Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22

• It should be noted that the parent magazine, Playboy, is used as a source in numerous articles, including biographies of living people. Assertions that magazines become unreliable simply because they feature naked women are not based on any guideline or policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not addressing the concerns presented above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues: first, does Marjoe Gortner have a significant point of view regarding this festival. I've presented evidence that he does. Sophia Collier compares Marjoe to Rawat, three journalists found his attendance at the event to be worth reporting, and one even interviewed him. I haven't seen anyone arguing that he doesn't have a significant point if view. Second, is Oui a reliable source for Marjoe's views. Since Marjoe wrote the article, the presumption is that it reflects his views accurately. I haven't seen anyone arguing that the article was edited to distort Marjoe's views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about Marjoe, so I do not understand where you are going with that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about

WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Resolved

This may already be asked and answered. If so, please provide a link. In the meantime, is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for labeling groups as "hate" groups? Yes, the definition of "hate" is an issue, but set that aside for now. For example, some wiki pages about certain organizations say the groups are "hate" groups and cite to the SPLC for a reliable source. Is this concordant with Wikipedia policy?

As to the definition of a "hate" group, is that defined by the SPLC? Is the SPLC's definition actually used on Wikipedia?

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

With watchdog groups, it's often best to do the cite as an opinion, i.e. "the SPLC says that group X is a hate group". If it's something like the KKK that's pretty much famous for being a hate group, you could probably write it as "Group X is widely considered a hate group", with footnotes to, say, five different sources. I'd also like to add that "hate group" is an inflammatory term, and it's better to work in understatement and use precise terms like "white separatist", "black nationalist", "anti-gay", "far-right", etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The term “far-right” should really be avoided, as it gets used for anything that is not on the political left or center — authoritarian populism,

Buckleyesque conservatism, or Libertarianism — and for some things that are arguably actually on the left, but now with poor reputation. —SlamDiego_←T

07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the term "far-right", the idea of

left-right politics goes all the way back to the French Revolution. The only issues are that it is a one-dimensional scale, so it doesn't always fit politics that are very statist or very individualistic. The other issue is while the term is common in the US, other countries may not use the left-right model or may include nationalist groups in a third category. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is OK to use "far-right" (or "far-left"), but I think it is one of those things where you need to clearly attribute the statement and not apply your own judgement. It is important for the reader to know who is applying the label to the person or group in question. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotations are permitted to contain anything, including gibberish, so long as the quotation is indeed relevant and attributed. But that's not really use; that's mention. —SlamDiego_←T 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of left-right politics indeed goes all the way back to the French Revolution, and in its beginning, the farthest left that one could go was extreme classical liberalism (now “libertarianism”), and the farthest right was monarchism, and socialists simply weren't counted — which just goes to show how poor the whole scheme has been. As to it not fitting when the party is very statist, well, that's when it's most often applied. Since, unfortunately, it is still frequently applied to other beliefs, it's an utterly unscientific, unscholarly, unencyclopedic designation. —SlamDiego_←T 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a little like saying we shouldn't use the terms "East" and "West", because some things in the world are north and south, or up and down. While we should use the most precise term that's supported by the references, I can see the use of the less-specific "far-right" in the intro section of a page when there's incomplete or conflicting information in the cited sources. For example, if there's a disagreement whether an obviously conservative cause is "reactionary", "fundamentalist", "populist", and so on. Or, if it's something that is very conservative but doesn't trend either way on the statist/individualist axis. Another example of a good use of the term is when modifying another term.... "far-right libertarian" implies different values than "far-left libertarian" Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are still talking about it after I marked it resolved, let me ask this. Is there any problem with this: "In March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization that tracks what it describes as "hate groups," listed MassResistance as an anti-gay 'Active U.S. Hate Group' on its website.[18]" See talk on this if you want. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I see no problem with this wording. The designation is not endorsed by the wording, and we have a fairly clear idea of what SPLC is claiming. —SlamDiego_←T 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say, no, that's straying from NPOV and getting into "undue weight" on one group's opinion. I would expect that SPLC, as a watchdog group, would have a much wider idea of what constitutes a "hate group" than other sources, and we should use undersatement and simply say that "SPLC lists X as an anti-gay group" Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because “east” and “west” are reasonably well defined, while (political) “left” and “right” are not. If people used “glorp” sometimes to mean “south”, sometimes “east”, sometimes “north”, and occasionally the ugly parts of the west, then I'd say that we shouldn't use that term either. We couldn't get any agreement over a term such as “far-right libertarian” or “far-left libertarian”, so I don't know why you offer them as if they are useful. Indeed, if we return to your analogy of the points of a compass, and if it held better, then we would be trying to talk about the far-east far-north and far-west far-north. —SlamDiego_←T 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are at odds with much of the political language used in the United States. It's pretty well-understood that "far-right libertarian" would include survivalist and antitax groups, while "far-left libertarian" would include, well, hippies. We can move this debate over to "Village Pump", its straying very far from debating SPLC as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Outside of parts of what is now called the political left, the term “libertarian” is only used for classical liberal extremists. The more typical individual sees this liberalism not as far-right, but as a strange fusion of left and right. Those who are more well versed will instead conceptualize things with something like the Nolan Chart, and see these liberals as neither left nor right nor a fusion thereof. Terms like “left-wing libertarian” began to be used by part of the left in an attempt to soak-up a bit of the “cred” that had been acquired by philosophers such as Nozick and by the Libertarian Party. (There is an old French term that could plausibly be translated as “libertarian socialism”, but that's different fromt eh English term “libertarian socialism” having had any currency.) Mercifully, such terms haven't really caught-on outside of the left. —SlamDiego_←T 04:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was here a little while ago, [47]

Anyway. I've been working on the

Recently, I got two books that might help, [48] and [49]. But the problem is, Potential Superpower falls under the subject of International Relations/Political Science/Geopolitics. The authors of these two books from what I can tell are journalists, and don't have a degree in International Relations/Political Science/Geopolitics.Deavenger (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think journalistic sources are just fine. BTW, have you had any luck with George Friedman of Stratfor, who is both an academic and a journalist who has written widely on the balance of power? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking at the articles. George Friedman I would consider reliable in the first place as he has degrees in Political Science. Stratfor seems like a very good source. But so much of it is off limits to me, which is really frustrating as the many of the articles are written by people who have degrees in the subject, and would be very very helpful. However, most journalists and news sources, I wouldn't trust for subjects that aren't news. Deavenger (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be overemphasizing academic credentials. Lots of people have a PhD, but not all of them have decades of business experience using that PhD. For Stratfor, you would want the free geopolitical essays as discussed above. He has also written several books that your library may have; a couple of them may cover emerging superpowers. As far as journalists, some journalists are very good. But what you want from them is a book or an "analysis" piece, not a breaking news article or a partisan opinion piece. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I know that my wikiproject says that we should avoid media sources, as many of them tend to overestimate something, or not go into detail. For instance, Many news sources said Russia is a superpower, without going into detail why, except saying it invaded Georgia, it's the return of the cold war. In fact, there's lots of IPs who are trying to post links saying Russia is a superpower, but don't go into detail, then accuse us of pushing for US and saying no to every other country.

Anyway, The books I posted above I was going to use, as other users on my wikiproject have said it's basically an academic source. I also hope I can get some books from the people on Stratfor. As when I was looking at some of the articles, I was really amazed as they basically had geopolitcs for ________ and all that stuff. I'm going to try finding some of the writers books, though it's a shame that I can't access the full site. Deavenger (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a newspaper article, published by the

Yes. Being available online is convenient, but has no effect on reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Slp1 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only does the content not have to be freely available on the Web; it doesn't have to be on the Web at all, though it's obviously a real advantage if it is. The alternative policy would reduce Wikipedia to a sort of summary of the “reliable” part of the Web, and it couldn't realize its more fundamental aspirations in that case. —SlamDiego_←T 13:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

However, if it is used to document something controversial, and especially if perhaps something controversial in BLP, it is reasonable to ask for an exact quotation of the relevant portion, either in the text or a footnote; context can matter. It helps in asking questions here generally here to give the Wikipedia issue involved, because what is considered RS varies depending of the use--almost nothing is absolutely (or never) a RS. In this case, apparently the article in question is Fathers' rights movement and the edit [50]. The source is being used to support allegations of criminal behavior. I would like to see the exact quotation, at least in the talk page, because he question is whether the actual article supports that it is the activities of the group itself, rather than that of individuals. If it merely says people associated with the group, the WP article must be worded that way, and it might be questioned whether using it in an article about the group is fair--it might or it might not be. I notice also that it is apparently being used to support a general statement about the group from one specific case--that might not be a legitimate use of references. DGG (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would totally agree that asking for the exact quotation is the appropriate and reasonable first step if one doubts verifiability, not deleting the citation out of hand. I'll actually put the exact quote here, to keep things together: "Blackshirts leader John Abbott has vowed to mend his protesting ways after being spared jail for stalking. The outspoken fathers' rights campaigner, who was sentenced by a County Court judge to a suspended term of four months, said he had learned his lesson[...] Abbott, 58, was convicted early this week of one count of stalking a divorced mother when he staged two demonstrations outside her East Doncaster home in September 2001. The jury was told Abbott led a group of three or four men wearing black uniforms and masks to her house, where he used a loud speaker and distributed inflammatory leaflets to neighbours." These activities of the Blackshirts have been fiscussed and linked to the larger issue of FR around the world, including this NYT article [51], this BBC article [52], this The Scotsman article [53], and this Telegraph article [54] (and there are more). So it seems quite appropriate that our article include the information too.--Slp1 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is this site a good source for
  Alien X's homeworld? doubtful. 70.116.85.225 (talk
  ) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is only a parking page. —SlamDiego_←T 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That wasn't me, but I recommended posting here. Anyways, I think the above is a typo, try http://ben10toys.net/
      Yngvarr (t) (c)
      18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. ben10toys.net looks like “guys with a website”. In plain English, it might be perfectly reliable, but it's not
        “reliable”. —SlamDiego_←T
        19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Express Milwaukee [55] considered a reliable source, specifically for classifying a band's genre, and also when the exact author of the article in question is unknown?

Looks like a standard local paper. OK for uncontroversial info but disregard it if there are better sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Express Milwaukee is the web face of the

Shepherd Express, an alternative weekly published in milwaukee. They are so so as far as reliability goes. They police their content and hire real journalists, but anything political is likely to be printed on the basis of its slant rather than strictly factual content. Protonk (talk

) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Their advertising department offers calendar listings for free, but those are typically less than 100 words and come in a list. Content that is more than a few paragraphs is done in house and isn't an advertisement. It is probably much easier to see the difference with a copy of the physical paper in hand. :) Protonk (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement might not have been the best word, all I meant is it doesn't seem quite the same as a full review/biography of the band. Plus, as I say, we don't know who actually wrote it.

talk

) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So general view would be that they can be used, but are iffy? Even taking into account that this particular article is anonymous?

Resolved

I would like to know if this is considered to be a reliable source, as it is being used on a controversial article. Likewise, this book is also being used The B-Specials: A History of the Ulster Special Constabulary (1972) Sir Arthur Hazlett

Generally, orgainizational websites are considered "self-published" sources. That means they are reliable for some types of statements but not for others (see

WP:SELFPUB). As for the book, even if it is "merely a defence of policing in the province", it seems to be reliably published. I don't see any basis for challenging it. If there is any question as to the accuracy of a statement cited to it, just add counter-statements cited to other books. Blueboar (talk

) 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful indeed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Answers.com includes content from 3rd-party publications, including various encyclopedias. Here are two examples.

Do any editors have any experience with the reliability of this hosted content? In other words, can we rely on Answers.com to quote the exact content of the encyclopedias concerned? The encyclopedias themselves are undoubtedly reliable sources. But verifying that what Answers.com hosts is exactly the same as the source given, without additions or deletions, is often a bit tricky. Some of these encyclopedias cost several hundred dollars to buy or are currently unavailable, plus Answers.com does not always make it clear which edition of the encyclopedia it is quoting. Any thoughts? Jayen466 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered this: Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-24/Answers.com_partnership. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of the articles on Answers.com are based heavily on Wikipedia, if not outright copies of it, I would say no... it is not reliable for our purposes. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as far as answers.com content based on Wikipedia is concerned; that is obviously off limits. But that was not what my question was about. I was asking about content that answers.com specifically marks as taken from encyclopedias published by reputable publishing houses, like the Columbia Encyclopedia (published by Columbia University Press). How should we handle these cases? To see examples, click here and select one of the entries in the Columbia Encyclopedia table of contents page that is displayed. Jayen466 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, I did as you suggest and clicked here and then on "Shamash", one of the entries listed, and got what ended up to be a Wikipedia article, if you scroll on down.[56]. So it is confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • That is normal; an answers.com page lists entries from all affiliated encyclopedias that have an entry on the topic. But each entry listed on the page has a heading that indicates the source the entry is taken from. On this page, one of these, indeed, is Wikipedia. The others on the page in question are the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, whose print or electronic versions would easily qualify as
        WP:RS, or should we insist that editors consult the print, amazon preview or google books versions? Jayen466
        23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I am beginning to think no. It would not be good to send readers to a page that lists both reliable and unreliable sources, I don't think. The link is not clear enough that you are referring only to the little subsection at the top, which is a very small bit of information compared to the whole page. Would you list the source as answers.com? Or the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, or what? The link to Highbeam Encyclopedia seems clearer, at least, and not so cluttered with extraneous information. However, I notice that no one has answered your question!—Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I noticed that too! :-)) Cheers, Jayen466 01:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
          • What I've done in Henry Sweet now is this. I agree that the Highbeam page is clearer. Answers.com has some sources though that Highbeam does not. Jayen466 12:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
            • On the Henry Sweet, I think the footnote reference should state that it is as link to passage from the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language hosted on encyclopedia.com, as the link below does: The Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Wine", as hosted on encyclopedia.com. It is misleading to suggest that the link goes directly to the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language page. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
              • • Noted and duly amended. Jayen466 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I guess we have a similar situation with the Highbeam Encyclopedia – again, these are not wikis, but reference articles that the site claims are taken from named, reliable sources, many of them by university presses. Jayen466 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the fact that some encyclopedias are both on highbeam AND answers.com allows some crosschecking to be done.

• The Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Wine", as hosted on encyclopedia.com

• The answers.com page on wine, which also includes the Columbia Encyclopedia article among its entries

• Comparing the two versions of the article, they appear to be word-identical. However, encyclopedia.com has a couple of bibliographies (under the "French wine" and "American wine" sections) that answers.com has failed to include, and encyclopedia.com gives the Columbia Encyclopedia edition and publication year, which answers.com does not.

• Btw, I know we would not usually be relying primarily on other encyclopedias. However, I have for example cited the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and the Columbia Encyclopedia, based on pages at encyclopedia.com, in the article on Henry Sweet, to source biographical details that were not easily available elsewhere. Jayen466 21:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This question remains essentially unanswered. Is this because there is no answer? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I would not use Answers.com as a source myself; I would go straight to the original source in question if possible as a best practise, or have someone who has access to the encyclopedia themselves look it up. ThePointblank (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that sources like Answers.com are a good place to do initial background research, but are not reliable for citation on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• So, for a preliminary summing-up of input so far, could we say that Highbeam pages quoting a licensed reliable source seem to be fine, as they don't mix it with other content, but that reference citations and links to answers.com should be avoided, as their pages tend to present a mix of reliable and unreliable sources? Jayen466 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think with the spirit of the Reliable Sources guidelines, both websites are decent for initial research, but they should not be used as citations within Wikipedia articles. ThePointblank (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Given that some of the books hosted there cost several hundred dollars and may only be available in larger libraries, I think that would go too far, based on a cost-benefit argument. I would agree though that

    WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. Jayen466

    20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you do need to cite content from another encyclopedia and it's hosted on Answers.com, how about using two citations in the footnote? A "cite encyclopedia" for the original source, then "via" or "as reprinted on" and then a "cite web" for Answers.com. I've often cited anthologies this way, so the original journal article and the book both appear in the notes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this would do. Jayen466 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper from Taiwan has recently had it's reliability questioned based on an allegation (so far not backed up with any evidence) that the newspaper is partially funded by one of the political parties. The editor making the allegation has stated that according to Wikipedia rules, it is up to the person including a statement to "prove that the relevant sources are reliable and unbiased".

Is this true, that the person wishing to include the statement must "prove" the reliability and neutrality of the source?

If such proof is required, what is the standard of proof? And how does one go about proving such a thing? The article on Reliable sources provides the Washington Post as an example of a source whose input is welcome, yet plenty of people, including myself, dispute the "unbiased" nature of the Washington Post (I believe the post is pretty reliable on facts, but is not unbiased). Readin (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers have political slants, sources have biases. So long as it is made clear that the Taipei Times is the source of the information, whatever it is, that's generally going to be sufficient. But significant news-type material should generally be reported by more than one newspaper and Taiwan has three main English-language papers to choose from, each with its own political position. If they give differing accounts, that should be made clear in the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that, I am the editor who opposes the source being used. In this case, Readin extracted some statements from an article of a pro-independence leaning newspaper, reporting opinions of some pro-independence leaning experts "condemning" Taiwan's new pro-unification government of "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse". As Taiwan is commonly considered to be democratic, I would consider these opinions as exceptional claims and the quality of the sources isn't high enough to justify these claims. No other newspapers in my knowledge have reported on these opinions.--pyl (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You can tell you're living in a free society when newspapers are able to report, whether accurately or not, a "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse". As I said, if there are two sides to the story, tell them both. All three Taiwanese English-language papers have well-known political leanings. You can't ignore their reporting because of that. Having read the report, I don't see this as cherry-picking. The allegations and the endorsements are the story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I am trying to ignore the report just because of the "political leaning" of Taipei Times. I wouldn't just describe the connection between the DPP and Taipei Times as just "political leaning" as Taipei Times is partly owned by the DPP as well as DPP politicians, always reporting from the DPP's POV. As I pointed out above, there are no two sides to the story, there is only one side. I will reply the rest of your comments together with Readin's below.

This is what was added in a new subsection titled "Rule of Law and Human Rights":

In February 2008 experts on Taiwan from the US, Canada and Australia issued a joint statement condemning a wave of detentions of present and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), calling them a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights.

<ref>{{cite news 
  | last = Snyder
  | first = Charles
  | title = Experts on Taiwan slam recent detentions
  | publisher = Taipei Times
  | date = 06 November 2008
  | url = http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/06/2003427868
  | accessdate = 06 November 2008}}
</ref>

The names of the experts are available at the source Experts on Taiwan slam recent detentions. Very basic information about what qualifies them as experts is also available.

Pyl, when you first deleted the information, you said that your complaint was that the Taipei Times fails reliable source rules. That is a serious charge. If the entire newspaper fails as a reliable source, we can't use it for much of anything. If instead your contention is that this particular statement represents an overemphasis on a minor incident, that is a different matter entirely, and we can take the issue back to the main article. However, if your intention is to discredit newspapers that may present information that supports a POV you disagree with, then we need to be clear on what is a reliable source and what is not. Readin (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules says "if the entire newspaper fails as a reliable source, we can't use it for much of anything". The reliability of sources are decided on a case by case basis. Also, whether I agree with the POV of this report is beside the point. I have issues with this particular source being in this particular context because it fails Wikipedia's requirements. I will quote the relevant section of the rules so we can just focus on it. Under

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• ....
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

As I pointed out above, as Taiwan is generally considered to be democratic, having an article taken from a newspaper reporting on a couple of experts "condemning" the government and calling the government's action "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights" will be an exceptional claim according to my highlight section of the rules. To make the material available on Wikipedia, it will thus require high quality sources. As we have all agreed Taipei Times is a biased source against the government: It is a partly opposition owned newspaper, always reporting the opposition's POV. Some of these "experts" are biased if you check the credentials.

Further, this report is exaggerated. If you read the original text of the joint statement, it says "serious concerns", not "condemn". The statement never called the government's actions "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights". Instead it says, "the procedures followed by the prosecutor’s offices are severely flawed", "This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law". In respect of human rights, it says "[w]e do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights". These "experts" never directly or indirectly described the government's actions as a serious violation of human rights. This fails Wikipedia's NPOV requirement as well as

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

This is a single POV taken in a biased newspaper reporting the opinions of a couple of biased people in an exaggerated manner. There are no opposing POVs being reported.

I am not saying that this story cannot be used for Wikipedia at all. That's another issue. But in this case on the reliable sources board, we are concerned with whether the sources cited are reliable. In this case, I am saying this source violates the Wikipedia rules which I cited above.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Readin should be the person who establishes the sources are reliable. I shouldn't be the person who bears the onus of proof. The starting position should be, now the reliability is challenged, Readin should prove with evidence and show that the sources are reliable. At this stage, I do not see any evidence being shown.--pyl (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it, we're talking about the article Ma Ying-jeou, which states that 20 Taiwan experts from other countries condemned Ma's KMT government for detaining seven officials from the DPP. The problem, as I see it, is that these detentions are sourced only to the article about the condemnation letter. Wasn't there any news coverage of the underlying events, namely, the detentions or alleged detentions, before the foreign experts condemned them? And how did Ma's administration respond to the charges? Did they say "We didn't detain those people", or "We did detain those people, but only with due process of law", or what? To discuss this, there ought to be sources reporting both sides, which may include both pro-DPP and pro-KMT newspapers. Media from other countries which have no ax to grind in favor of either party should be consulted as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with your viewpoint. If appropriate, Wikipedia can of course state the concerns of various parties for the apparent lack of due process in this matter. But at present no evidence was provided for a more balanced POV. The information we have at hand is from a single article published by a biased newspaper reporting in an exaggerated manner on the opinions of a couple of biased "experts". Taipei Times is not a high-quality source as required by Wikipedia's rules.--pyl (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"It is a partly opposition owned newspaper". This is plausible, but I still would like to see some evidence for this claim. Readin (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"condemning" the government and calling the government's action "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights". Even before checking this page I recognized that the wording needed some fixing for NPOV concerns, and the statement in the article on Ma Ying-jeou has been modified.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is actually my biggest concern. What standard of evidence is to be used?

User:Metropolitan90 has valid concerns about the NPOV of the statement due to lack of response from the government/KMT. As I said earlier, we should address those on the talk:Ma Ying-jeou page. Readin (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to start by establishing that Taipei Times in this case is a "high quality" source as required by the rules? As User:Metropolitan90 puts it, "[t]he problem, as I see it, is that these detentions are sourced only to the article about the condemnation letter". The article has a one-sided POV.

The ownership of the newspaper is common knowledge in Taiwan. I don't have the time to look for it at the moment. If you have some free time, you might like to start first. If you cannot find it, then I will help you with that by looking at the Chinese version. As I am going to be unavailable for a couple of weeks soon, I might not be able to help you with that right away. Besides the ownership issue, I don't think it is disputed that Taipei Times is a biased newspaper against the government.

NPOV is another issue besides the reliability of sources issue. I would like to sort them out separately. If the sources are not reliable, then the materials cannot be made available according to the rules I cited above: we don't need to proceed to fine-tune the wording of materials in Ma Ying-jeou.--pyl (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute te bias because I have have found that nearly all newspapers are biased, including ones that Wikipedia lists as good examples of reliable sources like the Washington Post.

As for establishing the "high quality", I ask again how one establishes that. That is very subjective criteria.

I haven't been able to find ownership information for Taipei Times other than that its parent company is "Liberty Times Group", which I have not found ownership information for. Such information seems hard to find as I haven't found ownership information for other major Taiwan English-language news sources. You'll need to provide that evidence if you want to use that argument. Readin (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why I am put in the position where I have to provide evidence. The rule clearly states that you do. At this stage, you have not provided any evidence that the source in this situation is reliable, not to mention satisfying the "high quality" standard.--pyl (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to provide evidence about ownership so long as you're not going to make that claim. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if the dependent is going to make an exonerating claim like "despite the fingerprints, DNA, and witnesses, I couldn't have possibly committed the crime because I was 10,000 miles away in Hawaii", then the dependent is expected to back up that claim somehow. If you're going to make a claim, then you should have some back up. Otherwise when considering any evidence I produce (and I still don't see how this is to be done), we won't consider your claim about Taipei Times ownership. Readin (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof that you cite is referring for the need for reliable sources. It says that the editor adding the data has the burden of providing a reliable source. It doesn't directly say that the editor has the burden of proving the source is reliable. I believe that in trying to apply that you are engaging in wp:wikilawyering, specifically

1. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;
2. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
3. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I'll ask at the

I don't believe I am engaging in

wp:burden and show that you have not provided any proof that the source is reliable, not to mention the standard required for high quality proof. You quoted wp:wikilawyering

without explaining how I am violating the rules, specifically:-

1. what principles am I violating?
2. am I asserting a technical interpretation? The rule says "burden of the proof lies on the editor who adds or restores material". The language is plain and simple.
3. what inappropriate actions are you alleging that I am trying to do?

there is a board that deals with wp:wikilawyering, you are welcome to consult them or the administrators about the rules.

I don't believe that it is fair for an editor to assert materials (without showing any evidence of the reliability of the source) then accuse another editor of wp:wikilawyering because this other editor challenges the reliability of the source.

As I said, I will be unavailable for a couple of weeks soon so I don't have the time to find the ownership. I did a quick search on ownership on the net but I don't think it is available. Ownership of the newspaper is common knowledge in Taiwan, but since I don't have the time to look for it, I can easily show that it is biased against the government, which is sufficient in this case. Just do a Google Search on "Liberty Times" "Pro-independence", then you will get plenty of related results. For example, this one [57] is one of the results. It is common knowledge in Taiwan that Taipei Times/Liberty Times is pro-independence and biased against the government. You might have already realised that when you see it doing an exaggerated report in this case.

Now I have shown that Liberty Times/Taipei Times is biased. Please let us know why Taipei Times is a reliable source? Why is Taipei Times a high quality source?--pyl (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to make sure nobody misunderstands the point I was making above. I am not saying, "Don't use the Taipei Times, it's biased and unreliable." I am saying, "If you use the Taipei Times, also use a pro-KMT paper for balance. And if you use the Taipei Times, use the original articles that reported on the detentions, not just a later article about foreign reaction." Right now the Ma Ying-jeou article is using the wrong articles from the Taipei Times to cover these detentions. If the KMT administration was detaining DPP members, I would expect a pro-DPP newspaper to report on that as soon as they could. I don't think the newspaper would have waited until foreigners spoke out before they ran such an article. But from Ma Ying-jeou, that's the impression I get now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another quick question: could this [58] be used as a RS on Avenged Sevenfold's genre? My inclination would be towards no. It does have writers staff, but there's nothing to indicate whether the writer (in this case certainly) is any kind of expert, qualified or otherwise, and the very tone of the site (as seen here [59] outlining what they look for in their writers) doesn't exactly sound encouraging. But what do others say?

well they do say the reviewer is a cock smoker, I'm not sure if that's a putdown, a qualification or a complement. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That tone, combined with the anonymity of the author in this case, is what leads me to think it shouldn't be used as a source on band genres.

talk

) 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliable sources over the reliability of commonly used sources in porn star articles, such as AInews.com, XBiz.com, Rogreviews.com and XFanz.com. The WikiProject really needs some outside views on this. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I don't see how most of these could be considered reliable sources. With the exception of Rogreviews, they seem to be just republishing press releases and the like from others, without any indication at all that there is any fact-checking. --

talk

) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Full discussion

If his book is cited by scholars, then I would call it reliable, even though the author is not an academic (perhaps it could be looked at as being a primary source, with the cautions and limitations thereof?). The only exception that I can think of would be if scholars all cite him in order to refute what he says. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about Pefina Press - while I see that it appears in Google Scholar as being cited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and Peter Stachura, the publisher is listed as being based in Toronto, Chicago, and New York - but no website, phone number, or other info is otherwise available. A Worldcat search shows a single library holding a book from this press. This is not in compliance with one clause of the guideline: "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Cited by these authors, yes, but not originally published by a peer-reviewed or academic press. Novickas (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that "Jam Base" is getting used a lot for citations here on Wikipedia in order to either show

Hmmm. In terms of reliability, their article guideline suggests editorial review, at least now: "All submissions now work on at "pitch basis," meaning you must send an email pitch to the appropriate editor before covering an event, reviewing a CD or writing a feature. Only pieces pitched in advance will be considered for publication." I can't tell from that the degree to which "newswire tips" are vetted, but their reviews & articles may be okay. Newswire tips may cite to reliable sources, though they may not be themselves. The forum and "my jambase journal" would clearly be SPS. (I'm not sure what you mean with respect to

WP:OWN, though.) Do you know anything about the general reputation of this website? Is it respected in the industry? Cited by respectable journalists? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In respect to Wikipedia Policy it states "You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." And on Jambase it says ""Since JamBase relies on user-generated content, no one person has control of artist pages. All of our users can submit content as long as they have a My JamBase account" In basic terms anyone can create an artist page on Wikipedia and the exact same goes for Jambase. The "editorial review" is akin to what Wikipedia does with it's guidlines but to a lesser degree. An editor could not write a "review" as an article on Wikipedia but we could for JamBase and all that needs to be done is to verify that a show actually happened. Beyond that is not much different than posting the same review on a blog except a blog can not be used as a "Significant source", Jambase currently is being used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cannot see how the book Roman Catholicism: The Basics, by Michael Walsh can be considered a reliable source for the statement in the article

Please see [60] - this paper has not yet been published although I expect it will be published. My point is that it might be changed before publication, and we should not use pre-publication papers. (This article is extremely hard to edit if you are not a fan of the subject, by the way). Comments? Thanks.

Absolutely correct. Wait until the paper is actually published. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

A brief question, should WorldNetDaily be used as RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For

Dialogue Stalk me

12:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51474 this] be used as RS in the article Hindu Taliban? --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it depends as to whether

Dialogue Stalk me

13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I should avoid partisan source which is why I am not using WorldNetDaily. In

American Taliban also no partisan source is used. I will use mainstream newspaper sources and scholarly sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk

) 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, is this a reliable source? If not can anyone suggest an alternative? ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it could be considered a reliable source. It appears to be a message board post, which in turn is quoting from a web site, which in turn appears to be quoting from several different interviews in several different sources. The underlying interviews themselves are identified only as to publication, but not as to date, etc. If the underlying interviews could be located and cited, those might be reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Metropolitan, ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is

There's some confusion about linux.com. Basically, they have a professional core editorial team, and they accept two types of submissions:

• one paragraph "newsvac" reports, which are submitted for no pay here
• articles for which they pay

The latter can be considered quite reliable, as they are subject to a normal editorial process, and are not significantly different from other sites that publish articles from freelance writers/journalists, e.g. IBM

I have no idea about the Php site. VG ☎ 01:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a section near the bottom of the article on John Wilkes Booth called Booth Escaped Theories that has citations that do not meet wikipedias guidlines on verifiability. Although there are citations, the authors are very suspect and caution should be used in adding this particular theory as it does not meet wikipedias policies on Fringe theories nor weight as well. I have been attempting to add a refimprove tag to the section, but one editor has removed the tag twice. Of the three citations that support the theory, the oldest, The Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth, is based on a death bed confession that only the author heard. The author heard the confession, then toured the country making money off of displaying the mummified remains. He only wrote the book, to support his claim. The next citation, The Lincoln Conspiracy was written by a movie producer who wanted to promote a movie he was making in the 70's. This same producer has also produced movies called The Search for Heaven, Encounters with the Unexplained, The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, and Uncovering the Truth About Jesus. The third citation by a man named Theodore Nottingham, claiming to be a decendant of Booth and is based on information his grandfather told him. And not much more.

These authors hardly have a reputation for fact finding. With the verifiability problem, added to the problems of

Other inline citations used as reliable sources, not mentioned by

Maryland Historical Society's magazine. (Disclosure: I am an involved editor)  JGHowes  ^talk

16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The theory does seem to be notable enough that it meets the inclusion requirements set out by

WP:UNDUE). A brief statement that the theory exists and is discounted by serious historians is all that is needed. Blueboar (talk

) 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The citations mentioned by JGHowes are not the problem citations. If the other citations are removed, then the ones mentioned by JGHowes are not needed.

When the problem with weight was brought up on the talk page, some editors responded by actually making the section longer. Again, I have attempted to place a tag on the section, but an editor somehow keeps taking it down. I want to add the tag, so that other editors and readers will know that a discussion is ongoing on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content, just the reliability of cited sources. When Jojhutton originally complained at

WP:N for inclusion in the article. Now he complains that by adding such sources for verifiability, the section was "made longer". It should be evident that his claim of lack of reliable sources is utterly baseless and the real objection is to content, as shown by his statement that if the fringe theory content is removed, then the unchallenged citations "are not needed".  JGHowes  ^talk

02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How then are those three citations worthy of verifiability? What reason would you give to keep those citations in the article? Using WP:verifiability, do the citations meet the criteria?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have a very basic misunderstanding of our verifiability policy, Jojhutton. As has been pointed out to you, the verifiability tags you keep insisting be there cannot accomlish what you want them to. WP:V refers to the ability to prove that the source cited did indeed state what is being used and cited. You are using the v-tag to attempt to challenge the verifiability of the sources themselves (ie, the verifiability of the claims the authors make in their books). As editors, we don't do that. We are not suitable or notable enough to act as counterweight to a cited source.

I think yo have realized this, and have since switched tactics, aiming to have the information removed as per

WP:FRINGE

. I am not really sure how that is going to be any more successful, as the sources and the theories predate the Kennedy Assassination conssipracies by almost 100 years. Books were written then as now, and there have been documentary films made on the subject.

Clearly, you don't want the info in the article but, like the good Professor Mick said, "Yu can't always get what you want." You might have to suffer the indignity of the Booth Escaped theories 'staining' the Booth article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

An article by

Chechenpress is the website of a government in exile, just like for example the Tibetan government in exile. It seems reliable to me, also because Litvinenko was close to one of the key leaders of this government in exile.[61]

talk

) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue Stalk me

14:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Realiable in this case means that Litvinenko actually wrote said article, which he did. If his claims are true or not is completely unrelated, because his claims aren't presented as fact, but as "litvinenko accused putin of..." and are only presented on litvinenko's biography.

talk

) 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a perfectly reliable source of articles written by Litvinenko. According to many other sources, including books, Litvinenko collaborated with Chechen government in exile and published numerous materials in their press.Biophys (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another case where we need to make the distinction between a source being reliable for a statement of opinion vs a source being reliable for a statement of fact. Chechenpress is a reliable source for the attributed statement: "According to Alexander Livinenko, Putin is a Paedophile" or "Alexander Livinenko has accused Putin of being a paedophile". But Chechenpress is not a reliable source for the blunt statement: "Putin is a paedophile". Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Blueboar's comment also. This type of use requires attribution, but the source is reliable for reporting that Alexander Livinenko stated the allegation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It is only a "reliable source" to demonstrate the existence of the claim/article. It is not a reliable source for information contained in the article, as it does not have a demonstrated history or reputation of fact-checking, which is one of the key components of

WP:RS

.

Everyone agreed that this is a reliable source per

WP:RS. No one disputed their fact checking policy. Everyone also agreed that proper attribution to the source and author of the publication is required, as always.Biophys (talk

) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, you have misunderstood what has been said. It can be used as a reference to his claim actually existing, but it most certainly can not be used as a

Dialogue Stalk me

01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof as a user and a few others are intent on destroying the bio of Ronn Torossian, a living person, and his firm 5W Public Relations. They abritarily say blogs arent reliable (when it comes to Sundance major celebrity events) and the richest man in Europe who 5WPR represents. When it comes to obscure Jewish issues, they cite bloggers endlessly. Pls. help and intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk • contribs) 22:43, November 9, 2008

My position is that

Atlantic Monthly's website is a perfectly reliable source for opinions held by Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly wrote for The New Yorker and now writes for Atlantic.--Mosmof (talk

) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Source doesn't actually look much like a blog comment, more like a signed essay by a leading contributor, but I'm finding the Atlantic's website difficult to get a handle on. Is it perhaps a signed piece that is meant to generate comments by readers, like

Comment is free? In this case it is probably RS, but do take especial care with a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk

) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a common setup in major US publications (not sure about papers in UK) - an op-ed columnist writes weekly columns that appear both in print and online, and would also post shorter, more frequent blog entries. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, for example, has his regular column and a blog. Both are subject to NY Times' editorial policies. I think the problem here is we don't always mean the same thing when we say "blog" - technically, it's just a publishing platform, and there isn't a great divide between bloggers and serious writers. It's just that the majority of bloggers are not notable and under editorial oversight, so as a shorthand, we say "blogs shouldn't be used as a source", but we mean bloggers who are self-published and of questionable notability. Mosmof (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For about a year now, those of us who regularly answer questions on this noticeboard have recognized that there is a difference between an opinion piece that happens to be written in blog format, and is published under the editorial control of a major newspaper... and a self published Blog. We have also recognized that some self published Blogs are reliable (specifically those that have won major journalism awards). I think it may finally be time to amend the guideline, and spell out that certain (very limited) kinds of blogs that are acceptable.Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Administrator, editors who have not yet touched this page, please, take a look rationally. See passed the "credible sources" and the solid references. Understand that just because a reference is valid doesn't make the placement on Wikipedia right or acceptable. Mosmof says she or he is just being a good Wikipedian, but likes to put in "valid references" that show the downside and other bad issues. This user has become as obsessed with Torossian as the single article IP addresses users seem to be. Maybe the best course here is to take the page down. Maybe there is no need for Torossian to have a page. It is not unbiased, it is awful, and the editors seems to take great pains to make "valid" edits that show a history of bad, while the fact that the company and the CEO have clients, have staff, are well regarded by the hundreds of clients who use them should be worth something, yet the editors who destroy this page and the 5W page seem to think that 5 years of history is summed up by Jeff Goldberg and FailedMessiah - footnotes, not features. Footnotes my friends, not features. TLVEWR (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)