Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

An RfC has started on whether the word "terrorism" can be mentioned and discussed in the article space of several articles, and the question of whether or not the sourcing is adequate. Editors knowledgeable about

) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides Lew Rockwell, more than 350 of our articles link to lewrockwell.com (list at User:Tom harrison/rockwell-links.) How many of these are appropriate and useful? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm cross posting this at the Wikiproject econ. This is part of an ongiong dispute over the influence of the austrian school in our articles. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Lewrockwell.com also houses
    AIDS denialist material and is frequently cited by our small but committed group of AIDS-denialist editors. I have no idea about the econ articles, where I suppose it might be a borderline usable source in some circumstances, but I'll go through and look for areas where it's being cited outside that scope. MastCell ^Talk
    17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It is probably being cited well outside of its weight in econ sections to. the econ project has a long running issue with Austrian sources (which are almost all hosted free of charge online) being used in article where their connection to the mainstream is vanishingly tenuous. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) Mmmm... an
        WP:SPS used so widely in articles other than the author? That is very concerning. Given the long number of links it will take concerted effort to clean up. I will lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
        17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the link in
        talk
        ) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
        • It's an interesting test case: I perceive it as a school of thought which has a major Internet and Wikipedia presence out of proportion to its actual significance among experts in the field. We run into this problem fairly often in the medical/alt-medical articles. Wikipedia tends to over-cover such topics, because a handful of editors committed to adding their pet material across multiple articles will generally overwhelm a handful of general-purpose editors interested in
          a balanced representation. MastCell ^Talk
          17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Not much to add, except that fixing this up will almost certainly produce the usual disruptive reaction from the kinds of editors noted by Mastcell. Some sort of co-ordinated approach, backed by clearly stated applications of
            WP:RS is needed.JQ (talk
            ) 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, let me know what I can do.

talk

) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles linking to lewrockwell.com include

17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eeee. I just finished cleaning up our links to mercola.com, which was referenced from a similarly broad (and inappropriate) range of articles. I'll look at these a bit later today. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked for it in the caffeine article. Can't find a LewRockwell cite. Your list is probably outdated. Is there a tool which generates a list like this? II | (t - c) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse, the lewrockwell.com link at

talk

) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Caffeine article, you need to do Edit on the whole article and search it. I've left it as I don't have time to do a rewrite right now which taking the url out would probably require.

talk

) 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue should be the credibility of the individual authors of articles, not necessarily LewRockwell.com. If the authors are professionals, authors, experts, etc. with knowledge of the topic in question, great. If they are just opinion pieces, which many are, they are more easily challenged. So let's go by wikipedia policy and not go conducting a purge based on our own personal prejudices (Aka POV) against a particular viewpoint. Carol Moore 03:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Wikipedia policy says that lewrockwell.com isn't a reliable source. Lew Rockwell may be a reliable source, or other authors on there. But lewrockwell.com is not reliable. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If an individual generally recognized as a significant expert is published in LewRockwell.com, they are citeable, just as they would be citeable even on their own blog. However LewRockwell.com itself is clearly not reliable for WP's purposes. The judgment has nothing to do with "purges" based on "personal prejudices." The site is useful for quoting what "anarcho-capitalists" and "paleo-libertarians" are thinking, yes, but in most topic areas those groups are so utterly marginal as to be irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 01:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I gather that The Comics Journal is generally considered reliable. Is it a problem when they put Wikipedia in their bibliography for an article? In "Stop, My Butt Hurts!" The Yaoi Invasion (NSFW), they cite perhaps this version of Yuri and this version of Yaoi. Is it okay to selectively use parts of the TCJ article which don't bear resemblance to those old article versions? -Malkinann (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem at all. You are citing their work. The "circular reference" problem comes from cites which are just mirrors or forks of wikipedia being cited on wikipedia. sites which merely reference wikipedia as fine. I'm not sure what your second question means, though, can you elaborate? Protonk (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I mean - I've looked up the versions of our articles which TCJ would have seen when they wrote the article. It's ok to use the bits of TCJ's article which don't seem to be Wikipedia-derived? -Malkinann (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• As long as they are just using wikipedia as a reference in the same way you would use their journal as a reference (summarizing, rather than copying), you can cite any part of it. I imagine that you have looked through the articles here and the reference to see if there were any blocks of text copied right over. If you haven't found any, the whole article is ok. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is a documentary by

22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like yet another

WP:LAME edit war trying to win by disqualifying sources. Just cite it as the "Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV report says that..." Squidfryerchef (talk

) 23:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have put this stupid edit war to an end. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the question itself was phrased in a misleading manner. There is a widely documented, ongoing propaganda campaign against Falun Gong practitioners in China. The so called "pheonix TV video" being used as a source here is a video distributed by chinese consulates - the only thing is that it seems they had it aired on pheonix TV too. A major concern here is that the source itself is engaged in a big propaganda campaign. US Congress Resolution No. 188, Unanimously Passed, states : "propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination[against Falun Gong]" Another analysis worth considering is the RSF report on CCP Propaganda.

In specific, There are two aspects to consider:

• The video is a piece distributed through CCP controlled outlets and chinese consulates.
• Just because the chinese authorities had the video broadcasted on Pheonix TV dosnot make the "source" "Pheonix TV".

states:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not seriously calling

Xinhua for that matter) "extremist" are you? What's next, labelling Hu Jintao Hitler? Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: do you have any evidence that it is not from Phoenix TV but instead is made by Chinese authorities? This is really lame. --antilived^{T | C | G}

07:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. That a central interview in it is orchestrated. Independent, neutral productions donot have orchestrated interviews. Further is there any evidence to establish the video is neutral? I only see strong evidence to the contrary.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that the source of the video is not the TV stations? It sounds like the stations merely aired it, so the context on how they aired it is probably worth explaining. i.e. which TV program was it aired during? Dilip rajeev is saying that is distributed by the Chinese consulates? Who created the video?

) 09:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the information here by the two Canadians with regard to this documentary (a former crown prosecutor and MP, the other a human rights lawyer). It appears to be a propaganda piece (yes, in the context of persecuting/vilifying Falun Gong, CCP-affiliated media are extremist sources), but it should be allowed in this article under the condition that it is relevant to explain what other sources have said in response to it. Because of that video Kilgour and Matas say have confirmation of at least one of the transcripts of doctors admitting to going to prison to select Falun Gong practitioners for organ harvesting. There is a clause about reliable sources which allow otherwise unreliable or extremist sources under certain conditions. Under these conditions I think it would be appropriate to introduce the Phoenix production in order to illustrate these wider points which have been taken up by other sources.--Asdfg12345 10:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is appropriate to "introduce" it - as would be necessary to present evidence released by Kilgour Matas in August 2008. What I disagree with is presenting content from the video as if it were a legitimate analysis and as if the video and its propagandistic commentary somehow constitute a legitimate reason for "doubt" of the veracity of third party reports and analysis. Doing so is, as you yourself note, in violation of wikipedia policies. Please verify that this is exactly what the paragraph I removed does.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What? The station didn't merely aired it, it's presented by its usual presenter of the series (a programme similar to 60 Minutes in the US]]), Phoenix TV themselves have a page on this specific episode. The Chinese government may have endorsed it and distributed it through its embassies but is that necessarily a criteria for propaganda? Heck the FLG media heavily endorsed the K&M report, so does that count as FLG propaganda? How is this extremist? TV station sanctioned by the government? Well the K&M report is sanctioned AND paid for by FLG-groups, does that count as extremist? This double standard is alarming. --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying now is David Kilgour and David Matas were "bought"! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement sounds. Here is a video of the International Press Conference where Matas/Kilgour submit their reports. In the beginning itself they state the investigations were done voluntarily and were not funded by anyone.

Another aspect is that Falun Gong HR work, such as by faluninfo.net is accepted as accurate by the Human Rights community ( Ref David Ownby). There is no comparing this HR work with the baseless propaganda pushing by CCP. That the CCP has been engaging in a propaganda campaign aimed at inciting hatred against practitioners of Falun Gong has been documented by all major HR organizations, academics and governments.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Presented" in what sense? That pheonix TV has a page on it is only natural when they have aired it. Independent of all that, it has been proved, beyond doubt, by David Kilgour and David Matas that a central interview in it is an orchestrated piece. Kindly reply to the concerns I have raised in my post below.

Also note that sources including the WOIPFG, have stated that Pheonix TV has been used by the CCP and play an important role in propagating CCP propaganda and that its reports on critical topics never deviate from the party line. Reporters Sans Frontiers note that Liu Chang-le, the head of Phoenix Satellite Television Holdings was the former propaganda chief of the People’s Liberation Army.

RSF report on internet-censorship in China notes that "Phoenix TV is based in Hong Kong but its website is registered in Beijing, which makes it subject to Chinese legislation and to supervision by the Beijing Information Office. It applies a stricter censorship than Sina and Baidu’"

The reason why this video fails WP:RS has little to do with whether it was broadcasted by Phoenix TV or not - the central reason is that the vitiated nature of the video has been demonstrated by Kilgour and Matas in a recent update to their investigative reports.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but did I ever said "bought"? Stop stuffing words into other people's mouths. Not funded? Check out the appendix, in the

CIPFG

letter:

"The Coalition will pay for all your expenses upon presentation of receipts."

What they actually get paid is never announced, but I would've thought that FLG media would have been raving about how they didn't receive any money if they really did it for free (and being asked to work on something is not called volunteering).

I don't care what the HR community say, but has there been any accusation of propaganda for this particular video? Your jsf links are aimed at

Xinhua, K&M never called in propaganda in here

, so where's the evidence?

Presented as in the usual presenter, Zeng Zimo (曾子墨), hosting the interviews, the intros, the conclusion, etc.? Don't believe it? Go watch the video! Proven beyond doubt? They released the audio recording after they noticed this video, and now goes around saying they are the same person, with no endorsement by any audio engineer. There is no such thing as proving without doubt, so please refrain from your hyperboles next time.

Note the important part, "including the

cultural revolution. Do you know how long ago that was? Do you know the consequence of not getting involved back in those days? So you turn this into an ad hominem

attack on the CEO? Bravo, mon ami.

Yes, that's internet-censorship, and your point is? You do realise that internet and TV are separate media don't you?

Again, they never said those words, you did. These are your opinions, not theirs. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, stop thinking other editors will buy into your attempts to foul things up. Its only too conspicuous. You take a letter requesting independent investigation from CIPFG, in which they politely offer to reimburse costs of investigation - and twist it to push your vile, twisted story. The offer was obviously turned down by Kilgour- Matas. They also present the letter, openly, as part of appendix of their reports.See streaming videos of the International Press Conference where the reports were submitted. In the begnning itself, they emphatically state they did not receive any reimbursement and did the investigation independently and voluntarily.

Secondly, stop insulting others' intelligence and perhaps your own. It is obvious to anyone who goes through the evidence Matas/Kilgour has presented - what kind of video they are saying it is. ( Hint: A central interview in the video is orchestrated is what they establish ) I would urge you to stop personal attacks on others, including the aspersions you pile on Hon. David Kilgour and David Matas.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, if the CEO was a Cultural revolution guy - its like saying - oh he was just an ex-Nazi. You know how far back it was? I noted it here only because RSF reports considered it note-worthy.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats your point harping about the presenter of the video being the usual guy? Why, is the CCP known to be afraid of "usual" media show hosts? and refrain from injecting propaganda into shows any time he is around? They cannot broadcast anything in China that deviates from the party line without having to pack off. That even their website is highly monitored and censored only shows they do not function as an "independent" media in China.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Ok I guess that's irrelevant anyway, so I apologise for bringing it up in the first place. But even if they were not paid, they were still "sanctioned" by FLG media, promoted by FLG media (oh just do a Google search, more than half of the results are from FLG mouthpieces), so what makes it that this is OK but Phoenix TV is not?
• Yes it is obvious and you have attributed words which they have never said. It is your interpretation, so stop presenting like it's a known fact.
• No, a more appropriate analogy would be being a German citizen under the Nazi regime: you were coerced into putting up posters during the regime ("producing in propaganda") and then all you ever do must be taken with the notion that you did such thing? We don't know to what extent his involvement was, nor is it relevant, and it is a very hazardous thing to assume bad faith, to assume they're guilty unless proven innocent (oh the irony). --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That, I assume, is quite different from being the chief of a propaganda department

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like an analogy (I love analogies): Say you have 2 kids, kid a and kid b, fighting over something. Both claim that the other started it first, and kid a labeled kid b's argument as lies. Now what would you do when you write a report about this? That the fight is kid b's fault because kid a had given a response to kid b's argument, or do you note both their arguments AND kid a's response, but make it balanced so that neither view point is over represented (or under represented)? --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Friend, this has nothing to do with two "kids" "fighting". The CCP is documented by International Human Rights Organizations, Academics and Governments as engaging in murder and torture of practitioners. Victims include many foreign citizens as well. Amnesty documents even Foreign correspondents being intimidated and harassed for attempting to report on the persecution. Falun Gong human Rights work is considered to be of a high quality by academics as well as major human Rights Organizations. CCP is documented as engaging in a vicious propaganda campaign against practitioners ( Ref: Amnesty, US Congress, HRW, Kilgour Matas, etc.) - the sole purpose of which being incitement of hatred and thus to gain support for the inhumane persecution. Please think about it, there are hundereds of cases of murder of innocent practitioners, including women and elderly, documented by Human Rights organizations including the Amnesty.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't read any of my arguments do you? I'll come back when you have something new, instead of just regurgitating your stale arguments. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do. But must admit I find some of them truly hard to make any sense out of - like your claiming The Ex -People's Liberation Army Propaganda Chief was pretty much an innocent guy coerced into sticking posters; A brutal persecution campaign to kids fighting. Saying Matas/Kilgour are not "qualified audio engineers". Presenting a line from a polite letter requesting independent investigation and claiming Matas/Kilgour was "funded". Insisting that the "usual" media channel host in a chinese state sanctioned video implies its neutral - despite the evidence to the contrary published by Matas/Kilgour - to mention a few.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly allow me to point out the concerns I have with the particular piece. The section below, am copying from my discussion on the page's talk:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. -

WP:RS

• The video is something, the entire content of which, has Chinese state sanction[ and was made available through Chinese consulates and embassies].

• The environment in which the video was aired being a strictly controlled one where only the communist party's line on the topic could have been aired constitutes a central reason why the video entirely fails WP:RS

• The authority involved in propagating the video and in whose sanction and control the material was broadcast is widely documented as engaging in a large-scale media propaganda campaign against the subjects of the video.

• As another editor also noted - the sole reason for notability of the video arises from its notoriety which was established by David Kilgour and David Matas

• David Kilgour and David Matas establish based on voice analysis that the interview with Lu Gopin is orchestrated and the person in question is lying so by logical extension this pertains to other "interviews" in the video. You may also have noted that the sole reason Kilgour and Matas refer to the video in their website is to bring attention to its notoriety.

• To be noted, again, that the most prominent analysts in the subject matter bring attention to the video solely for the purpose of demonstrating its notoriety and also to present publicly verifiable evidence showing that a main interview in it is an entirely orchestrated piece.

• Further, the video attacks widely acknowledged authorities on the topic such as Kilgour and Matas. Note that WP:RS states, any material from such a source "should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities" and also that any such material used "should not be contentious" and "should not involve claims made about third parties." All these policies are violated in the manner in which the content has been recently added to the article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also kindly take into consideration these pages where Kilgour and Matas present evidence demonstrating the propagandistic nature of the video.

• Matas/Kilgour's Letter to Chinese Ambassador. The page also notes that the video had been made available though Chinese embassies and consulates.

• Matas/Kilgour present evidence showing that a central interview in the video was orchestrated .... [2] .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• No it wasn't. They aired it on public television, and then get distributed by Chinese embassies. What's wrong with state sanction? The report has FLG sanction, otherwise they wouldn't promote it so heavily; Epoch Times is FLG sanctioned and funded media, so why are those OK when Phoenix TV is not?
• Same as above: Epoch Times and the like can only say things that follow the line of FLG, so why are they in the article?
• Yes and FLG media heavily propagated the report, so does that count as "large-scale propaganda"? Tell me, what is wrong with being handed out by the Chinese embassy?
• Uhh no, have you seen
  WP:RS
  ? "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed"
• "Voice analysis"... Hah, are they qualified audio engineers?
• Are you really saying what I think you're saying? So there should be no source that attack the K&M report? Hah that's so
  zealot, you delete on sight anything that can be damaging to FLG (like removing a good-faith IP edit bringing this source to light, perhaps?), and throw a huge tantrum every time there's an attempt at working things out. That does not work, not in here, not in real life, not anywhere. --antilived^{T | C | G}
  06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• *sigh* you may want read your "comments" once more yourself. Anyway, my favorite was: ""voice analysis"... Hah, are they qualified audio engineers?"

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is he a valid source for citing? Why or why not? JJ4sad6 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The website seems to be a political blog and therefore not a reliable source. Come back if you think it is something else such as the website of a mainstream newspaper or an academic website. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he might be citable on a fairly narrow range of topics, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and pro-Milosevic activism in the West, not as a source for actual facts but as an example of what the conspiracy theorists claim. It's iffy. Some people prefer to exclude whacky sources altogether, which is understandable. <eleland/talkedits> 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not reliable. I've come across this website before. It's an extremely fringey source dedicated to conspiracy theorism, particularly about the former Yugoslavia and 9/11. It probably represents a slice of far-left-wing opinion, but it's well out of the mainstream. In addition (this was the context in which I came across it), much of the material on the website violates copyright - it copies material from numerous other sources, such as news stories from media outlets, and uses them to support its conspiracy theorism. Remember that

WP:EL prohibits linking to "Material that violates the copyrights of others". The copyright problems with Emperor's Clothes were so severe that, in the end, I had to do a linksearch and do a mass purge of links to its pages. -- ChrisO (talk

) 01:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are Variety and The Hollywood Reporter reliable sources for film reviews?

The documentary The Other Side of AIDS received reviews in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter but people in the AFD discussion are saying that they are not reliable sources!! What would be a relaible source for films if not these newspapers?? miniluv (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty suspect. Variety is pretty much the standard trade journal in the field. It's not your average celebrity magazine. Libraries archive it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be "pretty suspect" indeed....if anyone had made such a statement. I noted in discussion with several AfD participants that both are reliable industry mags with long history. However, the relevant

WP:NF criterion is not "coverage in any reliable sources" but "widely distributed" in conjunction with "two or more full-length reviews by nationally known critics". Even if "Other" had been widely distributed (it was not), only one of the two articles in question is a full-length review (assuming the reviewer is "nationally known"); the other is a short "capsule", specifically excluded by NF, a guideline I respectfully encourage Ministry and Squidfryerchef to revisit. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk

) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin said "The article fails WP:RS". That's why I came here. miniluv (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Standing aside from any of the detail in this case, I would say that either of these publications is a suitable place for a review as specified in the notability criteria. You'll remember that the criteria say "two or more full-length reviews", so that should be borne in mind. Major Hollywood movies and many art-house films are also reviewed in daily and weekly newspapers. For details of how a film was received there are probably better sources than these, but notability is the question here. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Back in July I asked if Vevmo was a reliable source, and it was resolved that it was not. Then in August, I asked if the MM Agency was reliable, and it was resolved that it was, though not for contentious claims or notability issues. Now, an editor added some info to The Real World: Brooklyn article. The source was MM, but MM indicated that its source was Vevmo. What do we do? Nightscream (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that when a reliable source quotes a self-published source, then both can be quoted in WP. The reliable source is still a reliable source, just like a newspaper interviewing a man on the street. And the self-published article, because it was quoted by an RS, becomes a primary source. And if you don't want to quote either as gospel, you can say "Source S, quoting a contributor to fansite F, says XYZ". Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That brings me to my next question: The assertion is about the cast list for The Real World: Brooklyn, and the source says that one of them is transgendered (a first for The Real World), and even completed their surgery during filming. Would that be considered contentious? Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I figured as much. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is members.aol.com a reliable source? Specifically this? Yes or No & why or why not please. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is not reachable. Even if it were, see

living persons. For an AOL user page, it would even be difficult to verify who the author is. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't think it was but, was trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to edit the article on

to include the fact that when he attempted to clarify his controversial comments about race and intelligence, his clarification was misreported by several media sources. For example, the journal Nature reported

Watson has apologized and retracted the outburst... He acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence.

However, if one reads the original text of Watson's apology, it is quite clear that Watson did not state that there was no evidence for his opinion about race and intelligence. The closest he came to saying this was that there was no support for the notion that Africans were inferior in general, which is not what he had meant with his original comments. Since it is a very common misconception that Watson said what Nature claimed that he did, I would like the article about him to make mention of the fact that Nature's reporting on this was inaccurate.

This is not original research or original synthesis, because a number of well-known science blogs have covered this misreporting. The best-known of them is Gene Expression, arguably the most widely-respected blog that exists about genetics. However, the user Hardyplants has twice reverted my edit about this, saying that blogs cannot be considered a reliable source. I know that in most cases, information from blogs cannot be verified, but here the contradiction between Watson's apology and what Nature reported about it is visible to any observer. Can a well-known science blog such as Gene Expression be used as a source for something like this which is independently verifiable?

Captain Occam (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, no, under
  our policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). BLP is quite strict when it comes to proper sources. Have you tried a news search? There seems to be lots of coverage there, and not just from Nature Protonk (talk
  ) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm able to find plenty of of news articles that cover his apology accurately, but right now I can't seem to find any non-blog articles that specifically point out the way certain news sources misreported it. In general, pointing out the errors of other news stories is a practice that seems more common among bloggers than in mainstream news media.

Does Wikipedia have any kind of standard practice on how to cite the fact that a news story was misreported? Can it only ever be mentioned if the misreporting itself is specifically described by another news item?

Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases the answer is yes: where blogs are not allowed per

policy on self published sources, they may not be used to correct material in the article. However, editors should not be constrained by this rule if it means getting the story wrong. In general, obvious errors in fact are corrected by the paper in an errata column later on. The example you suggest is not a simple error in fact. Nature, for whatever reason, chose to make that statement. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps they wanted to place Watson in a better light. Perhaps they didn't feel that the nuance was important. Perhaps they felt (as I do, reading the original text) that absent some declaration from Watson to the contrary, the sentence was not particularly controversial. I think that (and I suspect that the editors at the article feel similarly) this is a nuanced subject and not a case of clearly misreported fact. Further, the Times Online would have to have directly misquoted him. In this case that means we have two sources making a similar claim. I'm inclined to say that the story wasn't reported but you may be reading it too narrowly. They seem to be quoting him from outside his written apology in the independent. In this case it is true that his written apology/explanation didn't include an explicit statement that there was no scientific support for his beliefs. But while true it also seems irrelevant if the issue is his apologies in general rather than that specific column. Protonk (talk

) 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in the Times Online is not directly misquoting him, but it is quoting him out of context, and that's also fairly easy to see by looking at the original text of Watson's apology. Here is a more complete quote:

To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.

In other words, the belief for which he is stating that there is no scientific basis is the belief that Africans are inferior in general, not the belief that this difference in intelligence exists. To some people the difference between these two ideas might seem a trivial point, but to anyone involved in this debate, it is essential--if the scientific evidence supports the existence of a difference in intelligence, we do not want this to be used as justification for the sort of racial policies of the past that have assumed some races to be superior to others. Since Watson's article is included in Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy, it is likely to be read by people researching this debate, so certain news sources' conflation of these two concepts is a problem that I think ought to be addressed.

Captain Occam (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, if your issue is that Times and Nature aren't directly quoting the printed apology, that can and should be fixed in the article (if the article said that). Doing that just requires a change in wording and does not require a source arguing that they specifically misinterpreted or misrepresented the apology. But we shouldn't use this issue as a proxy for issues of race and genetics. We should just deal with it scrupulously and cautiously. I am willing to admit that watson appeared to be speaking out the side of his mouth in that apology. However, that specific observation can't be included in the article until it is made by a reliable source. The fact that you and I are having this discussion should be some evidence for my claim that this is not a clear case of misreported fact. As such, it is a matter of interpretation. You have a good faith difference in interpretation with other editors on the subject and what should prevail in the article is, unfortunately what is in reliable sources. It sucks (as is noted below) but the basic idea is: "If all the reliable sources are wrong on a subject, Wikipedia will be wrong, too". Protonk (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at The Times article again, I'm not sure their reporting of this was such a problem. They broke the quote into two parts, so I didn't initially notice that the first part of it was there also, but I think it's clear enough from a careful reading of their article that the thing for which Watson was saying there is no scientific basis was the notion of superiority/inferiority, rather than intelligence. So it's really just Nature's reporting we're talking about here, as well as the other news sources that got it wrong. There are enough news sources which reported it correctly that those which reported it incorrectly are probably in the minority.

In any case, there's more to this issue than just whether it's only a matter of interpretation that a difference in intelligence isn't the same thing as superiority/inferiority. According to Nature, what Watson stated in his apology was that his earlier statement was simply wrong, along with their claim that he "retracted" it. According to Watson himself, his earlier statement was misinterpreted by many people, but it was also an acceptable theory for a person to hold. The inaccuracy of Nature claiming Watson admitted he was wrong, when Watson himself said otherwise, seems like more than a matter of opinion to me.

Captain Occam (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I don't see how it would be controversial to just not cite Nature in the controversy section and avoid claiming that he had fully retracted his statement in his written apology. That doesn't require the addition of new sources. The downside of that (for you) is that our ability to follow that sentence up with an explanation of why or why the distinction is important can probably not be made until some RS covers the mis-match of apology and coverage. Protonk (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly better than citing one of the inaccurate articles, but part of my original point is that the way his apology was inaccurately reported by sources such as Nature is probably notable enough to be worth including in the article, if there's a way around the reliability issue. The article already mentions the fact that his apology was insufficient to stop the controversy that resulted from his original remarks, and I think it's likely that part of the reason for this is because most people were unaware that he said anything other than what Nature claimed that he did. (Nature also isn't the only mainstream news source that misreported this, although they were probably the worst example.) This has certainly been the case in all of the online discussions I've been involved in about this news item--most people don't seem to even consider the possibility that a major news source like this is misreporting something, unless it's pointed out by a source that's more widely read than a science blog. These are the main reasons I would like the misreporting to be covered here: because of its notability, and in order to help correct this misconception about what Watson said, not because of the importance of this distinction in the intelligence/genetics debate.

Does Wikipedia's policy not allow this unless the inaccurate reporting of sources such as Nature is pointed out by another mainstream news source, though?

Captain Occam (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) To answer your basic question in this comment: no, we can't make press criticism unless it has been reported elsewhere. We can ensure that the factual record is correct but we can't make news of the error (or choice) Nature made unless it has already been made elsewhere. That is fundamentally distinct from a correction of the facts. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a very backward-looking resource. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It seems a very odd policy that an article cannot accurately, truthfully and verifiably point out that the printed media is misrepresenting the subject of the article, when a well-respected source already points this out, but cannot be cited because it's a blog. Odder still that the basis for this is a heightened scrutiny for biographies of living persons, in part because such persons may have an action for defamation. So instead, we republish and perpetuate the misrepresentation, all in the service of a policy that's supposed to prevent exactly that. TJRC (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what's odd here. Watson made a statement which is published on the blog of The Independent. That is a reliable source for his stated opinion; it can be cited and is cited in the article. (Blogs are usually regarded as unreliable, but this case is special - there is no doubt at all that it accurately represents the argument Watson wanted to make at that point.) Nature summarised the statement in a way that you read as inaccurate. The solution, as Protonk says, is refrain from citing Nature and instead to cite the statement on the blog of The Independent. (But please summarise and don't quote the exact words; the section is such a quotefarm it is almost impossible to read.) Nature's possibly incorrect or questionable interpretation of the statement is off-topic for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While the distinction at hand is not one that can be easily solved through interpretation of Watson's apology versus the printed review of it, Itsmejudith is right here to note that this section would be greatly improved if serial quotes were avoided. As a matter of fact, this might help editors on both sides of this issue to agree on a section wording. Summarize quotes except when they are a particularly deft and/or iconic statement and even then keep it short. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to a comment above by Cpt Occam.) Nature's report was not so far off the mark to constitute an actual error. The worst you can say is that it was a momentary slip from the journal's usual level of accuracy. The article could carry a footnote that Nature described this as an apology, but since there is no source to say that it was not you might not want to do even this. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just document the facts. Our readers are generally not morons, and can read between the lines. 'Watson said "[quotation]"/[description of what he actually said], and this was reported in [name some journals]. However, Nature reported his statement as having "apologized and retracted the outburst...[and] acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence."' — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I've followed it now. Just as a side note, though, I notice that numerous other items in the Watson article cite the same article from Gene Expression which I was not allowed to cite about Nature's misreporting. Are all of the other citations of this article mistakes also, or is a different standard being applied to other parts of it?

If it's the first one, they should be corrected. But if it's the second, I don't think the part of the article which I've been editing should be held do a different standard from the rest of it.

Captain Occam (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the subject (David Copperfield (illusionist)‎) of an article links from his website to [3] (the memorial site for Copperfield's father), would material in the rememberly site be considered a reliable source?-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - I would say that just as notability is not inherited, nor is reliability. The source has to be reliable on its own merits, not simply because someone else says it's so. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In

) 10:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use the museum text? This artifact is very famous, and widely discussed in secondary sources; I would imagine that anything said in the museum sign could be found elsewhere. I'm not necessarily against using museum descriptions, especially with more obscure objects/works of art/etc, when there aren't many other sources, but when there are journal articles, books, etc. that discuss the subject I would prefer using those. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The museum text is being used in the article specifically to document the British Museum's interpretation of the artifact. That obviously requires a text that is sourced to the BM, not just secondary sources that discuss the artifact in general. As it is the custodian of the artifact, the BM's own interpretation is a very important part of the picture. There are plenty of secondary sources elsewhere in the article that discuss other people's interpretations. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule it out completely, but I think there should be better sources around, e.g. papers published by the museum staff or a catalogue. A museum inscription is necessarily short and addressed to the general public. Also, attribution would be annoying - the inscription is a condensed version of the opinion of the museum about the claims made on the cylinder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that this is suitable for describing the museum's view of the artifact and the history surrounding it, but one must take care to not lend the museum's view too much credence. Are there any other publications - even a catalogue - from the museum containing the same information? Also, the complaint that it's "anecdotal" doesn't seem entirely spurious to me: the unattributed "object has been referred to..." could be a problem. east718 // talk // email // 16:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly see if there are papers that present an "uncondensed" Museum view, so to speak. There may well be a catalogue, as the cylinder was the centrepiece of a major exhibition back in September 2005 (which I attended). One would presume that there would have been a catalogue produced then, if not before. Re east718's comments, I'm not sure what you're getting at - the article doesn't say "object has been referred to..." and the statements in the article that cite the text reflect exactly what the text says. When Tundrabuggy calls it "anecdotal", what he means is - to put it bluntly - that he thinks I'm lying about it. (See

Talk:Cyrus cylinder#British Museum.) He refused initially to accept that the text was real, then refused to accept a verifying photograph of the text. The other editors on the article disagree with him. That is really the nub of this dispute. -- ChrisO (talk

) 20:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Clarification of my position on this issue. ChrisO is using this text to assert that the British Museum is calling the Cyrus Cylinder "propaganda." I, on the other hand, have found three sources presumably from the British Museum in relation to the Cylinder (the first one appears to be the catalog comment) --[5][6][7] and not one of these references use the term "propaganda." My problem is with linking the British Museum to the concept of "propaganda" which is later expanded upon at great length in the article, thus giving the impression that the interpretation given below in the "Propaganda" section is somehow sanctioned by the BM (pardon the abbreviation, no offense intended ;)) --

) 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, strangely enough, the BM text does explicitly call it a work of propaganda, as does the BM's Director

Cyrus cylinder#As an instrument of royal propaganda). -- ChrisO (talk

) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For ChrisO-- I did not "initially refuse to accept the text was real" - that is a mischaracterisation. I did not accept the text only after I discovered the three links from the BM that did not say what you claimed they said. Perhaps they have changed their view since 2005 or whenever it was that you last went to the Museum yourself. I simply feel that it is helpful to WP for readers to be able to simply and quickly check the footnotes to see if they are accurate. Easily verifiable material is much better than material which requires a trip to London to access. It would not be the first time that material has been referenced that does not say what the author claims it says, especially in contentious areas (which are many). I do not find it attractive that you would take such things personally, and accuse me of "thinking that you are a liar."

talk

) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, strangely enough, none of the DM text except yours (referenced through a Flickr photo) uses the word "propaganda." If you think so, please demonstrate which link it is and where exactly it is. You specifically wrote that the DM claimed the cylinder was "propaganda." If you wish to say so, you should show that the British Museum does indeed say that.

talk

) 20:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the BM hasn't changed its view since two weeks ago, which is when I visited it (I live only a few miles away). But your argument suffers from a basic logical flaw. You've cited a number of short web pages that don't mention the word "propaganda". I've cited an inscription and two academic works from the same source that do. You seem to think that the one cancels out the other. But it doesn't. Just because your sources do not use the word "propaganda" and mine do, that does not mean that your sources are disclaiming the "propaganda" interpretation. They're not - they simply aren't mentioning it, no doubt for reasons of space. My sources are rather longer, so they have the freedom to go more deeply into the various academic interpretations. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this current line of discussion on this page -- the above digression is not an RS issue. Take it to the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This specifically involves the 'blurbs' here [8]. There is an ongoing dispute at

) 08:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One other point about these being possibly misleading other than that they are incomplete (as you can see by the

talk

) 09:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been raised, as I think we need to make a firm ruling about blurbs once and for all. The reliability of Amazon isn't at issue. It is usually - and in this case also, I think - the publishers who cherry-pick from the reviews for back-cover blurbs. I came across a bad case on a contentious article, when a major reputable publishing house had snatched one favourable sentence from a distinctly poor review. There were other untraceable statements that were perhaps commissioned specially for the back cover. Let's just say no. Book reviews are great sources, but there must be the possibility of verifying the whole review. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Amazon does not do any substantial vetting of user reviews, they only weed out obvious abuse. Thus, those reviews are at best

self-published sources, and nearly always by non-experts. I would not use them for anything contentious, and preferably not for anything at all. The way to handle biased unreliable sources is not to add balancing unreliable sources, but to remove the bad ones in the first place. But also note that "verifiable" does not mean "free online". If a clear reference is given, it may well require a trip to the library and an inter-library loan. If you are talking about the excepts in the "Editorial Reviews" section, I would say those have the same value as back cover blurbs, i.e. none. You would need to find the full original sources of these comments.--Stephan Schulz (talk

) 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I am talking about 'editorial reviews', which I also call blurbs. I agree, verifiable does not mean free online, but it does mean providing a source where it can be found somehow.

talk

) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We all agree then. We treat the Amazon "editorial reviews" as back-cover reviews and don't use them. But of course any editor could follow a lead in one of these snippets, track down the review from which it was taken, and then reference the full review in the normal way, whether it is online or not. They might even choose to reference the very sentence that the publisher pulled out - so long as it was typical of the flavour of the review as a whole. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, sometimes the editorial reviews are complete from reputable publications, so Amazon could be a convenience link. If one can extract data from a condensed one that could hardly not be independent of the rest of the review, even if it were pure vitriol, that might be usable. (e.g. giving the date of birth of somebody hard to track down.), but these are special cases. For this book, the two reviews by scholars are more complete at the publisher - the Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones one looks like a complete capsule review in a journal, but the other still has ellipsis. The main problem with these is knowing exactly where they are from though, perhaps attribution to the publisher would be OK for the first.John Z (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, no one has been able to find any journal reviews. Random House is not the publisher but the US distributor for Osprey I believe. I normally can find sources for Amazon editorial reviews without the problems I'm having with this one.

talk

) 10:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I can't find anything at all. I suspect that these quotes were obtained by the publishers writing to the academics individually. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Publishers do often send out "review copies" to sympathetic reviewers to obtain some puffs for the book's publicity material. (Yes, they're actually called "puffs" in the trade.) They can be quite shameless at times. I know of one case of a best-novel book which appeared with a glowing "review" from a prominent author. The author in question later admitted that he hadn't even read the book but just gave the publisher the words they were expecting. So I would say that such puffs are pretty much useless as reliable sources; they're just part of the publicity machine, no more reliable than a promotional press release. They certainly shouldn't be confused with actual reviews in third-party publications such as journals and newspapers. If the only source of the "review" is the publisher or bookseller, then you should be very suspicious. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reviews are actual book reviews, usually by notable people and publications, so as long as you find the full txt of the review and use that, it doesn't matter that Amazon is where you started, just don't cite it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Amazon is a great source to start a search with, but one cannot cite it. --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

) 05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What confirmation do we have that such reviews are by the people they're claimed to be by? Does Amazon do any editorial control of reviews? If it doesn't, then it seems to me that there's nothing potentially to stop a person from posting reviews under the assumed name of another individual. You wouldn't get that problem with a third-party source. Remember, a lot of Amazon's content is user-generated.

WP:V specifically assumes that there has been a process of "fact-checking and accuracy" where sources are concerned. -- ChrisO (talk

) 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon does in fact "check" on who people are. [12] Reviewers who are who they say they are, may get a "Real Name" badge beside their reviews. Others, like Pipes, are clearly obvious, based on the fact that he sells books as part of his "profile." [13] Many of the "editorial reviews" merely tell a bit what is inside the book without praise or censure, for example this one about Azerbaijani Turks [14]. No reason one cannot use it.

talk

) 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion. We are not talking about Readers' reviews, we are talking about the blurbs that Amazon calls Editorial reviews. These are no better than the blurbs on the back of book jackets. They are unveriable and in this specific case we know they are not even complete.

talk

) 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here's my take. Amazon "publishes" three different types of editorial reviews: 1: Excerpts from published reviews (NYRB, WSJ, etc). 2: Publisher reviews or synopses. 3: "Blurbs" from other sources usually found on the backcover. Only the first of the three is originally from a reliable source, but I wouldn't be comfortable citing amazon for it. Usually a google search can find the original source of the review. My overall feeling is, no, the amazon review page can't be seen as a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an outgrowth of a discussion I had recently. I'm wondering if book or music reviews (assume that they are printed in reputable publications) are themselves RS for purposes other than saying in the article on the book or movie what kind of reviews they got. For example, [15]here I removed a matter sourced to a book review. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a single review for a definitive evaluation of merit is pretty chancy. It can also be worded, according to the review by x in the Y,... In this case, the review is being proposed asa source for as a fact about something other than the book reviewed, and, again, its supported only by the reputation of the reviewer. In academic journals reviews are almost never peer-reviewed--they are recognized to constitute individual opinion. Even in the NYT, as here, they're not the same as news articles. DGG (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the consensus on interviews that are conducted by a normally non reliable source? Specifically this interview for

) 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They're generally as reliable as the interviewee's own blog. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tvbythenumbers.com is a website that tracks

18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it used as a source by the New York Times, The NY Post, TV Week and Fox and those other reputable sites, I believe that TV by the Numbers can be considered a reliable source. The question is whether TbtN has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is hard for us to judge, so I think we should follow the New York Times' lead. You listed one example where the NYT quoted them, and here Brian Stelter uses their analysis for some statistics. Obviously he feels they are reliable, and the NYT has deemed him knowledgable enough to write about TV statistics. Good enough for the NYT is good enough for WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

the sources listed did not state any specific survey that these percentages are associated with nor did they cite the number of participants in said survey

example of article

One book estimated that 24% of men and 36% of women have had a rape fantasy, and 10% of women report this to be their favorite type of fantasy.[2]

example of sources 1. ^ Rape fantasy or domination and submission desires? | Scarleteen 2.^ mentalhelp.net 3.^ Crépault C, Couture M (1980). "Men's erotic fantasies". Arch Sex Behav 9 (6): 565–81. doi:10.1007/BF01542159.

. 4.^ a b c Ravenstone, Desmond. Ravishment: The Dark Side of Erotic Fantasy (2005)

none of the sources above include said survey

The mentalhelp.net source should not be used. I don't know if the site is reliable, but the linked page doesn't discuss the survey. I'll remove it. The "Men's erotic fantasies" is one you can't check without going to a library. I guess you have to

assume good faith unless there's some history of an editor adding unreliable info that I don't know about. The Scarletee site doesn't sound like it meets our requirements for reliable sources. I'm not sure how much of that first paragraph is sourced to it, but all part that are should be removed. I'll leave that to editors with more experience on the subject. The reference [16] under Roleplay doesn't look to meet our requirements. The Ravishment: The Dark Side of Erotic Fantasy reference looks like one where we would assume good faith. If there isn't an edit war over the article, I would just remove all uncited info. If there is an edit war, I would take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since it sounds like a very controversial subject. I've made these comments after looking at the article for a short period of time, so there may be nuances I may be missing. Good luck. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 06:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers in countries without a free press

Resolved

I am interested in whether a newspaper in a country without a free press can be considered a RS on news events? Specifically, I would ask about the

talk

) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense seems to suggest no as the answer to the general question. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would seem so to me as well, particularly in contentious areas such as the I-P conflict.

talk

) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that free=/=reliable and unfree=/=unreliable. I would think this is obvious. I also think that Freedom House rankings are full of shit, personally. Last year, IIRC, Pakistan's noisily critical press was declared as unfree as China's, and India -- with draconian freedom of speech regulations and a very active press council -- was declared "partly free". Load of rot. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The rankings are one thing. The descriptions of a free press another. Of course free does not necessarily mean reliable as witness the tabloids, for example. Still, unfree would seem to suggest unreliable. So how does one determine reliability of an unfree or partly free press? Do you have any thoughts on the Jordan Times, Relata?

talk

) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An unfree press might publish articles which are planted, in which case those would be unreliable. Or it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable. A free press might practice self-censorship, and be reliable, or be held hostage by commercial interests, and be unreliable. Merely using a non-descriptive statement as "free" or "unfree" is, in the end, not helpful at all. On the Jordan Times, I don't have the slightest opinion, though I believe I have both added and removed academic book reviews from it at various points. [I note, however, that Jordan had a widely-publicised clampdown on the press in 1997, which seems to have eased somewhat a few years later. It is also true that this newspaper seems to largely be described as "independent".] --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim that "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". Why would a censored article be reliable? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are two facts, X and Y, then just because X is censored does not mean Y is untrue. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not mean Y is untrue, but it does not mean Y is true, either, which is what you imply when you say "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". In addition, selective censorship can easily lead to biased, misleading articles, which would alo smake the article unreliable. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I should have said "need not be unreliable". --Relata refero (disp.) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is honestly an issue of case by case review. Pravda was probably a horribly unreliable source for the happenings of the Soviet government. Perhaps it might have been a reliable source for reviews of plays and works of art (maybe), I don't know. State control or state influence means that we should treat as suspect (or at least qualify as non-independent) claims made by the source about the government. Determination of that control is again a case by case manner. I can't support Freedom House's rankings as an editorial tool on wikipedia. We should review and act on individual claims about the editorial freedom of individual publishing houses. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You can't generalise this, particularly as the degree of state control is highly variable. In some "non-free" states, such as the old Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev, the media was entirely a creature of the government - it was owned by the state and reflected only official views (even on issues such as theatre and art which, let's not forget, were also subject to strict ideological controls). In modern Russia the media isn't formally under state control or ownership, but the state directs it from behind the scenes. At the next level down, the media in some countries may be subject to what could be called ideological conformity on some issues, even if they aren't controlled or directed by the government. I'm thinking of countries such as the Arab Gulf states, where the media is relatively free but still has to operate within certain ideological limits (such as not being overtly critical of the regime). I'm not familiar with the Jordan Times, but I would guess that it falls into the latter category. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought Chris, as to what entails "ideological" limitations in regards to something like the

talk

) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse presentation and facts. The facts in an article may be correct, but the presentation and/or selection may have a bias. // Liftarn (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. This is the same in a lot of countries. It's almost always the case that certain avenues of argument are closed off by general social and political convention. (You'll never see criticism of

King Bhumibol in the otherwise raucous Thai press, for instance). This isn't so much a restriction on free speech as a form of self-censorship, as you say - an unwritten agreement that the scope of free speech has certain boundaries. But the Western media has just as much of a self-imposed bias in various directions, as the whole "political correctness" debate makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk

) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-censorship due to state control of the press is very different from "political correctness" in a free society. A reporter can choose to be "politically correct" or not. In a country with a free press, there will be plenty of reporters who are neither politically correct nor self-censoring. In a free society with a free press, the marketplace of ideas and commerce will ultimately decide who "survives", not the government and its ideological thrust.

talk

) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the articles arguing in favour of underage sex and racial discrimination in the mainstream Western media? Every publication self-censors, for commercial, social, moral or political reasons. There's no such thing as an unfettered "marketplace of ideas" anywhere, simply because some ideas are considered unacceptable by the general population. The government doesn't have to censor if social pressure does the job for them (this is very much the case in Thailand with regard to criticism of the king, for example). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in favour of underage sex and in favour of racial discrimination would not be the purview of mainstream reliable sources. They would be opinion pieces anyway.

talk

) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Jordan Times is controlled by the government. That makes it absolutely off limits, except when it is referencing itself or it has something to do with official Jordanian government policy. In general, non-free presses should be avoided, especially on controversial issues.

23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the paper is published by the Jordan Press Foundation. According to Alan George, the JPF is "62 per cent owned by the government via the Social Security Fund" [17]. Partial state ownership certainly doesn't make it off-limits; plenty of broadcasters (the

WP:V#Reliable sources sets out four criteria: it must be a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Note that the question of ownership doesn't enter into the equation. Its articles are quoted by numerous published authors, so it clearly does seem to have a reputation as a reliable and accurate source, satisfying the first and fourth criteria. It obviously also meets the second and third criteria. -- ChrisO (talk

) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that if it were "controlled," as opposed to "owned," it would make a difference as to its reliability? I'll also point out, the books you link to are intriguing, but a) there is no context at all for the citations in the books, and b) the standards of any given random book may not be Wikipedia's -- is

IronDuke

02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It may make a difference, but it really depends on the degree of editorial independence enjoyed by the media outlet in question. Some are totally under the grip of their government masters - The Herald (Zimbabwe) is a case in point. Others are stridently independent, like the BBC. Some are in-between with a sort of compromised independence, like RAI. The only real way to tell is to to find out what others say about the outlet in question and, in particular, determine how widely it's cited as a source, hence the usefulness of reviewing Google Books to answer that particular question. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given we have no good way of teasing out what parts of the Jordan Times are independent (assuming any part of it is at all) I'm not sure how we can rely on them as a source. They are controlled by an undemocratic government, that makes them automatically highly suspect. Google books doesn't help at all here, although looking at the books on Google might. Again, despite our inability to write reliable articles, we do have higher standards than many of the works we reference.

IronDuke

15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, ownership isn't part of our reliable sourcing criteria (nor should it be, considering the POV mischief that would permit - e.g. people trying to disqualify the BBC or Al Jazeera on the grounds of government involvement). You have to apply the criteria we have, not the criteria you'd like to have. If the JT is a reliable third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then I see no reason not to use it. Note that I'm not arguing that it meets those criteria, since I don't know much about the newspaper - I'm just stating for the record that those are the criteria we have to apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

but policies and guidelines a descriptive of a community standard of behavior. I agree that we can't claim "

DA-Notice as an authority on the matter--we would expect that they would withhold items related to the issue from publication. Protonk (talk

) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course ownership impacts reliability, especially when the owner is a state which censors and controls the media -- very much the case in Jordan. There are tough cases, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. You keep saying you don't much about the newspaper... fair enough. From what I know, it is unreliable, and I have seen no evidence that it meets the criteria you set out. Could a story in the JT be true in all its particulars? Most definitely. But there's no way to know, and good reason to be skeptical ... thus, it is unreliable.

IronDuke

19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We simply don't operate on that basis - it amounts to a back-door way of eliminating all media citations from particular countries. I see from Reporters without Borders that Jordan is actually rated the third most free country in the Middle East in terms of press freedom, after Israel and Kuwait. But then again, you're blurring the difference between government ownership (which in this case appears to be only partial, if George is right) and government editorial control. The British government owns and funds the BBC World Service 100%, but it doesn't exercise control. Your case seems to be based entirely on the assumption that the newspaper has no independence due to the government's partial stake in the fund which owns it. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. You certainly haven't cited any sources to back up your assumption that the newspaper is not independent. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I went to Reporters without borders. First sentence of their 2008 report on Jordan? “State security police have kept journalists under pressure despite King Abdallah II’s promises of democratic reform.” If that’s not a ringing endorsement, what is? More: “…self-censorship continues.” Also “state security stopped the weekly Al-Majd from coming out for allegedly “undermining national interests.” It had planned to run an article about Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his plans to boost his party. Copies were seized at the printers.” This is in addition to several other examples of censorship. So we have that, we have Freedom House, if TB is correct. As to your point about state ownership not equaling state control, that’s quite right. So… here we have the NYTimes “Once they are a sovereign country, we could sit down and have a conversation about unity,' said Abdullah Hassanat, editor in chief of The Jordan Times, a publication controlled by the Government.” (February 13, 1999, emphasis added). Okay… so Jordan papers are out, at least until something significant changes (argumentum ad googlem aside). For the larger question of whether unfree presses should be used, I think the answer is obviously no. If someone wants to introduce an unfree press cite, the onus is on them to show why a) it’s relevant and useful to the article in question and b) believable/reliable.

IronDuke

23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another perspective: there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question.

) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I see with what you are saying, Sandy - is that once there is any state censorship, we can only guess whether other things are reliable -- that goes to the very heart of the definition of "reliable."

talk

) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press sources that are not independent or are arms of the government like Granma should be used only to express the opinion of the controling entity, and sparingly at that. They should never be used for facts. Freedom House's rankings are a good place to start in evaluating media outlets. CENSEI (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. See above. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree with ChrisO that sources on political subjects from countries with official policy of censorship (like

Glavlit in the USSR) are unreliable. The problem arise with sources from countries without official censorship but where press is still "not free" according to independent reliable sources (not necessarily Freedom House). Then, some discretion should be applied. For example, reports by independent journalists and well known opposition newspapers (if any) from such countries should be considered reliable.Biophys (talk

) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, censorship implies that material is excluded. It does not mean that false information is included. That is disinformation. There is a correlation between the two, especially in totalitarian societies, but they are not the same thing. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common practice that false information has been used by totalitarian countries, take Nazi Germany or Soviet Union etc. They even have an article on WP about it:

Big Lie.--Termer (talk

) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In controversial cases, why not just describe the source (preferably with a WP:RS for description) and let readers decide for themselves? ie, "the partially government owned such and such" or the "military contract owned so and so" or "the neconservative controled this and that"?? Carol Moore 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

PS speaking of Israel-Palestine, I have created this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions which has a link to all the specific and general topics that might possibly be related to I-P, or just about anything political. In case you want to bookmark it for a quick look at the various links to topics covered here before. 'Carol Moore 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

As I indicate above, Jordan papers are clearly off limits. Carol, your suggestion is an invitation to well-poisoning, and creates a false equivalence between media outlets that tend to lean towards one end or the other of the political spectrum, and censored oulets that cannot be trusted with any confidence. To reify that elision into WP policy would be horribly damaging.

IronDuke

00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV-based exclusion of sources?

It's hard to see IronDuke's approach as being anything other than a way of excluding media sources from countries which you don't like. If you want to describe a particular country's point of view about an issue, then of course media from that country is likely to be the best source. Your approach simply assumes that everything published in the media of a country such as Jordan is inherently inaccurate. Of course, coverage of certain topics may be biased or incomplete due to ideological preferences about the topic in question. You would not necessarily look to the Russian press for unbiased coverage of the war in Georgia, for instance. But it's taking it to a ridiculous extreme to apply this sort of caution to every story in every media outlet in a particular country. Are Jordanian sports reports off-limits? How about reports on cultural or economic affairs? What about political matters involving countries outside the Middle East?

As well as that, the "IronDuke standard" is ridiculously ill-defined. What counts as "censored media"? Israel's media are heavily censored about issues to do with security matters; does that make it off-limits? Many consider Britain's media to be muzzled by very strict libel laws. India has a very active press commission. Thailand's media is distorted by political ownership and subject to drastic limitations in certain areas. In fact, if you look at Reporters without Borders' list of press freedom for 2007, Jordan is actually ranked higher than many "westernised" countries, including Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico and so on. It's in a roughly equal position with India. How about it, IronDuke - are you going to argue that the whole of the Mexican and Indian media should be excluded? Where do you draw the line? Considering who's brought this up, it's clear that this whole thing is just an attempt to exclude the reporting of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict; nobody should take it seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you switched from third person to second person in your opening salvo, so I'm not quite sure what you think you meant. Do you mean that I don't like Jordan ? What gave you that idea? Or that it would be appropriate to assert it here?

As for excluding India and/or Mexico … I'd certainly listen to arguments for and against with an open mind. Lay em on me, and I'll tell you if I think for our purposes they are better, worse, or about the same as Jordan .

"If you want to describe a particular country's point of view about an issue, then of course media from that country is likely to be the best source." Well, okay, that's actually not true at all, is it? Unless by "country" you mean "governmental view." And I think I said before, we might be able to use the papers for that. And okay, Chris, sports scores too. But not to support factual assertions about things that actually did/did not happen in the Middle East. Right?

"What counts as "censored media"?" Well, I answered this above. At length. Showed why Jordan won't do for the purposes that TB is interested in. Good stuff there, you should check it out. Your argument, BTW, leads directly to "all sources are fine," since it's impossible to draw a totally precise line. You don't actually believe this, of course, but it's where that sort of water-muddying leads.

"Considering who's brought this up, it's clear that this whole thing is just an attempt to exclude the reporting of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict; nobody should take it seriously." That is not a useful remark. I don't have to give you the alphabet soup of what it violates, I'll just say TB's enquiry is in and of itself entirely proper; no serious, neutral person could have a problem with it.

In sum, I think from what you've written, we can all agree that Jordan papers should not be quoted when it comes to Middle-East matters, except to reaffirm a government position (and that this should be made clear in the text). Resolved?

IronDuke

22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this has probably been brought up before but what is the reliability of a myspace blog? (The situation: The birth year of

) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it can be verified by a reliable source that it is his blog, there should be no problem using it as a self-published source. --NE2 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• My gut says no. We have no way of knowing whether or not he (or someone else) operates his myspace.
  WP:SPS with regards to blogs, etc. My opinion is that it is better to leave the birth date blank unless we can cite it reliably, but there is a wide range of opinion on that. Protonk (talk
  ) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How can/should one go about verifying the legitimacy of a MySpace page as actually being that of the celebrity in question? Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is directly linked to from their "official" site with some pretty obvious "this is me (or really a publicist or intern) on myspace". Protonk (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Since the actor doesn't have an official site and I can't link the myspace to any official news report about him I'm going with my instincts and removing the info. --

t/c

) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are NBA official height listings reliable - do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Here are some links and quotes calling into question the reliability of NBA list heights Sports Illustrated - Heights of Hilarity Sporting News - Predraft height hype is out of hand NYtimes - When Height Becomes a Tall Tale Draft Express - A historical look at Pre Draft Measurements

From Sporting News "A sampling of current NBA players measured by the league in advance of the annual draft shows their teams have doctored the heights for 12 of 15 -- 80 percent. Only one of the names I picked at random -- Kevin Durant -- is listed precisely at his barefoot height (6-9). Chris Paul's height is rounded up from 5-11 3/4 to 6-0, which counts as a square deal. "

From Sports Illustrated "It was in the run-up to the 1992 Olympics that the world finally learned what the cognoscenti had long suspected -- that Charles Barkley was more like 6-4 5/8 than 6-6, and Magic Johnson closer to 6-7 than 6-9. Likewise, it was a measurement in 1988 before the Games (citius, altius -- but not unduly altius) that exposed Danny Manning, who had been a 6-11 freshman at Kansas, as a 6-9 NBA draftee-to-be. "

From NY Times " “They lie,” said Charles Barkley, a basketball commentator for TNT. “I’ve been measured at 6-5, 6-4 ¾. But I started in college at 6-6.” Even the N.B.A. lies, apparently. According to Barkley’s biography on NBA.com, he is 6-6." and "Sam Smith, a longtime N.B.A. writer who recently retired from The Chicago Tribune, said: “We sort of know the heights, because after camp, the sheet comes out. But you use that height, and the player gets mad. And then you hear from his agent. Or you file your story with the right height, and the copy desk changes it because they have the ‘official’ N.B.A. media guide, which is wrong. So you sort of go along with the joke.”"

From Draftexpress "A human’s height does not include the addition of shoes, so it’s misleading when a player chooses to be listed at their in shoes height. The NBA has also done a poor job listing players consistently across the board. Many players are listed at their height in shoes, but some are listed at their barefoot height, and some are listed above their in shoes height (John Starks) or an inch below their barefoot height (Kevin Garnett, Desmond Mason)."

I think I've made a strong case of showing that the NBA does not list heights accurately - and that draftcamp measurements (which are generally freely available) are a much more reliable source (since the NBA official guides have a poor record for fact checking and accuracy from sports journalists in relation to height), feel free to look up your favorite players' heights here DraftExpress Pre Draft Measurements and compare to their official team roster height.Zzmang (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports promotions fiddling with the heights and weights of their athletes where it is desirable is nothing new. Unfortunately, I do not see an easy solution to finding reliable numbers for this info. The exceptions I've found are in combat sports, where the fighters are generally measured by a government athletic commission which would, in theory, have no reason to pad the numbers. east718 // talk // email // 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making any comment on the reliability of these sources, but could it be that these guys have actually shrunk a little as they've aged? Afterall, they're running around all the time, and that's got to compress the spine after awhile, etc... Yilloslime (t) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

east718 I agree that pro-sports fudging numbers is nothing new, which is my point. The thing is WE DO have a reliable source for NBA heights and that's when players are measured barefoot in the NBA Draft Camp so I think that should be the preferred source, or the olympic measurements.

Yilloslime That's possible for some players, though I doubt it would be many or by much. For instance Michael Beasley was listed at 6'10" in college, measured at 6'7" barefoot in the draft camp, and was listed at 6'10" in the NBA - so he didn't have his spine compress 3 inches for his draft camp measurement, then expand 3 inches when he started playing in the NBAZzmang (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One more source Many players in NBA are telling tall stories Quotes " The NBA doesn't measure players, which is probably why 1993 Most Valuable Player Charles Barkley got away with being listed at 6-foot- 6. Many who played against Barkley said he was, at most, 6- 4. "

" NBA spokesman Tim Frank said the league counts on its teams to give accurate measurements of their players"

" The NBA's top official isn't about to call for league-mandated measurements of players. Commissioner David Stern, whose height isn't listed in the NBA guide but was once estimated at 5-foot-9, said the disparity between reality and hype only adds to the intrigue of the game. "Zzmang (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed how sources do not agree on this, just as a casual basketball fan. I'm not sure what this noticeboard can do to solve that problem, though. Is DraftExpress considered a reliable source? It may be way more accurate, but is it considered reliable in general. If it is, then the issue should be debated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball on which source to use. If DraftExpress is not considered reliable, then maybe the infoboxes and height stats in say Michael Jordan should say "Official NBA height" instead of just "height". It looks like you have the sources at hand to make an article describing the discrpancies in NBA heights. If that article was created, and "Official NBA height" was used instead of "height", it might even link to it. I think I may create that page myself, you've provided a number of good refs. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to this discussion over these edits, is a screencap of a source appropriate, as User:70.108.115.9 suggests? My guess is that it isn't, but I said I'd ask here. If so, how would it be used? Uploaded to a site like ImageShack and then linked to? Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. I can get you a screengrab of almost anything. Court documents (even the pdf from the clerk of courts) are iffy in BLPs anyway. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On the page about the Israel Supreme Court building there is a picture of this building that shows CLEARLY a pyramid with an circular window at the top of each face. This picture was considered as verified.

I just added a note below the picture to point to the presence of this pyramid. My note was erased on the pretext that it is not verifiable. To be honest I consider this the same as the well documented Zionist media control that we all know but refuse to discuss about.

The picture used to be at the top right in poor resolution was improved and brought away from immediate view. Another disinformation tactic or a chance event ? 911allo (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing essentially wrong with the phrase "Note the blue pyramid with a circle at the top left corner in the above image." If you were writing about pyramids in architecture, or simply describing the design of the building one would not need a reliable source simply to describe what is vissible. The problem is that evidently think this motif has some specific significance linked to Zionism and "disinformation". I'm sure there are guide books and other sources explaining the meaning or function of this motif. You seem to think that it refers to the "

all-seeing eye". Maybe it does, but there's nothing sinister or masonic about that. It dates back to emblem books. Look for literature on the architecture. Paul B (talk

) 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Tondo

Regarding the contradictions between the

Ancient Tondo

articles, I'd like to solicit comment about the source used by the Luzon Empire to say:

"Some contemporary Philippine historians[6] agree with their Chinese counterparts, and are willing to speculate further that after the fall of Nan Song (南宋國, "Southern Song Empire"), Zhang Shijie's fleet and the last Song emperor may have escaped to pre-colonial Philippines and established the Luzon Empire or the Lesser Song Empire (呂宋國)."

The reference says

"Pangilinan, et al on the initial translations of DongXi Yanggao<!-- is this the same as ''A study of the Eastern and Western Oceans''?--> (東西洋考, Book 5.)"

The article has no other reference by Pangilinan, whose interpretation of the DongXi Yanggao reference is supposed to be the argument referred to. My question is whether this source is sufficient to merit the continued existence of Luzon Empire when Ancient Tondo, which sticks to the more orthodox interpretation, already exists. I'm sorry if this also happens to be an Original Research question, but I've raised the matter there already and what I'm asking for here specifically is whether this source justifies the existence of the Luzon Empire article. Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How should ETC [www.etc.se] be used in articles? I can hardly find any info on the magazine, but it seems to be a partisan publication of the socialist left in Sweden. Troopedagain (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell, but maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden can help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ETC is definately left of centre, but is not a party organ or a fringe publication. --Soman (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Would articles that appear on E! Online be considered reliable for news about celebrity and reality TV stars? BaldPete (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider Eonline.com, the web site of the E! network, a reasonably reliable source for celebrity/reality TV star news. It is associated with a mainstream cable television network owned by Comcast. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the NGO Zochrot, or "Nakba in Hebrew" a RS? From their web-site: "Zochrot ["Remembering"] is a group of Israeli citizens working to raise awareness of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948". I encounter edits like this:[18], [19]. Again; this NGO has never AFAIK been discussed here before, so I would very much like to hear your opinion. Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an advocacy organisation. Definitely not suitable as a source for history. Of course you could always use them as a starting point and look for the sources that they use. Or if a writer who publishes elsewhere has a signed article on their website, that might be OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Are chronicles from the 1600s and 1700s reliable sources? In my opinion, even quoting from such an old source directly (i.e. without a secondary source acting as a filter) is original research, because words change their meaning over such long periods of time (either by losing some of their original meanings or being enriched with new meanings the original author never intended to use). Of course, if the meaning is undisputed within the community then that isn't a problem, but what's the proper course of action if the meaning is disputed? --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree, though there may be exceptions. I would, e.g. tend to accept (attributed!) excerpts from James Cook's log books or Joseph Banks' reports to show their contemporary impressions. I would not allow them as sources for statements of facts in the editorial voice, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with describing what they say without any original interpretation, especially when the source is available online (those works are obviously PD) and anyone can verify if the wording in the article is conformal or is just the personal view of an editor.Xasha (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that with such old sources one needs to be a historian to determine what the chronicler actually meant, specifically because of the way a language evolves over time. In my opinion simply copying information from such an old source can be misleading as a result. In other words, I think that such old sources require interpretation by a contemporary specialist, especially regarding controversial matters. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While that can be a problem, it's not substantially different from many modern sources. To read a modern research paper, you also need to be a specialist and be aware of nuances of meaning in words that have more vague or even quite different colloquial interpretations (see e.g. metal in astronomical contexts, or |resolution in formal logic). However, mindset and context are often very different for older sources - that's why I picked Cook and Banks as examples that essentially have a modern scientific mindset, even if they have a quite different set of cultural baggage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When the author and athe age are explicitely named in the text (and not hidden in a ref tag) the reader understands it is just the opinion of that particular author, and not necessarily

the truth. So it's perfectly acceptable.Xasha (talk

) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable per

WP:PRIMARY (only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge) -- you cannot ask the average reader to be familiar with the mindset of a chronicler in the 17th century. --Gutza ^{T T+}

19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But it requires an educated person, thus someone with a fair knowledge of culture, not just some punk from the street.Xasha (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not every educated person is a historian. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this is that while such documents are considered reliable sources... their utility as sources, and the appropriateness of citing them or quoting them in a specific article is limited. Such sources are considered "Primary Sources"... and as such (while we can use them) we must use them with great caution. We have to be particularly careful not to misuse them in ways that would violate wikipedia's WP:No original research (WP:NOR) policy. It really depends on how you use them and what you are trying to use them for. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: if the quotation of such a source is disputed by other editors, is it reasonable to seek consensus by eliminating said source in favor of a secondary source, or is that an unacceptable proposal? --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that this can be properly answered in the abstract. It's obvious that you have a specific source in mind, the meaning of which is disputed. Is it in English? Are the disputed terms translated - in which case some interpretation may be involved - or presented as written? Paul B (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I do have a specific source -- and dispute -- in mind; and yes, it is obviously disputed. While the source is not in English, one can find enough references and discussions to make up their own minds, but unfortunately there's a lot to read. However, if you're willing to investigate, by all means -- see here:

Talk:History of the Moldovan language#Cantemir, Ureche et al (other sections within that talk page might also be relevant). --Gutza ^{T T+}

00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, so this is essentially about Moldovan nationalist claims. Someone is claiming that 17th century references to the "Moldovan language" imply that "Moldovan" was recognised as a distinct or separate language? That certainly seems to fall into the

WP:SYN, since these chronicles seem to be making no claims about linguistic separatness from Romanian, just describing the language people speak in Moldova. Paul B (talk

) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It can be argued however that the person inserting those sources is not breaking

WP:PRIMARY -- but I posit that given the age of the source and the dispute around that specific wording it is reasonable to reject that specific primary source and require a secondary, modern source to provide the proper interpretation (and, incidentally, the reliable sources all agree there was indeed no intent on the part of the chronicler to imply such a separateness from Romanian). --Gutza ^{T T+}

10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on availability of reliable academic interpretations. Once you dig into a relatively small academic field with plenty of nationalist agendas, they become a dying breed. However, the 1600s-1700s sources are too recent to cause any misunderstanding to present-day native Romanians, just like an average Englishman can keep the track of a Hamlet play. Plus, Costin was not a monk so his mind was not as rigidly indoctrinated as that of a monastic chrohist and he apparently did not insert biblical riddles in the text (the first thing to remember reading older Eastern European chronicles). To me, translation/interpretation of his statement is not a problem at all. It's all about presentation - whether it's a one man's opinion or something larger. I would take his words for what they are worth: that, in Costin's opinion at the time of writing ... then follow his point. Nothing more.

) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I think that naming a 17th-century politician and pamphletist a chronist is itself a cause of conflict. Chronist invokes medieval standards of passing (copying, altering, synthesizing) knowledge of past centuries through compiled chronicles; a 17th century text is quite different, it's an original work.

) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to be as succinct as I could, but I think that has affected the presentation -- it seems I have to explain the matters in more depth. The word language, in its modern interpretation, intrinsically implies a sense of identity -- when you say "the Klingon language" you uniquely identify that language, and do not expect that specific language to be called any alternative names (see for example the lack of articles on the Austrian language, American language etc). This interpretation is relatively recent, and it has come about roughly at the same time as the concept of a nation state (late 18th century, compare Nation state#History and origins and History of linguistics#Historical linguistics). By contrast, in the 17th century and early 18th century (when there was no notion of a nation state, and no political load associated with linguistics, let alone any serious claim on Moldavian's distinctiveness from Romanian), "language" simply meant "the way we speak over here", without any political, national or ethnic load -- it could translate to modern "language", "dialect", "speech", "accent" or "variety" just the same. As such, chroniclers like Dimitrie Cantemir write about the Moldovan language in one chronicle, and then in another they explicitly say there is no such thing as a Moldovan language, since Moldavians speak Romanian -- they don't see any contradiction in that, and feel no need to explain things in any detail (Miron Costin specifically makes the same point explicitly; incidentally, historians agree that it was Cantemir who reiterated Costin's statement when he said Moldavians spoke Romanian).

Of course, you can dismiss all of the above as my original research -- but the academic interpretations all concur (actually, proper academic papers don't even discuss the matter, they simply include Costin, Cantemir and Ureche as sources when discussing Romanian)^*. In this context, I don't think it's fair to give the modern reader a false impression by quoting Costin with "at the time of writing, the Moldovan language was this and that", because it's not reasonable to expect the average modern reader, educated as she may be, to be aware of the intricacies of how the concept of language has evolved since the 1600s.

Regarding chronist, please see

chronicler; cross-reference Miron Costin, Dimitrie Cantemir (specifically "Hronicul vechimii a romano-moldo-valahilor – aprox. "Chronicle of the durability of Romans-Moldavians-Wallachians""), and Grigore Ureche. --Gutza ^{T T+}

23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

----

^*) For clarity, I don't have academic sources to support my theory regarding the synchronicity between modern linguistics and the appearance of the concept of a nation state -- while I don't have sources for that assertion you can verify the synchronicity in the articles provided. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia has no text on chronicler (the man) and chronicles as art/craft/tradition/ideology (you name it), just a bare definition followed by an arbitrary list. One big void. As for your opening paragraph, I am surprised that the obvious subject (changing sense of language and national identity over time) needs presentation at all. Those who attended middle school should remember it; those who press their agenda won't listen.

NVO (talk

) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your reply correctly, you're basically saying "I agree there was no such thing as a distinct Moldavian language in the 17th century, and the chronicler/politician/pamphletist certainly doesn't suggest that, but the average reader is already aware of that". If my understanding is correct, why do we need to include that information in an article entitled "History of the Moldovan language" -- is the title in today's Wikipedia meant to reflect realities in the 17th century? --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No, you did not understand it correctly. 2. If the article is titled History... then historical references presenting the changes in attitudes towards the subject are relevant. The title does not reflect anything, it's the content that reports historical views and (ideally) modern interpretation of those views (i.e. how the understanding of language in 17th century relates to contemporary understanding). 3. Whether the subject exists and whether it warrants a separate History.. is a whole different story, but the articles are already there.

NVO (talk

) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What if there are no modern sources on the topic? Is the article's existence reason enough to warrant its continued existence? Can I create History of the Australian language and defend its existence by its prior existence? --Gutza ^{T T+} 03:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gutza. The issue you are attempting to resolve would greatly benefit from secondary sources which confirm that historical Moldavian spoken in the principality of Moldavia was Romanian by just another name, while the (Soviet) creation of Moldovan and its current use to further a political agenda by insisting it is, at once, a language and ethnic group distinct from Romanian and, at the same time, a language and ethnic group continuous over six centuries with Moldavia/Moldavian (and note both cannot be true if historical Moldavian is simply Romanian which it is) is a completely different animal. —PētersV (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable enough source for Wikipedia's purposes.

02:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign sources are hard. Can you summarize what you think of it? Why it should be, or should not be considered reiiable? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a 'foreign source' really? --Soman (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream newspaper therefore generally reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Star is pretty big over there. I'd equate it to a paper like , say, the Dallas Morning News. Not a worldwide paper, but certainly not the Four-Streets-With-A-Stoplight Gazettte. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's reliable then. I'll mark this as resolved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can The Electronic Intifada be used as a reliable source? I am working on Cinema of Palestine, and there is one editor there that disagree:[20] I cannot see that EI has been discussed here before, (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions), therefor I would very much like to hear your opinion. Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a marginal case. In this case you want to use it for a statement about cinema, so it is not so controversial as it might be in other circumstances. And you also have a named author who would seem to be an authority in the field. So I think on balance the statement could be left in and attributed to the author. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly reluctant though of course we must be to accept anything with a "Palestinian POV", the Electronic Intifada (and/or its founder, Ali Abunimah) has started to be quoted regularly in impeccably "mainstream" and yes even Israeli and Zionist sources.

They claim to have been favourably reviewed in several "mainstream" sources, including the center-right Jerusalem Post. An unfavourable review at the Jewish Telegraph Agency wire still called it a useful resource for understanding Palestinian opinions.

The Financial Times apparently said: "The Electronic Intifada is a highly professional site, apparently designed and run from the UK, which blends links to newspaper stories, in-depth comment on the way the conflict is being presented in the media, the Live From Palestine "diary project" and snippets such as a running total of Palestinian and Israeli deaths. The design is clean, using interesting fonts and images, and the material is up to date. On Tuesday morning there were already links to a dozen articles covering the Gaza City attack"

An ITV program called "The Web Review" supposedly gave EI a 10/10 rating "In form this site is a slick newsroom, rational and cross-referenced. But electronicintifada is also a democratic bombshell, a fascinating look between and behind the lines. [...] It is so incredibly professional. It is so slick. It is so well done. It kinda blew me away, really. [...] An unashamedly, very well deserved 10 out of 10." PR^talk 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, some of the UFO-enthusiasts who have been stymied by the

with a citation to Wikinews. I think this is very smelly. Does anyone else? How should I handle the removal of Wikinews-cited UFO sightings. Also, can someone alert Wikinews people that they are being used in this way?

(Cross posted to

.)

) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is not a RS in this capacity. It may be reliable sometimes. There's a long discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Wikinews: Please post definite answer where even Jimbo chimes in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the record and say that Jimbo is wrong there. Community creation and vetting of news is a great idea and works to produce a quality product but it isn't reliable in the sense that the English Wikipedia defines a reliable source. The opinion of some people is that once we eliminate the "vandalism" problem (a la the flagged revisions debate), wikipedia can become reliable, but I feel this is an oversimplification. We (and wikinews) may be reliable in some connotations of the term but not as wikipedia defines it. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'd like to take Wikinews as a secondary source, I think the rule that should govern here is extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. If it was an article about what kind of aircraft were seen at an air show, Wikinews should be fine. But if its an article about a phenomenon that's debatable if it even exists, it needs a stronger source. There is a pecking order of secondary sources, you know. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This section "Claims of Korean ancestry" at Hibari Misora contains no reliable references. The edit summary shows that most edits have tried to remove it for that reason. The article has not had many editors, so I decided to improve it. This user "Caspian_blue"[21] directly added that one section back into the article. I find that odd, because the user has the article of their watch list, but they have not edited the article before.

I tried to create a discussion with the user, and for them to explain how the references are reliable. However the user deletes my posts, makes rude comments, and ignores the question. Stating the references are "RELIABLE" and that I am page blanking, creating dishonest edit summaries, falsely labeling, and leaves me numerous warnings, and threats of being blocked. This was after I included many notable references to update the article.

The section in general is just nonsense, as none of the references are notable. However the book reference in particular is misleading, as this book "美空ひばり時代を歌う" does not mention anything about such a topic. It is impossible to find any information relating to the "weekly newspapers" which apparently wrote about it. The Korean newspaper isn't even named. The English reference is just a personal website about Japanese music, last updated in May 2007. The final references are from a Korean site, and using googles web translator, it appears the title says that 70% of the Japanese entertainment industry is actually Korean. It seems to be an anti-nationality statement, and an opinionated editorial. In addition, the user "Casbian Blue" appears to have an anti-Japanese persona, judging from this users activity.

I don't feel it belongs in the article, and that it is bait for prejudice vandalism. Trying to find any source relating to such a thing is almost impossible. 220.253.40.233 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a University Thesis by someone about another person that is passed away considered to be a reliable source?Vivaldi27 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty borderline. If it's a biographical article I'd still try to find more widely-published sources. It would be a different matter if it was a thesis about an uncontroversial technical topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

usually no. Most universities will let you get a MA or PhD with almost any thesis and the university is not officially on the hook for the claims made in the article. What is the source in question? Protonk (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Finding a thesis is often useful as it gives you the name of an author. You can then search for books or articles written by that person. Academics often derive articles from their thesis while they are writing it or soon afterwards, and the whole thesis might be published in amended form as a book. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A PhD thesis is certainly a RS. It isn't self-published and goes through a review process by a group of experts in the field. That's more than most books. Is a university Thesis something different? Hobit (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is true at all. Not all university theses are created alike. Plenty of PhD granting universities out there will accept a thesis that could never get published in academic press. The purpose of the thesis is mainly to demonstrate that the writer can formulate an independent work of scholarly interest. Usually the thesis ends up being published somewhere, but that is only after it is submitted for peer review. I absolutely disagree that a thesis is RS simply because of the review committee. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A PhD dissertation (at the very least in the humanities and social sciences and in the United States) goes through a rigorous review process by the dissertations readers most of whom are experts in the field and who are "on the hook" in some way or another. Protonk, the reason why a given PhD dissertation may not be publishable has nothing to do with the perceived reliability of its content. Do you have any evidence of that being the case because I've never heard this before?PelleSmith (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are three older discussions related to this one: 1, 2, and 3. I will note that I only think a PhD dissertation from an accredited university (and not a lesser type of "thesis") should be considered reliable yet even in that case should be avoided when possible for novel and contentious claims.PelleSmith (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I know that PhD's in the US in all fields go through a rigorous review. One of the elements of reliability (in terms of the "publisher") requires that the publisher take responsibility for the content. I also realize that many PhD dissertations are not publishable for reasons other than reliability (good and bad). Novelty bias, scope of subject, length of dissertation all impact likelihood of publication and do not impact what we would consider accuracy. Another element of reliability is editorial control. While PhD theses may be vetted for claims and evidence, most universities will eventually accept a thesis on most any subjects (assuming that the major professor ok's it). This is the antithesis of reliability in a publisher sense. We rely (rightly or wrongly) on third parties to select and cover topics. Fact checking is only an element of that outsourcing. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ProtonK here, and I'll add that, as always, the devil is in the details. If you're looking blanket statement that PhD theses from qualifier1, qualifier2, qualifier3 university are always/never reliable sources, then I don't think you're going to get one. In many subjects, theses from certain universities may be valid sources for certain types of claims, but in many cases they won't be. Theses aren't "published" in the usual sense of the word, and if claims made in a thesis are notable and/or valid, then one would hope that the claim would eventually show up in an unambiguously reliable source. In my own field (chemistry), crappy not-otherwise publishable material is sometimes (not often--but still with an unfortunate regularity) crammed into theses, since sometimes the best way to get rid of a lackluster grad student is to pass him/her out of the program. It's clean and easy, and everyone gets what they want--the prof gets rids of an underperforming grad student and the student gets a PhD. Happens all the time, even at "prestigious" universities. Yilloslime (t) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize now that I wasn't as clear as I had hoped to be. Here is my rundown: Reliability of a source (in this case, the word source refers to the publisher not the author) stems from three things. A reputation for fact checking. A reputation for selection and control of content. And a reputation for responsibility for that content. A PhD thesis from a major university only meets the first element. The rest are at best met on a case by case basis within given departments. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. To suggest that there is no "selection and control of content" by seasoned experts in the field who are not the PhD candidate themselves is absurd and clearly wrong. Sure the university itself may not take responsibility in the manner of a publisher but it seems like neither of you are willing to account for aspects of the dissertation process that are simply different from the publishing process but may accomplish similar ends in terms of reliability. To suggest that dissertation readers (as opposed to the university as an institution) take no responsibility for the content of the dissertation is odd. We get it, the dissertation writing process is not the same as the process of getting a book published by an academic press, but why on earth is that the standard by which the dissertation needs to be judged in terms of reliability? Yilloslime, in your hypothetical situation everyone does not "get what they want". The university and the department in question will lose in the end if they continue to produce scholars who can't get jobs in no small part because the research that was approved and supervised by the department is of poor quality. Don't forget that a lot of garbage is published by university presses as well for various reasons. Could either of you offer something more than simple anecdotes to support the assertion that PhD dissertations cannot be considered reliable sources in most instances? I'm happy to repeat the notion that they should not be used for contentious and novel claims. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I'm not saying "never", I'm just saying "not usually". First, I don't agree that universities have incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. That incentive is transferred largely to the student. In most fields there is a pressure to produce something worthy of publication in order to seek academic employment. In that case it is in the interests of the student to produce something of quality. For students who will not seek academic employment the university has no real incentive to control quality. Efficacy of graduate programs are judged based on the employment prospects of graduates and time to graduate, not the quality of dissertations. Second, we have no information on individual colleges and departments. While we can (and often do) judge sources bu their public face--tabloids are rebuked as tabloids, journals which practice rigorous fact checking are noted--we have no real way to determine this for the thousands of PhD programs in the United States alone. We can spot obvious diploma mills but review of these programs from a fact checking and editorial control standpoing is spotty at best. Third, we still don't have strong editorial control. While I agree that selection of a topic and scope are subject to the whim of the major professor, there is no guarantee that this results in some meaningful selection. I also want to contest the "just anecdote" notion. I don't see that you have offered some data about the overall accuracy of doctoral dissertation (or the average eventual publication). We are both providing reasons for our arguments and anecdotal (sometimes) examples. I can tell you that I go to a large Midwestern PhD granting university who is not in the top 10 academically. Our standards for dissertations are lower than the standards for publication in most fields. I have plenty of reason to believe that there is considerable variation in the quality of dissertations between universities and that they may not always be reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much more than anecdotal information myself, but I'm not asserting that a certain form of large scale research project supposedly done under expert supervision and receiving the stamp of an accredited university is often an unreliable source for facts. Is it possible that your experience is more salient in specific fields of research? I can't imagine many of these "PhD mills" in the humanities and social sciences, but maybe my experience isn't the more common one. The idea that oversight comes in the form of professorial "whims" seems pretty cynical to me. Of course the scope of the project isn't in question here the reliability of the finished product is. You are convincing me, even if only by example, that there is a lot of variation across programs and disciplines which would make a generalized statement here more problematic. Yet what I'm not convinced of is that the difference in "quality" between universities relates directly to the reliability of information within dissertations. That was my initial concern when it was suggested that the fact that most dissertations are not published speaks to their unreliability when I don't see any evidence of this. When advised on how to write a dissertation that would have a better chance of being accepted for publication I've never come across any advice about reliability and/or the accuracy of information. I'm not sure good data exists on the accuracy of information from books published by academic presses either. Perhaps no one needs to use a dissertation as a reference anyway if we all agree that novel/contentious claims should be avoided from these sources leaving factual information which can always be sourced elsewhere. Protonk I do not doubt that your appraisal is entirely sincere and based upon good experience in this area, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise with my "anecdotal" comment. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll attempt something of a reply here, but I think we agree on some narrow issues. One of the biggest issues with

WP:RS is that we have three distinct connotations for the word source. We may mean source in the manner that RS means it: a publisher of information. We may mean source to be the author of that piece of information. And we may mean source to be the actual font of data that the piece compiles. In the case (broadly) of PhD dissertations I still think that they are not a homogeneously reliable source in the first definition. If there is a wide disparity in dissertation quality and appropriateness of topic selection then I am hesitant to leave the judgment of the accuracy and acceptability of a dissertation to the editor alone. I kind of answered this below, but I feel that there is a big continuum of PhD quality from top flight universities to diploma mills. there are plenty of PhD granting universities who have competitive admissions, comprehensive examinations and difficult coursework but which may (or may not) not undertake strong control in the selection of topics and coverage of material (I concede the point that fact checking is largely done). I also want to revisit my "whim" comment. I just threw that out there. I didn't mean it literally and I should have clarified. Topics are agreed upon (usually where I have seen) between student and professor but my point was that there are many more students than professors and the assent of the major professor to a student topic isn't the same thing as an editor pushing for a story and selecting among different stories (Mostly because students eventually write the dissertation where reporters or columnists may--for some papers--write several stories before one is selected). Remember, back to the "sources" issues. the problem at hand isn't the "reliability" of the information but of the PhD dissertation process. That is the important element. We may accept the NYT as a reliable source even though they messed up and published the WMD business in 2002-2003. This is a rough cut from a blunt tool, but it seems to work reasonably well. I just feel that if we apply it to dissertations we end up with the answer that usually it is impossible to tell if the dissertation process is reliable school to school. Protonk (talk

) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(out indent, EC)

• OK, this is verging upon the bizarre. Let's go one thing at a time.

• First, I don't agree that universities have incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. That incentive is transferred largely to the student. In most fields there is a pressure to produce something worthy of publication in order to seek academic employment. In that case it is in the interests of the student to produce something of quality. For students who will not seek academic employment the university has no real incentive to control quality. Efficacy of graduate programs are judged based on the employment prospects of graduates and time to graduate, not the quality of dissertations.

• Believe me, there are strong incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. Schools do not want to be known as a paper mill. Faculty members don't want to be known for having shoddy PhD students. Graduate programs are judged almost solely on how good of students they produce. US News rankings have been making a bigger deal about number of graduates, but for departments it is peer-review that matters. And believe me, quality of PhD students (which is judged mostly by what they've done/written) is the number one issue there.

• I'm not saying that they don't. Schools are certainly rated on the success of their graduates and this gives the university a strong incentive to get them to write publishable dissertations. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between being accountable for inaccuracies, bias and topic selection and being accountable for student outcomes. And it isn't just diploma mill vs. not. There is a pretty big leap from (say) the University of Chicago and the University of Phoenix. Most top of the field schools will produce dissertations that go on to be published in some form. Schools which don't (a big chunk of them) still have rigorous and comprehensive PhD programs, but we can no longer say that a high percentage of their students' dissertations go on to be published. It is those schools which we are concerned about. Not harvard.

• Second, we have no information on individual colleges and departments. While we can (and often do) judge sources bu their public face--tabloids are rebuked as tabloids, journals which practice rigorous fact checking are noted--we have no real way to determine this for the thousands of PhD programs in the United States alone. We can spot obvious diploma mills but review of these programs from a fact checking and editorial control standpoing is spotty at best.

• At the very least the same is true of newspapers and magazines in the US. Which local papers are "reliable?" There are a lot more local papers than PhD granting institutions. And we have a high degree of certainty that more time was spent on the thesis than a news article. Both in the writing and the editing.

• Maybe. There are Editor & Publisher, Columbia Journalism Review, and other journalism reviews. For schools we have Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education, whose focus isn't really on the quality of dissertation.

• Third, we still don't have strong editorial control. While I agree that selection of a topic and scope are subject to the whim of the major professor, there is no guarantee that this results in some meaningful selection.

• And somehow you think that the selection of topic and scope by a news reporter and her editor results in meaningful selection? Why one and not the other?

• Yes of course I do. Newspapers have a limit to their possible coverage, the number of pages they can print. They also have meaningful tradeoffs in assigning a reporter to issue A rather than B, or C or D. The only thing that limits topic selection for dissertations is grad students. We can cherry pick bad topics just as easily as we can cherry pick good topics.

I think you are holding one type of publication to a higher standard than the others. The work is reviewed by a committee (by definition) and directed by an expert in the field. If a Thesis claimed that "Bob Jones was a murder" I'd certainly be hesitant to take that as fact just because someone wrote it in a thesis. But I'd be hesitant to take that as fact just because the NYT said it. That "discovering the optimal scheduling algorithm for certain caches is NP-hard" is something I'd believe from a thesis, esp. as it would have evidence therein to back it up. In that case, there's also a journal paper (which should be cited instead). Hobit (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to respond inline just to make things worse. :) Like I said above, my suggested answer isn't never but "often, no". I don't see that as descending into silly season. The field that I dabble in has plenty of MA and PhD theses which push the discipline forward, mostly because it is so new. I wouldn't have a problem citing one in a paper but I probably wouldn't (even if I knew the research) cite it in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Example of an unacceptable PhD. I just searched googlebooks for sources and found a full-text rendition of a PhD thesis that looked like a thoroughly researched, spot-on source on topic... until I found that it cites guess what - wikipedia - and on a gregarious scale (go figure). At page 387 the author even argues that wikipedia has more or less quality than paper encyclopedias. Why in the world a thesis needs to cite encyclopedias? beats me. This one is from Oslo School of Engineering and Design.

) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find more, even in the US or the UK. This is sad, but true.

talk

) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps by Andrew Andersen

I would like to bring attention to various maps of Caucasus region (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan), which are apparently made by a blogger named Andrew Andersen, who claims to be a PhD. Here is the list of images, all sourced from the same so called "Atlas of Conflicts" website of his, which are rather frivolous and unsubstantiated by any scholarly source on the subject. There are many other available historical maps of the region, which can be used with much better, established, reference base.

• Image:Geom-0150bc-0600ad.jpg
• Image:Geor_1450_1515.jpg (this one even shows a city that was founded in 18th century on a map pertaining to 15th century)
• Image:DRGMap.png
• Image:AzerbaijanDemocraticRepublicMap.png

There might be some others from the same source, that I can find in Wikipedia.

According to

: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

In fact, according to these sources [22], [23] from University of Victoria newspaper, Andrew Andersen is known as formerly sessional professor at the University of Victoria, who was removed from his position for "racism and prejudice against minorities, Muslims in particular in May 2003". There is a substantial body of past discussion on the subject here, and this is some interesting input/info from an administrator back then [24].

I think provided how much edit warring conflicts these maps have led to all across Wikipedia, it's time to find less controversial and truly scholarly sources. Removal of some of these controversial and baseless maps may greatly assist in lowering tensions in Armenia-Azerbaijan editing conflicts. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All of these maps are in Commons. I counted about a dozen or so different maps but there seems to be more. Partial list of affected articles:

Centre for Military and Strategic Studies,History of Abkhazia History of_Georgia (country),Colchis, Georgians, Kutaisi,Mtskheta,Tao (historical_region),Tbilisi,Tamar of Georgia,Democratic Republic of Georgia,Red Army invasion of Georgia,Treaty of Moscow (1920),David IV of Georgia, Kingdom of Abkhazia,Kipchaks in Georgia,Lucullus etc.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!!

19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the maps of Andersen are used in many articles in WIkipedia does not make them reliable. This author has no third party published works, he just maintains a website, and anyone can do that. Grandmaster (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are the maps incorrect, or does the objection only concern who made them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the accuracy of the maps is being disputed. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, it's not a blog it's a web site dedicated to conflicts in the Caucasus. How would you go about purging all of these maps from Commons and then cleaning up the articles?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what is happening here. The maps are used to promote certain views, and they come from a self-published source, which contradicts Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Blog or website, what's the difference? Still a self-published source. Grandmaster (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that neither Atabek or Grandmaster have said what they think is inaccurate about all these maps. In fact, they have deliberately avoided doing it. They attack the source of the content rather than the content itself. A discussion of one of the maps took place here Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Dubious_map_by_dubious_Andersen. I gave an analysis of the accuracy of the map there, neither of them bothered to reply. That was probably because the real reason for their objection is not that the maps are in any substantial way inaccurate for their purpose here, but that certain of the maps indicate borders or regions which disagree with their POV warring aims. The Andersen maps do not seem to disagree substantially with similar maps published in other sources. The difference is that, because of their licensing, the Andersen maps are available to be used within Wikipedia articles but those from the other sources can't be used. In essence, Atabek is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia procedures in order to censor Wikipedia. Meowy 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you minded

WP:AGF and stopped making personal attacks on other editors. The maps by Andersen were discussed a million times on various articles, where certain people tried to include them to advance their position. The rules are the rules, the sources must be reliable, published by authoritative publisher. If this source does not conform with the requirements, it should not be used. Simple as that. Grandmaster (talk

) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You and Atabek lost (and lost long ago) the right to expect others to assume that you are always acting in "good faith". I gave credible reasons above why it should not be assumed you are acting in good faith on this occasion. Your continued reluctance to point out specific flaws in the maps you want removed just emphasises the weakness in your position. It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Wikipedia are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. Meowy 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting as Meowy feels that he is qualified to determine who has or does not have certain rights... Anyways, I would like to request a third party opinion regarding maps of blogger-claiming-to-be-scholar Andersen "PhD". These maps seriously fuel conflicts on Caucasus subjects, are not neutral and need to be removed and replaced with maps by legitimate established scholars. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a small conflict on List of Heroes episodes where someone adds titles sourced to Netflix. Problem is, it's a paid subscrubtion site. Unlike (subscription) magazines, where you can walk into a shop or library to verify the source, Netflix only allows access to their catalogue if you are a paying member, making it impossible for ayone else to verify the source. This is why I keep removing those title, but other pose that Netflix is a usable source, even if it is payed access only. Opinions? — Edokter • Talk • 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know. I don't think the "paid subscription part" bothers me but it is an open question whether or not netflix can and should be used as a source at all for episode ordering and what-not. Protonk (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• My understanding of the issue is that some people want to source to Netflix the titles of episodes that have not aired on television yet but which are listed on Netflix as episodes that will become available for instant viewing in the future. I would expect that the list of upcoming episodes would be picked up by some freely available source after it appears on Netflix, and the episode titles could be sourced to that. But even if they aren't published on another source in advance, Netflix has over 8 million subscribers, so there is likely a significant number of Wikipedia users who are Netflix subscribers and can confirm that the upcoming episode titles are correct. Sources which require a fee to access are not prohibited from being usable sources. That said, if the information can be sourced to a freely available and reliable source, we should use that instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• That's imo acceptable. You can't usually "walk in a library" to verify content of, say, 18th century printed book. You also usually cannot physically see the paintings hidden in the stores of any major public museum (these vaults are far larger than the viewable collections), or the films and tapes in studio's video archives. Not without special research permit from the studio boss. So the Netflix entry barrier is inomparably lower.
  NVO (talk
  ) 13:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun

Would Thesmokinggun.com be considered reliable, particularly with regard to their supposed speciality, the legal troubles of celebrities?

If not, two further questions.

Would it be fair to include information from the web site if is confirmed by the copies they have of court and arrests records?

Would it be fair to include information from an accepted reliable source such as the Associated Press if AP article was based on what appeared on Thesmokinggun.com? BaldPete (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun appears to be a reliable publisher of primary sources. However primary sources like court documents should only be used with great care. See

WP:PSTS We have to avoid making mistakes of interpreting primary sources, or assuming that they tell the complete story, or that they are even accurate. For example, we may see an indictment but we may not see the motion that tossed out the indictment. Or we may be looking at the wrong "Liz Smith". Affadavits in divorce fcases are notorious for being exaggerated. If an event hasn't been mentioned in secondary sources then we shouldn't use a primary source about it. Where primary sources are useful is in providing details that might not have been mentioned in the secondary source, like the exact date. Also, it's important to avoid giving excess weight to salacious material that is not part of the subject's notability. That's tricky with celebrities, who may become known as much for their arrests as for their performances. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback, with one caveat. The Smoking Gun usually provides a synopsis of what the person in question was busted for. So looking at the synopsis would be using a secondary source. Trying to draw inferences that can at all be controversial from the documents from TSG would be original research with primary sources. That being said, I would say TSG is reliable. Ngchen (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider The Smoking Gun a reliable source, at least to the extent that their coverage is backed up by the original documents which are typical of their web site. TSG has been owned by Court TV (now
  Time Warner Inc. (Note, however, that the original documents shown on TSG may include items filed in lawsuits which contain unconfirmed allegations. Thus, TSG could serve as a reliable source to establish that the allegations were made in those documents, but not necessarily to establish that the allegations are true.) --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• That kinds of leaves us in a bind with respect to BLP's. What hypothetical situation can you envision where we would want to source the existence of an allegation that had not been covered in secondary sources just in order to note the allegation? I agree w/ you and will that TSG has a good record vetting primary documents and displaying them unaltered. I just can't think of a case where we would need them to summarize a primary document that wasn't otherwise made available to the public. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that we'd really want to use the synopses as secondary sources for the purpose of establishing the notability of an incident. In that context it should at least be a source independent of TSG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BLP specifies questionable sources as, "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs." The primary documents on TSG don't fall under this definition. A copy of a court transcript, arrest record, court filing, or other legal document which is what often appears on TSG appears to meet the definition of a reliable source which can be used in a BLP. Cla68 (talk
  ) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's missing the forest for the trees. BLP is there to help ensure that we only use sources with a clear and sound editorial policy for citing claims about living persons. The primary documents at TSG are there because they are leaked and not otherwise publicly available (as appellate briefs, summary decisions, etc. are). So we could cite those sources only in very limited places, even more limited than in places where we could cite "publicly available" primary documents. My question above was "What situation can we envision where we would cite TSG's copy of primary sources where we wouldn't just cite the secondary source discussing the event? Because we wouldn't note the event in the article simply because it is in TSG." I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't envision a scenario like that. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Two points: First, once a document is on TSG it is publicly available. Second, there are several scenarios when a primary source might be used to supplement a secondary source. A primary source may list details of an episode, such as the exact date or a verbatim quote, that don't appear in the secondary sources. Protonk is right that primary sources, especially of the type found on TSG, need to be handled with great care, but their use is not totally prohibited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Protonk's comment that "the primary documents at TSG are there because they are leaked and not otherwise publicly available": that may be true for the occassional document, but the vast majority of the documents on TSG are documents that are publically available (in the sense that members of the public could obtain them, if they were willing to undertake the effort and expense), but not very accessible. TSG gets most of its materials by just getting copies from their publically accessible repositories (court clerks, etc.) or via FOIA requests. There may be a few leaked documents, but those are exceptions. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was including the tour notes and other stuff. Yes, the court documents are mostly available to anyone. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is how do you confirm that what it's publishing is authentic? That's the point of the line in

WP:V about using sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does TSG have such a reputation? -- ChrisO (talk

) 10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has a reputation for accuracy. The Smoking Gun is part of CourtTV (now renamed truTV), owned by Time Warner. It's not just some guy getting documents. TJRC (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is WikiPilipinas considered a reliable source for a) in-text references, or b) External Links sections? I noticed a lot of links to various pages on it, and such a large collection needs some community input rather than one editor making any potentially damaging decisions. Orpheus (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For in-text references, it should not be used at all, since it's a wiki. See

WP:ELNO discourages the use of open wikis as external links unless they are stable and have a large number of users. I don't know whether WikiPilipinas meets those criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk)

14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. I agree. It may be usable as a general external link (that is, linking to the website's home page rather than a specific subpage), but as you rightly say, it needs to meet the

WP:ELNO criteria first. -- ChrisO (talk

) 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty clear. Any volunteers to help with the cleanup then? :) Orpheus (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a dispute on

). The problems I perceive with the website are:

• WP:V
  requires the use of "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I see no evidence that savepasargad.com has any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or even that it checks facts and accuracy in the first place. It's wholly unclear whether they have any kind of editorial process.

• The website itself is clearly an advocacy website and the two pieces being cited are very much advocacy pieces on behalf of a particular Iranian nationalist viewpoint ("Retort to the Daily Telegraph’s article against Cyrus the Great Attack on the Legacy of Cyrus the Great", "Response to Spiegel Magazine's Attack on the Legacy of Cyrus the Great"). This would have to count as a questionable source, I think ("promotional in nature" -
  WP:QS
  ). As far as I can see, it's a rather amateurish website that's been put together by a group of ad hoc campaigners.

• It is unclear whether the source is a third-party one; it appears that the author of the cited pieces is a member of the Committee on whose website they are published. I am not sure whether this meets the requirement for a source to be independent of the author. It is certainly not the same kind of relationship as between, say, an author and a mainstream book publisher. If you can e-mail a piece to a colleague and say "please put this on your website", that strikes me as being self-publishing by proxy.

• Finally, the reliability of the two pieces is questionable as well. It's about an historical issue relating to ancient Mesopotamia. As already mentioned, it's by a Canadian-Iranian linguist; he has no qualifications as an historian but has a sideline as an amateur historian.
  WP:REDFLAG
  for me. As WP:V puts it, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources". I'm not sure this counts.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your analysis seems spot on. An advocacy site without any evidence of a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I note also that the entry we have for the linguist in question,
  Radio Free Europe. Hardly a reliable source for those credentials. Kaveh appears also to be a psycho-linguist by training, and he appears to have absolutely no academic qualifications as a historian. I do not think you can use his writings from this advocacy site, and be cautious in using his books within a field he has no training.PelleSmith (talk
  ) 14:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It turns out that his specific area of work is as a student counsellor at Langara College in Vancouver [27], so your caution seems to be a good idea. I certainly think it would be inadvisable to quote him as if he was the equivalent of the professional historians cited everywhere else in the article. We would never, for instance, quote an unqualified amateur theorist alongside Stephen Hawking in an article about black holes; I'd sincerely hope that we take the integrity of our historical articles as seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to

talk

) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm coordinating an educational project (

, my students have shown the immense initiative of getting in touch with the author herself. They therefore met her, and interviewed her at length (three hours), an interview which they recorded. Thanks to that interview, they therefore have a number of sources that we want to ask about. They include:

• the taped interview itself
• her CV
• the manuscript of an unpublished talk given by a Chilean academic at the launch of one of her books

These sources are not needed to establish the author's notability, but as the intent is to take this article to

, we would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Obviously, these unconventional sources are a goldmine. Can the students use them, and if so how? Or if not, are there any precedents or workarounds? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In part due to my article I wrote about Ann Bannon, I also established contact with the subject, and it has, to my utter humility and astonishment, turned into a friendship. We have visited on several occasions, and we have a wonderful email correspondence. I am unable to use any information not published by a reliable 3rd party source in her article, including her thoughts on her books, publishers, and other things. Her hairdresser witnessed the Stonewall riots, and she told me about them, but I can't use that for that article. Her daughter was emerged from the San Francisco Opera House in the middle of the White Night riots, when Dan White got off virtually free for murdering Harvey Milk, but I can't use her description for Milk's article. Your students should cherish the relationship they just struck, maybe see if they can get the interview published (you could help with that?) and use it then, but they can't use anything until it's published by a 3rd party reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While admirable work, this is not appropriate research for Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be based on primary research, as outlined in

talk

) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

@-jbmurray: See if you can get that published in your college newspaper or website. Once published there it may be possible to cite it in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

@Moni3, Awadewit, and jossi... Hmm, yes, let's see if they can write up the interview and get it published. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, copied over from

. After all, research (particularly historical and scientific research) for instance, relies precisely on primary sources: letters, interviews, diaries, as well as experiments, lab notes, and so on. It's not that the students are drawing on personal experience--per the example of an eyewitness report of an accident--let alone a waking dream. In fact, they are being suitably scholarly in searching out primary and unpublished sources. It's just that when scholars do this, their reputation and training is what provides verifiability. Here on Wikipedia, because these are sources that nobody else can access, they are regarded on unreliable.

NB the use of primary sources would not make Wikipedia a primary source; it would make it a secondary source, along the lines of the sources that Wikipedia itself uses. But Wikipedia's goal is to be a tertiary source, that relies on (usually scholarly or journalistic) secondary sources.

I do wonder, however, how much leeway is provided by the final paragraph at

) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• The key point is always that editors are not supposed to be interpreting data or evidence for themselves and sharing that interpretation on Wikipedia - the sources are supposed to do that. That is why we stay away from primary sources. While this can be a delicate line, in this case I feel it is clear. I also feel we should try to make this distinction as clear as possible and avoid trying to push its boundary. As you rightly point out, original research is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. No one submits their discovery to the Britannica. :)
  talk
  ) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, A, about not pushing boundaries.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This diff here is what I'm referencing. A blog has been cited previously, and now the editor is citing another article on Wiki after I informed him that the blog wasn't reliable. I have objections to including the information about how Colby Donaldson should have been kicked off of the show based on these rules (that so far haven't been properly sourced) when it seems to be original research and we don't know what went on behind the scenes. Any thoughts on this from users or admins more experienced? Atlantabravz (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a source. He should be given warnings for adding information that is sourced by unreliable sources. If he is a good faith editor he will stop. — Realist² 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits reverted and notice given to user. I'm not an admin so can't do much more to help myself, sorry. — Realist² 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is pretty cleaned up now. Oddly enough, the editor hasn't answered the talk page comments and proceeded to make that last questionable edit after I had explained on their talk page about original research and proper sourcing. I wanted to list the issue on this board to show the editor the concensus on proper sourcing in case he or she tried to re-add it. Atlantabravz (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering it's gained awards, reputation and is editored. Is there a point where a serious professional blog site becomes reliable? Are these sites any less reliable than a newspaper? --neon white talk 10:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that rather than a blog it is actually a local news magazine. You may be right. If so the authored main items may be reliable; of course the responses by the general public will not be. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

there are no citations for putting this disorder in gender categories or links that show any symptom differentiality in patients due to gender

In females Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2]

In males Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3]

You are right; this lengthy distinction between male and female sufferers is not found in the source (2) cited. And that does not seem to be a reliable source anyway - at least to me it seemed to be just an authorless web page. Best to delete and then see if anyone wants to restore any gender-related distinction based on better sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, I understand that the website Japanreview.net has significant connections to Debito Arudou. I have the feeling that citing it is appropriate in Arudou's case because Arudou let an editor from the website look at his rough draft; another editor from the site gave a negative review his final book. Also I read C S and JReadings rationale. Anyway, I just want to triple check that the source can be used, so please look at the talk page and confirm or deny the rationale here. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To further this explanation, Debito Arudou himself is involved in the discussion. He believes that JapanReview.net is not a reliable source and should be deleted from the article. Several other editors have attempted to show that the website is not only reliable, but that it is linked to Debit Arudou himself. Arudou continues to insist that his article is unfairly biased because of this existence of these references, and has even called into question the neutrality or possibly even conflicts of interest of other editors who disagree with his position.

It would be appreciated if outside views can determine if the source of JapanReview.net is reliable, possibly to calm Mr. Arudou's beliefs that his article is biased and that Wikipedians are trying to "troll" his biography. I realize this goes a little beyond a Reliable Source problem, but it is the heart of the matter it seems. The359 (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Arudou Debito here. Hello. The issue, as I see it, is not whether Scalise, Honjo, and I have any relations or connections. (We did; I was interviewed by them, and Scalise did proof an MS of the book. We were friends, but had a falling out.) The issue is whether the source itself, Japanreview.net, counts a "reliable source" suitable for Wikipedia under its guidelines. My arguments for why it is not:

It is a website, not a publication. It is run by two people (Honjo and Scalise) who are not established, authoritative, or professional editors. The website has nothing anything approaching established practices of vetting or peer review. Moreover, it has been defunct since July 2005. Further, it has (in my view) shown unprofessionality and bias in its reviewing style, particularly in regards to this author's work. And the website has become a source for lifting quotes (as purported Letters to the Editor, but essentially no more than posts to a website nonetheless) from non-authorities in the field for inclusion on the WP as "criticisms", while editorial bents remained disinclined towards including any established sources that were positive towards the person being biographied. (For example, there was for years a large section containing Criticisms only, with no balancing out with positive reviews or appraisals, and it was, for the most part, edited for years by a "J Readings", who, not coincidentally, I believe is Honjo and/or Scalise, especially since almost all that "Criticisms" section, again mainly maintained by J Readings, sourced Japanreview.net.)

There are many other issues about sourcing (not just Japanreview.net, but for now that is the topic under discussion here) which I brought up to the Talk page last August, and many were remedied by conscientious editors. However, as weeks have passed and attention drifted, we have editors trying to smuggle back in deleted and unreliably-sourced content all over again. Such as the Japanreview.net website. And when I brought the issue back up yesterday on the Talk pages, I was accused by editors, in spite of the primary assumption of good faith, of trying to make the WP entry into an "advertisement" and a "micro-managed resume" (by none other than J Readings), moreover of trying to "edit" my own site (when in fact all I did was ask other people to edit it, after re-raising the concerns I had last August with an NPOV tag).

Putting up material critical of me is fine, properly sourced. But for the sake of balance, I have also asked for properly-sourced material that is NOT critical of me also to be considered. It has not been (even my most recent book, which came out way back in March, was not included until I demanded it be), even after years of waiting and finally pointing it out. Then my character is publicly impugned for doing so by Wikipedians. Given the attitudes of the current editors on the Talk pages, I do not feel as though the biography is approaching the standards for neutrality that Wikipedia aims to have.

To repeat, I can live with criticisms. As long as they are from established, reputable, authoritative, and genuinely published sources. Places like Japanreview.net are not -- they are essentially blogs. And if (as editors have claimed) the primary criteria for how good a source is is whether the information stands up to consensus regarding content and content alone, then information gleaned from website Debito.org (my site, with copious archives of materials not written by me but published in major newspapers and journals) should also be citable at Wikipedia. However, the systemic presumption of COI just because I happen to the one being biographied (understandible, but unproven), used as a means of accusation by hostile-sounding editors, in my view an automatic bias. In sum, if Japanreview.net is considered a "reputable" source, so should Debito.org be.

There are many issues here entangled, and for that I apologize. But they still aren't being resolved, and part of the problem I believe is that the smaller pond of editors there have predispositions towards the person being biographied. We need arbitration. Thanks for your consideration of this article. Arudoudebito (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an appropriate source for a

biography of living persons noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk

) 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would go further, and say that it is perhaps a questionable source (

WP:QS

), as it relies heavily on personal opinion.

But the source is used merely in a review of a book, rather than discussing the subject. I realize that this article is a biography, but if we had a separate article on "Japan Only", would this source not be useful? If we cannot a negative book review because it relies heavily on opinion, then should we not also remove the positive book review from The Japan Times? The359 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, and is a self published website by an energy analyst. It also applies to the biography above this dispute, and I would assume this outcome applies to that as well. 220.253.144.103 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the Hibari Misora issue is unrelated. The book review of John Lie's Multiethnic Japan was a re-publication from the

Asian Wall Street Journal. You can see it clearly at the bottom of the page. J Readings (talk

) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(I should probably take this up to the next section, but whatever...) The issue really with the Hibari Misora article is that we should be citing Lie's book for facts because it's an academic book. If we wanted reactions, then we could obviously cite reviews. So, in that sense, I agree with you: the Scalise review at JapanReview is technically inappropriate and should be replaced with the cited passage from John Lie's Multiethnic Japan, but that issue has absolutely nothing to do with citing JapanReview overall as a reliable source. J Readings (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How is a self-published book review from a credible author any worse than a book review from an equally credible author published in a newspaper? If we can't allow something because it is someone's stated opinion, then does the article not have undue weight by having only book reviews which praise? If there is no criticism, there shouldn't necessarily be any praise in the article either, even if that source is deemed reliable. The359 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the source hangs on the subject it deals with. "Japanese Only" is a book about how discrimination in Japan affects the lives of foreigners there. While JapanReview in itself may not be 'reliable' - although this is up for debate as it has been cited a number of times by third parties and has itself been covered by a major English daily in Japan - Yuki Honjo's review of the book attracted a significant response from well-known expatriates in Japan who have themselves published material on the subject relevant to "Japanese Only". Even Debito himself wrote a response. This, if nothing else, shows that the review has entered into the discourse on the subject in Japan and is notable.--Anarmac (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanreview.net is not a real source under Wikipedia rules, no matter how you try to dress it up (it's a website, and a defunct one at that). The Japan Times is a real source (it's a major newspaper in Japan that's been around for more than a century). Let's stop trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Moreover, are we arguing with a straight face that we cannot allow praise unless criticism exists? This also falls foul of Wikipedia rules. Arudoudebito (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not arguing and I have not argued that anything published in the Japan Times is not a 'real source'. But aside from merely stating over and over again that it is not reliable or notable, you have not answered the points above about Honjo's review, specifically that it attracted a fair amount of attention from several well known expatriate commentators in Japan. What is more they are commentators who have written non fiction titles on Japanese society in either Japanese or English, or both (Clark, Tasker and, might I add, yourself), or have commented on Japanese nationalism in the domestic and international media as 'experts' (Dujarric). If Honjo's review were really just a trashy piece of blog-hackery, do you think it would have generated such a response? --Anarmac (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, websites do not have to be up to date or currently maintained to be reliable sources. In fact, we use the Internet Archive to find sources from web pages which no longer even exist. The359 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, (Arudou) please read the point about the Japan Times above. Nobody is suggesting that we get rid of the Japan Times quotes because they are from the Japan Times. The suggestion was that perhaps reviews of the subject do not have as much authority as the subject matter itself, so if you get rid of Honjo's review on that basis, the JT reviews would have to go too on the same basis. It is about consistency. Two reliable sources - until you show us otherwise by addressing the reasons why many editors here believe JapanReview.net is unreliable - have offered reviews. If they are irrelevant, then they both go. If they are relevant, then they both stay. Even editors who have toned down the Honjo quotes believe that her review is a reliable source.

Finally, you are not getting anywhere by claiming on your own authority that the source is not notable. It also doesn't help that there are a few others who similarly have not offered convincing rebuttal of the arguments for the source's reliability. I think many of the editors here have been incredibly patient in the last little while and would probably appreciate a reason as to why a source that generated ample attention from prominent expatriates in Japan who have written on the topic should be dismissed out of hand.

If I and others have merely dressed up the Honjo review or smeared lipstick on it, it should be fairly easy for you to undress it or wipe the lipstick off with your own arguments. Please do so. Don't just stand there calling "lipstick! lipstick!" That's not how you convince people. --Anarmac (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a request for comment section about this: Talk:Debito_Arudou#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Japanreview.net_be_used_as_a_source.3F - After this, if there is a consensus, it will stick. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that a lot of articles refer to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (published, I think, around 1913). Like the 1911 ed of the Encyclopedia Britanica, the old CE is noted for its high scholarship and depth of coveage on topics. However, like the 1911 EB, it is dated. This leads to a problem... In many cases the old CE is being used as a citation for statements about modern Catholic scholarship or opinion. I think we need some discussion about how reliable such old encyclopediae are. My personal view is that, while they can be reliable, their reliability is limited. We need to develop a consensus about when they should, and when they should not be used. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The one case I've run into which didn't bother me was an entry allegedly written by Proudhon about contemporary anarchism, something you wouldln't find in something more recent. So there are specific cases where it will work. But accept for very specific contemporary sources like that, I think using them very problematic. Even most historical facts have been re-written one or more times since then. Carol Moore 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

There was an archived discussion on this noticeboard about using a ca 1910 encyclopedia. The basic feel was: if you are trying to source how people felt about a subject in 1910, good. If you are trying to provide a reader in 2008 a factually correct rendition of a subject, it might be better to identify the source (and time) rather than present it as fact. I don't know that we have a "policy" on this per se, but the Britannica 1911 guidance suggests that we should replace material sourced to those encyclopedias ASAP. In your exact example, it would be totally unacceptable to use CE to talk about modern catholic opinion, if only because of Vatican II. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK... The article that propmted my question is

Catholicism and Freemasonry. I am going to have to ask for additional help here, as there is a history of conflict between me and another editor that means any challenge I make as to the use of the CE will be seen as POV (the other editor is a stauch Catholic and I am a Freemason). I realize that the Catholic Church has had serious issues with Freemasonry since the 1700s... I also realize that it still does. I have no problem with the article discussing these issues, whether historical or current. My concern here is purely with the heavy use of the old CE to back statements that seem to reflect the Church's current objections. I would appreciate it if a few non-involved editors took a look at this. Blueboar (talk

) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the Radio Free Europe web site as a RS for someone's expertise

At

talk

) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be primarily a problem of

undue weight. A major problem with using this piece from RFE is that neither Farrokh's publisher, nor his own books, describe him as an "expert" in history and linguistics (see [30]) - they characterise him as a researcher, author and sometime lecturer. The RFE piece is not even about Farrokh - it just quotes him in passing. I think what we have here is a bit of "journalese", where the writer has used a brief description to explain why Farrokh's views are relevant; it isn't nearly as authoritative as his official published biographical profiles. Authoritative sources like official profiles should be given more weight than passing references in random media articles. -- ChrisO (talk

) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this type of mention is authoritative at all and I'm not quite sure that

Radio Free Europe is the most reliable of sources to begin with. We should be looking to the comments of known experts for this kind of credentialing if other criteria cannot be met (proper degrees, university teaching positions, publication in peer-reviewed journals, etc.). Since no reviews can be found I think the publisher looks like the most reliable source here, certainly not RFE.PelleSmith (talk

) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Official MTV interview as source?

I'm currently working on

HIStory

and it's corresponding singles and album tracks that have their own article. I plan to get them all to featured or good states so every detail available is important. Jackson gave a very rare but informative interview to MTV here. Unfortunately it's just the video and I haven't been able to find a transcript of the interview. Could I still use it as a source, since it's an official interview with MTV and if so, how would I go about sourcing it? Cheers. — Realist² 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• An interview conducted by MTV seems to be an acceptable source for a music-related topic such as those you are working on, particularly given that it can be accessed at MTV.com so other editors and Wikipedia users can view it as well and confirm that Jackson did say what he is quoted as saying. In regard to how you cite the interview, use the citation template
  Template:Cite video and fill in as many fields of the template as you can that are relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  00:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — Realist² 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the interview is considered a published source, and you can include brief quotes and what time they appear in the video, and what the original air date of the television program was. You might also want to look through some newspapers because I'm sure there were news articles about it the day after it aired. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues I have in articles is Ad hominem quotes like this one in the Jesus myth article: "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." (Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.) There are several problems with this quote in particular: possible

issues as Charlesworth is the editor of the very book in which his comment appears and Eerdmans presents themselves as "Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature." creating COI concerns. The quote has been put back in with claims that Charlesworth is an "expert in biblical archaeology" failing to explain what supports this and later that Eerdmans is "reputable academic publisher" something not even claimed at Eerdmans' own web site. More troubling is this review by Jonathan Reed from University of La Verne in Review of Biblical Literature 10/2007: "One minor criticism must be raised: scattered throughout the book are numerous illustrations, mostly from Charlesworth’s collection, which, although at times helpful, at other times seem misplaced or could be replaced with something more appropriate. So we see, for example, a bichrome Canaanite decanter in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass, or the excavations at Cana in Kloppenborg’s article, but none at all of the Theodotos inscription whose letters are analyzed in a way that is hard to visualize without a picture. Of course by using his own photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful." When an editor is given this kind of free reign one has a right to call the work "self published" especially when you have things like a Canaanite decanter picture being used in a Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass article. Good grief, that is insane as even a courtesy investigation by John Q Surfer shows the Canaanite culture extending a far greater range in both time and region than the Sidonian culture. That is almost akin to using a picture of an Olmec artifact in an article on the Zapotecs and makes one again wonder about the "reputable academic publisher" claim.

On a more general level I would like to see Ad hominem quotes forbidden regardless of subject matter or source as I can not see any reasonable use for one in any article. They don't really add anything to an article, they serve as a lightning rod preventing article improvement, and they may have other issues as well. The fact you don't see such quotes in articles on other fringe theories like Flat Earth, Creationism, or New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky) raises the question of why are Ad hominem quotes in the Jesus myth article and why editors are fighting to keep them in when better quotes exist. Even in the heated issue of Holocaust denial you have "reputable historian" used in the context of methodology rather than regarding people who hold to Holocaust denial itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by an "ad hominem quote." But there's no problem with the quotation as given. James Charlesworth may or may not be right in his assertion; but he can surely be quoted as an eminently reliable source. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By "ad hominem quote." I mean a quote that attacks the people who support a theory rather than the theory itself. Compare Charlesworth's quote to this one: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." (Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145.). Notice the more neutral tone and wording of the Stanton quote. That is what Wikipedia should be striving for not quotes like Charlesworth's. Furthermore, as a possible self-published source per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But we have a whole host of relevant fields (ethnology, anthropology, archeology, linguistics, theology, etc) involved. By Charlesworth's statement Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies), Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden), Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology), and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) are not "reputable scholars" simply because they support the Jesus Theory. Given that most of these people are alive I see some serious Wikipedia:Libel issues here.

On a related note Eerdmans demonstrated they had problems with their fact checking with Jesus Now and Then By Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould because on page 37 they let this little gem pass: "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." While the authors do spend a couple paragraphs qualifying that sentence be basic fact is that the sentence as it stands is blatantly not true; of those three only Tacitus expressly mentions Jesus, Suetonus is hotly debated and Pliny only mentions the Christian movement. When sources allow statements like that it is red flag time. The "eminently reliable source" idea is put into question by the idea to save a few bucks on the cost of the book Charlesworth was editing he put pictures with articles in such a manner that they seemed misplaced or inappropriate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so your notion of "ad hominem quotes" is a reference to the content of the quotation, not the reliability of the source. As such, it's irrelevant to any attempt to determine reliability. We can and should quote sources regardless of what they say about other sources, in order to reflect and represent the views and debate among such reliable sources. (Issues of libel are a matter for the original publisher, not for us, and you're massively overstating the case.) You can't only quote people you like, or whose style you prefer. Meanwhile, again, this is evidently a reliable source. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to go back and reread Wikipedia:Libel: "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is even more blunt about the matter: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." [...] "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." Wikipedia:Libel makes it painfully clear that repeating any potentially defamatory claim is the responsibility of the editor that either puts it in or restores is and NOT the publication it comes from. Also there is the issue of is a personal opinion regarding the people who hold to a theory with no apparent backing to support that opinion really relevant to an encyclopedia article on that theory? I have yet to see on valid argument of when this would be a good idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter of style, but not about the reliability of the source. Charlesworth is a notable source competent in the field. As long as his opinion is properly attributed, there is not RS problem here. Any libel problem would be Charlesworth's. I also think that you misread him a bit. You should probably parse "a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph" as "a Jew named 'Yeshua ben Yosep'", i.e. the "son of Josef" bit is not a claim of actual parentage, but just a more precise rendering of the common name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is encyclopedia and using an option implied as fact that attacks people who hold to a certain belief rather than criticizing the belief itself does nothing to serve that goal. On a related note, I keep seeing "notable" being brought up but there is nothing about someone having to be "notable" to be a Reliable source. Roland Fischer may not be "notable" but until the quote above his "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text) quote appears in the peer reviewed article "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" in Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 published by no less than the American Anthropological Association. You wouldn't believe the trouble I am having having with regards to one editor to getting that quote in the Jesus Myth article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood how it works. The point is not to edit-war with another editor by trying to keep a reliable source out of the article. And especially when it comes to controversial topics, citing someone is not the same as ascribing to their point of view. The point is to provide a sense of the range of views that are given by reputable and reliable sources. It really doesn't matter whether or not those sources attack others or not. To take another instance, there's no problem citing (say) Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa, though his criticism of her is often vituperative, and indeed I see he's prominently featured in the article about her. But he's not the only source cited, either.

Anyhow, I'm going to mark this "resolved." The source in question is clearly reliable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Several dozen rugby league articles, such as

• 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the first link is a dead one. I agree that it is preferable to use reliable sources and favour the removal of the former if the latter becomes available. I guess it also depends whose blog it acutally is as well, is it a published or notable author? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, even more reason not to use it, I suppose. As far as I could gather when I visited the site it was a personal blog thing with members posting about player transfers/movements and the blog owner updating a list. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some disagreement at

) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

These bios appear to be user-submitted, so they are clearly not independent. One of them is even written in the first person. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I think we consider "publisher bios" as reliable, so why not conference bios? Publisher "bios" are usually written by the agent or the publisher (in concert with the author). Those conference bios are normally written by the participant, but I don't really see the problem. It isn't enough of a source to confer notability, but the facts mentioned on there shouldn't be rejected out of hand unless we have some reason to believe that the conference doesn't police its bios. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I think publishers (and agents) will do some checking, I don't know any conference organizers doing this, so only something glaringly untrue would be caught. BTW, part of the disagreement is about terming this an "autobiography" instead of a biography". --Crusio (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Followup question: Do you mean "good enough to use in an article" or "good enough to base an article on"? Protonk (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's being used to source a highschool award and to support the claim that the subject speaks 4 different languages and has a working understanding of 6 others (4 living and 2 dead). None of this is very important or notable, of course, but the article is weak on notability anyway. --Crusio (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• That high school award should be removed, anyway, as it seems kind of hagiographic to list it. As far as the cite....eh.
  WP:SPS exemptions apply here. We really shouldn't be using this biography to source the 4 languages claim, but it isn't outside the realm of the guidelines to do so. Protonk (talk
  ) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely, but other editors keep reversing me when I remove it, even though I have tried to explain on the article's talkpage that including it is kind of disparaging. --Crusio (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)PS: In the present case, this bio has been shown to contain some fluff, such as "contributed articles to internationally recognized academic journals such as the International Journal of the Sociology of Language", which turns out to be a single 1-page book review. --Crusio (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also involved in the article and raised the issue on the article's talk page earlier. Anyone who has attended any such conferences (I have) knows that participants submit their own information. And as Crusio says just above, the subject took a one page review and turned it into a claim for journals and articles plural. I believe the award bit (it was removed but replaced, someone thinks it makes him look important I guess), but who knows about the languages?

talk

) 05:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So I've encountered a user who has argued that an IMDB page, a myspace page and a personal website are reliable/verifiable sources for a living person biography Kristen Aldridge. I had been citing WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB # 3 as why they don't apply I have this guy and an admin who seems to know the other saying they don't apply. I've reached my 3 edit limit for the article but was hoping some more experienced editors could chime in. Are these sources considered reliable? Tmore3 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

personal websites are by definition self-published and so all the restrictions of self-published apply. IMDB is a mixed bag and frankly I personally would not use it for a living person biography. Better sources should be out there and those should be used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal websites are definitely self-published. The non-user contributed parts of IMDB are probably OK. lk (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the position that such sources are usable under WP:SELFPUB with use of inline citations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm working on

) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, is CRS Press reliable? It looks like a good medicinal website. Thanks again. Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean CRC press, and yes it's very reliable. The Ohio Naturalist could qualify as a reliable source depending on how it's used. How is being used? Yilloslime (t) 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The Ohio source talks about how high fly larvae can jump, and that's what I'm using it to back up. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to use a 1914 article as a source on anything scientific, or, in fact, on anything but what the people thought back then. Fly larvae seem to be a harmless enough topic, but even there you should be able to find something more recent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say one book quotes and sources another book to which I don't have access. May that quoted information be presumed to be reliable and if so, should it be sourced to the original book, sourced to the book by way of the source that quotes it or sourced to the RS to which I have access? I relaize that reads a bit confusing; I've confused myself just writing it. For example, Smith page 50 quotes Jones page 10. Can I include the information and if so should the cite be <ref>Jones p. 10</ref>, <ref>Jones p. 10 quoted on Smith p. 50</ref>, <ref>Smith p. 50</ref> or something I haven't thought of? And in the bibliography section, should Jones and Smith be listed separately, should Jones be mentioned as included in Smith or should it just be Smith?

) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For this to be considered reliable, I would require both Smith and Jones to be independently reliable, and both to directly discuss the issue at hand (otherwise Smith may omit context irrelevant for his argument, but not for another argument). Also, I would expect the full attribution, i.e. <ref>Jones p. 10 as quoted by Smith p. 50</ref>. In general, it would be better to get a copy of Smith directly. You might be able to get it via Interlibrary Loan, or someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• The specific instance that I have in mind involves information on the critical reception to and production of a TV show, in which one researcher in one instance quotes with attribution another researcher and in another instance quotes with attribution a book written by someone associated with the production. Ideally yes it would be best to get the originals and I am pursuing that course (I have to pay my library fines first!). In the first instance if I say "Smith quotes Jones as describing the series as 'symbolic of an entirely new approach to tree sloths'."<ref>Jones, p. 72, quoted in Smith, p. 19</ref> would that be acceptable under RS? In the second if I say "Smith quotes director Brown's account of filming the episode as being 'more fun than a sock full of lemurs'."<ref>Brown, p. 113, quoted in Smith, p. 36</ref> does that pass RS muster?
  talk
  ) 10:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. It is common enough to cite direct quotes in this fashion (where one published work is quoting another). In both of those instances it is expected that the intermediate work be cited per

) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho Rajneesh - selective sourcing

I have hidden the above discussion. Please continue this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard (where I notice it is cross-posted) or else rephrase your question to be about source reliability. Undue weight and NPOV are not issues for this board.PelleSmith (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it does stray off topic, the NPOV board is better suited. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)