are encouraged to have any amount of unverifiable material as long as we keep it in articles. Better to not have it, or as Blueboar suggests make it clear that it is an attribution regarding an event that may not even happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E

12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But quoting Munro's plans in 2009 is nothing of concern in 2013. Quoting her plans from 1989 would be fine too. We have been talking about listing forthcoming books, so if you secretly changed the issue, you are engaged in blatant falsehood just the same: you mentioned "two books" behind. What books were they?

You most certainly did quote from

WP:THIRDPARTY

, the bit about multiple third party sources, but you did not cite it.

Product announcements OK, Rumor and Speculation not OK. CRYSTAL#5 says so explicitly. In the contexts of books, it means we leave out party talk that makes it into print, as often happened with Pynchon. Choor monster (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks and bad faith assumption. I never quoted from or cited the essay

WP:THIRDPARTY (an absolutely bizarre thing to be insistent about). At the time of Alice Munro's win, we had material talking about how she was planning to work on a book we also reported was finished. This was in addition to two other compilations of her work coming out in that period. Speculation gets stale, and that's an example among many. Now, your replies are taking on pretty aggressive wording and you're becoming self-contradictory in your accusations ("You cited THIRDPARTY" "You didn't cite THIRDPARTY"). I think you're making this more personal than it has to be.__ E L A Q U E A T E

13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You said "multiple third-party sources" as if it were policy, and as if it were a requirement for

WP:THIRDPARTY

, and runs contrary to your claims, still stands.

And I repeat, there is absolutely nothing bizarre, untoward or wrong about quoting someone about future plans. That the article poorly correlated what Munro said in 2009 with what Munro actually did means nothing whatsoever, other than, somewhere on WP, an article needed cleanup. To mention it in this discussion about citing forthcoming books implied there were in fact two books listed as forthcoming long after they had been published. And there weren't. There were two books red-linked. Sean Connery once said "never again" regarding Bond films, and boy, was he wrong. Choor monster (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point to consider in this issue is the current mess between Amazon and Hachette. While removing pre-order links or manipulating the claims of available copies due to contract disputes is far different from publication dates, it does show that we shouldn't trust Amazon for uncorroborated information. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I also feel that people have been relying on their gut feelings about Amazon's reliability and not giving much thought to all the times it does stuff like this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again... so much depends on how you phrase things... Amazon is not reliable for saying that a book will be released in January of 2016... it is reliable for saying that a book is expected to be released in January of 2016. It may not be the most reliable source (and I have no problem with favoring a more reliable source, if one is available)... but it is a reliable source for the expected release date. It qualifies as a reliable primary source for the expected release date. If necessary, we can even attribute the information ("Amazon has announced an expected released date of January, 2016"). The point is... if amazon announces a release date of X, then it is a reliable primary source for the fact that amazon has announced a release date of X. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When Amazon adds the "Jan 2016" date to a book, that is only say "This is when we want to take your money and ship you a book". Reasonably, this should be when they expect they will get the book from the publisher and 90% of the time I expect they are right. But Amazon has enough questionable business practices that if the date cannot be corroborated with a sourced directly related to the book, we have to question if that date is legit. It is better to be absent of information as to include potentially wrong information. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A great big "so what?" to Elaqueate's link. I've watched numerous forthcoming books on Amazon for almost two decades now, and I have seen some cancelled or their dates pushed back, sometimes for several years. 10% of the Olympics have been cancelled, yet we've got

WP:RS

because they sometimes get it wrong. Or at least, never ever cite them (or any other newspaper) without explicit attribution every single time.

Amazon's questionable business practices do not seem to impact on the accuracy rate of ship dates, and therefore it is not an issue for discussion. The fact is the taking-money part (which we are not interested in) is very strongly expected to coincide with the book-finally-ready part (which we are interested in), whether or not they are the Embodiment of Evil in their war on publishers, competitors, employees and readers. Choor monster (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To be completely on point, no one has offered any proof or specific source that Amazon has a source-(not editor)-recognized reputation for accuracy in these dates, or how often they get amended. The New York Times has published corrections, Amazon moves dates around without any history of what they've changed. There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy, not an argument that the absence of that reputation is good enough. Discussions like this make it clear that Amazon's "publication dates" concerning books in the past are not as trustworthy as something like Worldcat. Amazon probably shouldn't be used solely on its own, when there's no independent source corroborating notability or detail.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I prefer "leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day" as I said above. The accuracy rate, which we wish to keep high, is improved this way. Meanwhile, the link you cite above is amongst librarians who want the exact date for their records. Your summary is highly inaccurate. It's simply a handful of librarians sharing their experience, not very different than what we are doing here, except we're not librarians. Meanwhile, one stated that WorldCat is more accurate than Amazon for older books only. Older was not defined, perhaps before Amazon's existence? The takeaway message I get from the discussion is that Amazon is more reliable for forthcoming books, and that Amazon has zero motive for getting past publication history correct, and that "publication date" is frankly not well-defined. For what it's worth, WorldCat for forthcoming books will typically link to Amazon and nobody else, as I noticed with the Lethem book. Smaller bookstores typically sell books before the publisher's official date, for example, while Amazon is not allowed to.

I've also noticed publishers sometimes do a lousy job with describing their own inventory. I've seen books listed as ready for immediate shipment on Amazon while still listed by the publisher as forthcoming on a date from two weeks past. What's going on, of course, is the publisher hasn't quite figured out this Internet webpage thingie yet. Or they just do a monthly update, since their bottom line is essentially whatever Amazon and B&N sell, and that's the part that everybody involved gets right. I'd call that fact-checking on Amazon's part.

You said, There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy. Ultimately, that's your own made-up requirement. Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the requirement "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", either that reputation should be blatently obvious (hence why the NYTimes and the BBC are highly regarded sources) or we have citable evidence that a work is reputable. Amazon does not have word-of-mouth reputation for release dates so we need evidence that positively shows they are reputable --MASEM (t) 18:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon most certainly does have a reputation that it correctly lists upcoming publications. The mainstream press routinely cites Amazon figures for pre-publication information of forthcoming notable books. Why would they do that if they thought their readers didn't buy into the relevance of Amazon pre-publication information? (Feel free to ignore the Washington Post on this topic.) Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found two NYT articles that mention Amazon getting a forthcoming date wrong. One is [60], the NYT review of American Prometheus (2005). The review begins by mentioning that Amazon "inadvertently listed" a book on Oppenheimer as available "12/31/2025" when in fact the book was due in a few months. (It is entirely unclear if the reviewer meant the book under review or another book.) The other is [61], from a 2002 article on the delay of Harry Potter #5, and how everyone from distraught 11-year-old girls and harassed bookstore clerks to top Stochastic executives were coping. And Amazon stopped taking pre-orders. (The article does not say, but I would speculate that they were predicting the book would be noticeably bigger and thus pricier, so it was time to stop offering too much of a giveaway.)

I find it telling that the writers thought it interesting to highlight Amazon getting it wrong. Why would they think that such a trivial little factoid would pique their readers' reading pleasure? Because, quite simply, the readers could not help but interpret it as the giant was tripping a teensy bit and such trips are unusual enough that pointing them out is worth a smirk. Choor monster (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't really about Amazon. It's about whether we cover future releases of books, films, music etc. Previous consensus is that we don't, and I don't see any argument here why we ought to change that. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous consensus is most certainly that we do cover future releases, the question is how. I believe you are thinking of the standard for WP articles about future releases, which is rather high. As pointed out in

WP:RS. Choor monster (talk

) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is not exactly encouraging about including future publication. If we can reliably source that a film is in production or if an author says in an interview what the subject-matter of her new book will be, then fine. Otherwise, just wait till the thing has actually appeared. Amazon not reliable for this purpose, no bookshop reliable. They rely of course on publishers' dates and those are liable to change at short notice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:FLAT

. It would be nice if every factoid entered into WP was absolute truth, but that doesn't happen, and arguing against particular factoids because sometimes they end up getting revised is an argument that belongs nowhere on WP. The question is whether Amazon is a reliable source for a particular class of factoid (predicted mainstream publishers' dates) and the answer is yes, they are. The question has never been whether Amazon is a reliable source for what will actually happen in the future. For the record though, the bigger publishers do very well at meeting their target dates. Like movies, the big money is in the initial splash, and that requires advance coordination done right.

As the discussion above pointed out, there are other sources of information about future product releases that have a very poor reputation, like video games, and there exist guidelines that severely restrict what is allowable for that. In contrast, there are future product releases that everyone agrees are likely enough certainties, like movies that have reached a certain expensive threshhold, that not just mention, but separate article creation is encouraged. The Novels WikiProject discourages prepublication article creation except when the prepublication buzz is itself notable (as with the later Harry Potter novels).

I mentioned above an extreme example of future product information can be found in the J. K. Rowling article. Sourced from the NYT itself, the WP article tells us she is working on three more Harry Potter universe movies. I see absolutely nothing improper here. You say we're supposed to keep this factoid out of WP until the movies are actually made? Choor monster (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If something has prepublication buzz, noted in secondary sources, then a mention could be in the article (There's also an important difference between "allowed" and your idea that inclusion of this material is "encouraged"). That's not the case for most films and books. It's not the case here. Amazon is not a reliable source on its own that a book will happen or that it will be a notable publication of a subject, before even a single secondary source has ever commented on its existence. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Prepublication buzz is a requirement for a separate article for a novel before publication, and prerelease buzz and a certain financial threshold is a requirement for a separate article for a movie before release, according to the respective WikiProject's policies. This has not been the question here. We are not advocating violations of

WP:RS issue. Choor monster (talk

) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I never quoted

WP:V. The only reason I was talking about buzz is that you were bringing up examples where the presence of buzz as reported by the Washington Post and the NY Times as the reliable sources is the reason for including it in the article. That has nothing to do with whether Amazon is a reliable source all by itself. This future book by Lethem has not been mentioned by a single third-party RS that I can find. I agree with Itsmejudith that Amazon and bookshops shouldn't be considered uninvolved third party sources for some speculative detail about a book they're trying to sell you.__ E L A Q U E A T E

18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, Notability is not really a factor here... we are not talking about using Amazon to establish that the book itself is notable enough for an article... the article in question isn't about the book... it's an article about the author (that makes a difference). So... This is a Verifiability issue, not a Notability issue. Amazon is being used to verify one small statement in the article... a specific bit of information... (that one of the author's upcoming books is currently expected to be released on X date). Amazon is a reliable source for that small statement, for that bit of information. Sure, it may not be the most reliable source possible for the statement... but it is reliable enough that we can use it until a more reliable source is found. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I never meant notability for article creation, just that material included in an article is better with some sense that third party sources take it as interesting or important somehow. Amazon "announces" thousands of yet-unpublished things we wouldn't treat as significant enough to include in articles, based on an Amazon entry alone. I think Amazon can be used to help corroborate another's claim, but it's often unreliable all by itself. I don't think we should treat it any differently than things like film studios, such as

List of Warner Bros. films#Upcoming, where we only include material that has third party confirmation of its worth or accuracy, and have nothing from years in the future. If we say Amazon is an RS all by itself we'll be adding mention in articles for "books" that have been promised for 2016 only by Amazon itself. Warner Bros. has lists of movies it says will be available in 2016, but we require more than their word.__ E L A Q U E A T E

18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There's too much text above for me to be sure someone hasn't already said this. But I have personal knowledge that Amazon will often make up a release date or ask for a rough guess in the absence of a publisher having set one, because their system likes to have a date (who is ever going to pre-order something that has no release date?). I imagine other online stores do the same thing. Formerip (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Which, again, is an indication that while Amazon is not reliable for the un-hedged statement:

• "Book Title (2016)"

it is reliable for the hedged statement:

• "Book Title (estimated 2016)".

We don't expect an estimates to be accurate... we simply expect it to be verifiable. And Amazon is reliable when it comes to verifying its own estimate. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to summarize the numerous very bad arguments made against Amazon as
  WP:RS
  . They have simply been a waste of time.

1. We are discussing
   WP:N
   . The standards for verifiability are much lower than notability.
2. WP:CRYSTAL
   #5 explicitly permits product announcements. Any criticism based on the fact that such forward-looking statements might turn out to be wrong is irrelevant, since policy permits them. We typically do not quote a product announcement, we simply relay the particulars that we are interested in. And that includes announced date of availability. As a sub-point, note that pretty much all the facts about anybody or anything are subject to change. People's names and sex. We have reliable sources that say his name is "Jonathan Lethem" and that he is a he. The book itself may change title or publisher on short notice. We don't suppress any of this information because it might change. If it does, we update. But maybe nobody will update, and there will be an error in WP. That is beyond preposterous as a concern. There is no requirement anywhere that only factoids with some kind of guaranteed fix are allowed.
3. Amazon is a commercial enterprise. This is perfectly acceptable, almost almost all our
   WP:RS are commercial enterprises. Masem mentioned the Hachette dispute. Amazon is certainly willing to throw its weight around, and they have proved willing to lose lots of money as part of their business tactics. So, while it's easy to speculate as to what Amazon has actually done against Hachette, facts are much better. Here's a link to a recent story (last Wed, 6/11/14) [62]
   . Amazon has stopped taking pre-orders. The article mentions one book (by J K Rowling under a pseudonym!) with a publication date this Thursday, 6/19/14. Amazon lists it with that date also, and no, you can't pre-order it. The article mentions several other big name authors affected. Note that there are negotiations in progress. But not lawsuits. I assume that means no one has broken any contracts. Note too that Amazon's reliability has been found questionable on this noticeboard for particular things, including blurb quotes or reviews. In the case of items that Amazon's bottom-line depends on getting correct, no one questions them. They are presumed to get the author and title correct, for example, not out of noble helpfulness but since their income depends on it. The same presumption favors trusting the publication date as being usually correct: Amazon really really wants to collect their customers' money as soon as possible, and really really does not want to deal with irate customers. (On a personal note, I once, about 10 years ago, pre-ordered with Amazon a multivolume $700 technical handbook, finally ready after 10 years, in order to pay only $600. The publisher delayed and delayed for two years, eventually I gave up, eventually a year later it was available, by then I found it for $500 at some other seller. So yes, I am quite familiar with Amazonsometimes gets it wrong, even way wrong. The question here is whether Amazon is reliably relaying information from the publisher, no more, no less, not whether the publisher has correctly predicted the future.)
4. Amazon fills in a date for some publishers. This is, I believe, their policy with small and self-publishers. I also don't believe this is for the sake of their software, which would be easy to adjust, but really it's essentially marching orders to the little guys. Essentially, Amazon is scheduling somebody's long tail of 50-5000 copies at Amazon's own convenience, since typically the little guy is somewhat incompetent. For the most part, these aren't books we're going to be mentioning in WP. I suspect this is where the 12/31/2025 date came from in an old NYT link I provided above. Somebody, either the publisher or Amazon, put in a date for the sake of software that requires a date. How things were done ten years ago is not really germane, but if the publisher did that and forgot to fix it, then it would be an instance of Amazon reliably passing on publisher's information.
5. Amazon does not meet the
   WP:RS
   guidelines involving fact-checking. As pointed out, these are guidelines, and taking them literally regarding every possible fact was dismissed as so much wikilawyering. The idea that Amazon has to have a fact-checking guy call up and personally verify trivial information that computers handle so much better is for Luddites, not the 21st century. The guideless specifically mention "common sense".
6. Amazon's dates aren't always correct. Irrelevant, since
   WP:RS
   does not require perfection.

• In summary, I have not seen one argument here against Amazon's reliability regarding release information of mainstream publishers' books. Masem came close by raising the Hachette (also Time-Warner, btw) dispute, but that's it. Choor monster (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy rehash of everything in your own words. Number five is the best. It's where we admit that Amazon doesn't fit the guidelines, but that we could sometimes allow it under

RS. I still think it generally should only be put in when it's corroborated by another source.__ E L A Q U E A T E

18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like the idea that people would use an unreliable source just because it's convenient (and they think reliability is "

undue to include that information. If there's a corroborating source, then why do we even need Amazon.com? Maybe I'm a hardliner, but I'd personally put Amazon.com on the blacklist. There's never any reason to link to online stores. You wouldn't link to Newegg.com in the article on Microsoft, would you? Well, why would you link to Amazon.com for a Stephen King article? I agree with BMK. Avoid Amazon.com; they are here to sell things, not to publish reliable information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 05:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have an argument against reliability. That's it. You are against using a commercial source, but there is no restriction against using commercial sources per se. For the record, BMK actually does not have an argument against the reliability of Amazon. He edit-warred for a week on Jonathan Lethem, his sole unwavering objection to Amazon was that it was "commercial". He supported BookFinder, even after having it explained to him that they too were commercial (owned by AbeBooks), and only gave it up after I informed him that AbeBooks was owned by Amazon. He then accepted WorldCat, despite the fact that it was relying solely on AbeBooks (and not on any library catalog, the book not yet in any library). And he point-blank refused to discuss the issue on the Talk page. Until finally he came up with "clever" idea that under some definitions of "fact-checking" (pre-computer), Amazon does not "fact-check". Thanks for bringing up the real issue, the one BMK has not had the honesty to admit here: people don't like using store catalogs whatsoever, but they are not prohibited. And in the specific case of Amazon and books, as quoted above, WP has a special page that provides links to Amazon for the express purpose of verifying information.

Elaqueate: as usual, you simply exaggerate into utter ridiculosity. Try something intelligenter, OK?

As a side point, the question of whether we cite forward-looking statements bluntly or with equivocation is entirely independent of reliability. That is a question of style. We don't put in spoiler or NSFW tags. Why should we put "this article contains forward-looking statements, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance" warnings in? What else is a statement about the future? Choor monster (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monsater, perhaps you should realize that on a consensus-based project, when you are basically the only one supporting your argument, you can use all the rhetorical tricks and devices you want, but you cannot prevail. You can rephrase the arguments of your opponents to make them seem absurd, you can argue against the editor rather then their arguments, you can even utilize the

Big Lie and say that there is a consensus here to support the use of Amazon.com as a reliable source, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such consensus and no amount of rhetorical slight of hand is going to make one exist. For this reason, the next time I come across an editor -- any editor, including yourself -- using Amazon.com as a reference, I will delete it and cite this discussion, comfortable with the expectation that any reasonable editor who follows up and reads what is here will see the clear consensus against using Amazon -- and other solely commercial sites -- as reliable sources.

Now, all that there is to say having been said (and, at times, re-said ad infinitum), I think a neutral party could close this discussion, lest we continue going around in the same unproductive circle. BMK (talk

) 23:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

BMK... consensus?... where do you see consensus against using Amazon. Looking at the discussion, we have two very vocal editors (Choor monster and Elaqueate) who have dominated the discussion (Choor arguing that Amazon is reliable, Elaqueate arguing it isn't)... and a handfull of others who agree that Amazon is reliable for some statements, but not for others. If there is a consensus here, it's in favor of the hedged "sometimes it is, but not always" viewpoint... and I would call it a very week consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to mention me, we should be clear I'm not against all uses of Amazon. I think Amazon can be useful as a way to quickly corroborate another citation for things like the spelling of an author's name or an ISBN. That's how it is mentioned in Wikipedia:Book sources and that's a fairly non-controversial use, as it doesn't then recommend citing Amazon itself. But the arguments presented by others here make it clear that Amazon is either passing along a broad guess dressed up as a specific day that they've extracted from every type of publisher, reliable or not, or they've made it up themselves. If you look at their policies, Amazon doesn't guarantee that any of the product information is accurate, current, ever updated, etc. That's not really surprising if it's sometimes random-partner-supplied, sometimes fabricated. Regarding BMK's original question, I still haven't seen an argument that Amazon has any reputation for reliability in this specific area, across some majority of the books it lists, just that some editors assume they do. Absence of a reputation shouldn't be treated the same as a good reputation.
I see many misgivings from multiple editors in the above conversation about using Amazon as a source all by itself without any other source involved. It wouldn't surprise me if they get the scheduled publication date for a Harry Potter book mostly correct, but most of the people who would want to cite book announcements based on an Amazon citation alone are not going to be for that level of book. There's been a suggestion to only cite Amazon for bigger books, but I think the only way to know if it's a bigger book is if you show that it has some mention in the world beyond a single lonely "Coming soon" Amazon reference. I don't see a consensus to use Amazon when the only available source for the information is Amazon.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know that is your opinion on the issue. You have expressed your opinion repeatedly. Others, however, disagree with you. They think Amazon is an acceptable source... or at least reliable for a hedged statement of "expected release date" or "estimated release date". Perhaps it would be best to end the discussion with a "No Consensus". We have gotten to the point of (repeatedly) reiterating our various opinions, and it is not likely that anyone involved so far will change their stated opinion. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And others disagree with you as well, so yes, a No Consensus is probably justified. I also found the "doesn't meet guidelines, in some cases IAR" argument not awful.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed more than a limited reliability for Amazon, in this context, a sometimes reliable conduit for

WP:CRYSTAL

#5, and as such, has simply not been contributing one iota to this discussion.

A publisher may well have their own reasons for delaying a webpage announcement. They're waiting on cover art, or book tour information, or tie-in deals, or the like. Since they do not normally handle sales, the webpage serves as part of an advertizing campaign more than as a catalog. A half-finished page may strike the publisher as worse than none. Amazon, meanwhile, is happy to treat a forthcoming book like any other book on its pages. Choor monster (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• And how does No Consensus translate into actual practice? Something other than edit wars, right? Choor monster (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painite

Content From: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Painite&oldid=613354583

Sample from editor deleted history: The 25.92-carat (5.18 g) Ophir Painite, owned by the Ophir Collection, has been recognized by Guinness World Records as the largest cut painite in the world[8].

Question on Reliable Sources: An editor said that the Guinness Book of World Records published reference book is a valid reference, but deferred to this forum regarding whether the website is a valid reference. The Source post at the top from the Guinness website was posted to the web in 2014 and the record was issued only 6 months ago (December 20th 2013). After inspecting the HTML code on the website the copyright is dated 2014. So the question remains, why would a dated physical publication be necessary to reference when the website is more timely and just as official? Is the website a valid reference?

If the answer is no, then I believe a VERY LARGE amount of content will necessarily need to disappear from wikipedia and calls into question the entire idea of an internet based encyclopedia if we are going back the Gutenberg Press... — Preceding unsigned comment added by OphirCollection (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 June 2014

Online sources are in no danger of being excluded from Wikipedia. Guinness World Records is a reliable source of some of their award-giving activities but is not a reliable source for whether a particular award is considered significant or accurate. Their website seems like a reliable source as a record of the awards they've given out, as a private company. Guinness World Records should not be treated as a reliable source, without direct inline attribution, that the claims they award for are true. For instance, they don't scientifically measure all hot dogs to find the largest one, they choose between people who self-select and actively apply for the designation. There is also still a question of whether any particular "Guinness World Record" is important enough to include in an article; they include completely trivial records like "Greatest distance travelled with a pool cue balanced on chin" and "Largest screwdriver" and other things that would not substantially improve many articles on related subjects. Your user name suggests you might have a COI with this material and that its inclusion may be sought for a directly self-promotional purpose, so I think it's fair that there should be some indication that this particular designation (among the unknown thousands of designations by GWR) is taken seriously by another RS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is on value of reference not COI, but I agree that there are many trivial awards given out by Guinness World Records like largest screwdriver. However, awards given out for largest specimen for a category of gemstones seems hardly trivial. Guinness World Records consults with gem labs worldwide in order to verify that no lab in the world has seen a larger specimen before recognizing a given stone as a record. As far as self-selection and perfect knowledge, this is a tall order. Records are made to be broken, and if someone has a larger specimen then they need only apply to receive a larger record. Should wikipedia deny reference to Olympic records because someone somewhere was a faster runner but chose not to compete? This is in fact what happens all the time with recognitions of anything. Ever watched Good Will Hunting? The deleted edit simply states what is an irrefutable fact i.e. that Guinness World Records has "recognized" the painite as the largest cut specimen in the world. GIA certificates were used in the application process, and the edit stated what the current website from Guinness stated.

If the editor in question were only referring to COI issues then there would not have been a post on this page, however, this editor questioned the validity of Guinness website, so that is the question as hand. Since this is not a screwdriver, but something made by God and recognized as unique, does this post merit inclusion as a reference? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite

What I find particularly uneven in this editing process is the reference to guinness, made by another, was left intact. See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzanite wikipedia page. The same editor didn't remove that edit, but removed my edits of it to make it more accurate. The way it reads now it looks like both stones are Guinness recognized whereas only one is. Granted I'm very new to wikipedia but this seems very arbitrary........--OphirCollection (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this I've found that I really have no alternative but to issue a promotional username block. It's pretty blatant and there is possibly a lot of money involved. They can of course create a new account without a commercial name.

talk

) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to raise a discussion about one aspect of the elsewhere, to confirm my own understanding that holding a GWR record does not guarantee notability. I see that is indeed generally accepted, as is the fact that it not even automatically worth being included in an article (though it often will be). The question of whether a record there is evidence for the particular achievement being an actual world record for something we consider important enough to mention seems to be well understood also, that it is one picce of evidence, but not definitive. I'm not sure about the more limited question, whether its particular data points are accurate: if it says A.B. did indeed eat X hotdogs, can it be assumed that A.B. did indeed eart that number (separate from the possibility that someone ate more, ot that it is no encyclopedic interest in any case) . My own view is that in this limited sense, it does authenticate its data. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The GWRs appear to be a key part of the marketing of the collection at the moment e.g.ATLANTA/EWORLDWIRE/June 16, 2014. "Containing the world's largest gemstones, the Ophir Collection (http://www.OphirCollection.com), owned by Ophir Collection LLC, has been awarded nine GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS(R) titles...The Ophir Collection is currently available for sale to qualified buyers." Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that a GWR listing is any kind of assurance that a record holder is notable, or that a specific record is worthy of mention in the encyclopedia. Notability requires much more than a listing. Mentioning records is a matter of editorial judgment, and at first thought, I see no reason to mention the world's largest screwdriver in our article about that tool. But world's records are often notable and widely discussed elsewhere, and Guiness is a respected source for such records. So, GWR should be considered a reliable source for stating that the Guiness World Record for X is X. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the other information in painite, this appears to be a very rare, and relatively recently-discovered type of mineral. (Just a couple dozen specimens collected before 2005.) It doesn't have anything even approaching the cultural, economic, or historical significance of other, better-known gems or minerals. (To be honest, it doesn't seem to have any cultural, economic, or historical significance.) The question of due weight seems more problematic than the question of reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this book The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam: Volume 1 reliable? Please read about its description in Amazon [63]. There are no reviews there. Read about author description too [64] . Is that reliable book to cite in Islam articles? -

1. The title says it all, really. Its published by "authorhouse", which is a self-publishing outfit [65]. So the answer is no. I'm sure volume 2 will be great, though. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. The book summary asserts that Ataturk was a "secret Jew", and that when Columbus reached America he discovered mosques there. Doesn't sound very reliable to me! RolandR (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. No it is not reliable. TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Self-published conspiracy theory; not reliable. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Not even remotely reliable for anything other than what the author states. Not backed by an independent publisher. Not held in **any** Worldcat library. Pretty funny though. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Not reliable. The book has content from Wikipedia also - Page 184 for instance. That causes cyclic reference. --Jyoti (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
7. WP:SNOWing not reliable. No independent publisher, and the language alone makes it clear that not even a competent copy-editor has ever handled this book. --Stephan Schulz (talk
   ) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI - We keep a list of

Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies. If anyone finds a self-publishing company not on this list (apparently "authorhouse" isn't), please add it to the list. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 22:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used this site many times to source info on songs and albums. I have been told that it is not a reliable source as it is user generated. Some of it is but a lot of it isn't. Should it be considered an unreliable source. The article in question Shanghai'd in Shanghai has now been redirected to an album page, mostly because this website was removed as unreliable--Egghead06 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See

here. User-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. Discogs is mentioned specifically as a source to avoid. Caper454 (talk

) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That only says this site may be unreliable and does not include it specifically in the list of unreliable sites. There is a lot on this site not user generated, so should there be a carpet ban on this site as at the moment it is not listed as such?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, Discogs is mentioned specifically as a source to avoid. According to this, it seems that as of 2008 all material on discogs.com is user submitted and takes effect immediately, meaning the possibility of zero editorial oversight exists. Entries are checked for "correctness & completeness" later via votes. Even the mods who check accuracy seem to be just users as well. Caper454 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I find discogs accurate (as opposed to wp-reliable), so I wouldn't be alarmed about its limited use on WP. If an article requires discogs for its existence, I think that is a problem, though.

I'd also query whether we really should class it as a site to avoid, because it just consists of scans of and transcriptions from record sleeves, done by volunteers and moderated by other volunteers. There are sites run in that way that we probably would consider reliable (Gutenberg, Internet Archive), and the only difference is probably how noble we consider the volunteers to be.

I'm not arguing for discogs to have some kind of special status, but I think we should generally be relaxed about it.

Anyway, no-one will know if you pretend you got the information from the record sleeve. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, discogs is very often my first port of call, before I look for "wiki-correct" sources. It has a vast amount of useful information. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used it many times and some very experienced editors have reviewed my articles all with no complaint concerning this site. It is also widely used by others on articles about songs and albums.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

None of this makes the source reliable. Caper454 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't and that's why I came here to get other editors views. Anything I can find on Discogs I can source elsewhere. I only need a view as to further use and opinion seems to be not to use it. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but I think it provides a good example of where turning a blind eye will most often be the best thing to do. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Turning a blind eye is only effective as long as no one bothers to revert it based upon the fact that it's unreliable. It's by no means a valid argument. Caper454 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you argue that its unreliability is based on the fact that material is added immediately, and reviewed only later, you must accept that its reliability increases as time goes on? I would guess that those who add material at discogs are committed fans/ genre specialists who have no vested interest in deliberately adding spurious information. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that this not a reliable source. You can use it as a starting point for your research, like the

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job it is not used much on Wiki then!!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is rankopedia.com a reliable source? e.g. [66] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how its motto is "vote, create, & debate!" I'd say it's a user-generated source and therefore even less reliable than a public opinion poll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, what could be less reliable than a public opinion poll! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some cleanup is needed for its current uses. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a few of the articles which use rankopedia.

It's worth highlighting that there's a

WP:CIRCULAR problem in that much content is copied from wikipedia. See, for example, "Greatest French American of all time", a ranking based on our List of French Americans. Interestingly, the top-ranked French American is an obscure "Antoine Bello", who is also - quelle coïncidence! - the founder of Rankopedia. He succeeds in several other rankings too. bobrayner (talk

) 16:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not RS. Simple. Collect (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement at Fallen angel about the reliability of the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion for the sentence: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as 'ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel', and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12". I say that, in Wikipedia terms, this work is a reliable source for the sentence, and that anyone who disagrees is free to add to it a citation of some source that he or she believes outweighs it. User:In ictu oculi removes the sentence on the grounds that what the ODJR states "is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is 14:12 when no Jewish source does", and that, "if we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha, we need more competent sources". See Talk:Fallen angel#Reliable source. Is the cited source reliable for the sentence in question? Esoglou (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a tertiary source. Is the idea found also in secondary sources? Itsmejudith (talk)

I don't know. I also don't know if any secondary source actually denies the idea, whatever about being synthesized as denying it. It would probably be synthesis also to present as supporting the idea the statement "Heylel (Isa. xiv. 12), the 'day star, fallen from heaven', is interesting as an early instance of what, especially in pseudepigraphic literature, became a dominant conception, that of fallen angels", which is found online here (halfway down the right-hand column of page 400 of the New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia) and elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are not saying that, even in the absence of secondary sources, no tertiary source is reliable. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A tertiary source such as this one can generally be considered a reliable summary of the scholarly literature. Is there a reason to dispute this tertiary source aside from the lack of personal familiarity relevant secondary sources? Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi seems to object that the source involves an "anachronistic, mish-mashing Christian myths back into Judaism", which would seem to be at least a justifiable view, from what I've read in the more detailed secondary literature on the topic. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course tertiary sources are acceptable. That's not the real issue though. If the statement is uncontroversial relatively poor sources may be acceptable. If the statement is problematic than they may not be. In this case it's difficult to say. The well known book Satan: A Biography, does not attribute the developments to a misinterpretation of Isaiah, or rather places that later, with Origen. The author of the entry appears to have written and article on the pseudepigraphic

Wisdom of Solomon, which may articulate this view. There is the added difficulty of deciding what is meant or included by the concept "Satan", since that name is not used in some of the pseudepigraphic literature. These complexities tend to be compressed in tertiary literature. Paul B (talk

) 21:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not well versed on these matters, but a quick Google book search yields some findings about Satan and Jewish religion, for example Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years: [67] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're necessarily qualified to conclude this tertiary source is inaccurate because we are unable to locate its conclusions in the secondary literature ourselves. Has anyone consulted any of the five scholarly sources cited in this tertiary source? Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul B says complexities tend to be compressed in tertiary literature. Their compressions may surely be reported ("The ODJR says ..."). Then, if someone wants to suggest that a particular compression is misleading, they can simply add a source that they see as suggesting that the compression is misleading. But they can't object, especially but not solely if they cite no such doubt-raising source, to reporting the reliable source's compression. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is a tertiary source! Just because something is called an encyclopaedia or dictionary doesn't make it tertiary necessarily. This work is a collection of small articles signed by their authors. In this case, the author is "Dennis M. Dreyfus, Lecturer in History, Hunter College, The City University of New York". Assuming this person was qualified to write on the subject, his article is a secondary source. Mind you, I don't believe this makes much difference to the question of its reliability. Can you show it is a fringe opinion? Or contradicted by better sources? I don't have time to study it, so I don't know if I would put it in the article or not. However, I'll note that if you do the search satan "Isaiah 14.12" in Google Scholar you will find quite a few articles. Dr Dreyfus certainly did not invent the idea. Zero^talk 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well at least at first glance it is reputable scholarly tertiary source compiled by reputable scholars and published with a reputable scholarly publisher. In addition it is seems to be a rather recent publication (2011) with good reviews. So I see no way to dismiss that as source. You would need larger number of of high quality secondary sources that convincingly demonstrate why the Oxford encyclopedia is wrong in this instance, the chances for that are probably slim to none. So assuming nobody can compile such secondary sources or several clearly negative reviews of the encyclopedia, it cannot be excluded and the article simply has to describe dissenting scholarly views.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Th statement is attributed, rather than stated as fact. Wikipedia is not saying those things, it is saying the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion is saying those things. Does that make a difference? Howunusual (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian and ahmad ashraf claimed that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was paranoid. in 4 books & articles:

1. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. University of California Press, 1993.
   ISBN 978-0-520-08503-9
   .
2. The Coup: 1953, The CIA, and The Roots of Modern U.S. -Iranian Relations. New Press, 2013.
   ISBN 978-1-59558-826-5
   .
3. CONSPIRACY THEORIES”. In Encyclopædia Iranica. vol. VI. 1993. 138-147. Retrieved 4/23/2014.
4. in persian: «توهم توطئه». گفتگو (تهران) تابستان، ش. 8 (1374): 7 تا 46

my ask is are these books reliable for shah's paranoia?--Mazdak5 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The first yes, the second no idea. But a quick search on GBooks shows that ya. he was paranoid. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of Rankopedia, discussed above, what does this noticeboard think of The Top Tens? I'm concerned that it's user-generated, but it is cited in quite a range of articles. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also not RS. Nice to have such easy cases here. Collect (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've cleaned up every article that used it. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)