Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23

This is amazing -- in another article, a press release calling its employee an "expert" was unquestioned, though all I could find was that he was a high school graduate. WP really needs some sort of guidance on whether a source calling someone an "expert" sans any c.v. is to be trusted as RS per se, and at what point it is not opinion to call someone an "expert." I do know that courts have specific rules on "expert testimony" (I only had to testify once) and the judge had broad latitude in deciding who is an "expert." Enough rambling, all I can say is "I don't know." Collect (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems the standard response here is to say "who

Radio Free Europe identifies as an expert." Unless you can find some contrary WP:RS information that he is not one. And if it's his main claim to fame, it belongs in the lead. Carol Moore 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I agree. Unless it is decided that

original research NoCal100 (talk

) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What original research are you talking about? I don't recall having done anything that would be called original research.

talk

) 19:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish Flags

Resolved

I would like to know if this web site here is acceptable to be used as a reliable source on a contentious article? This is the web site page being cited here, and this is were it is being used as a reference in the article here reference no. 2. Thanks very much, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication that this is not a personal webpage... no "about us" or "who we are" page. Given this, it should not be considered a reliable source. This does not mean that the information is wrong... only that we need a different source for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats sound Blueboar thanks for that, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There's an AFD on it, but if anyone wants to they can see if the sources establish notability and are reliable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki (2nd nomination) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now the silliness in JtP has reached the point where the New York Times is "rejected" as a source for calling Joe tha Plumber a plumber. "I've reread it too. Everything in the NY Times citation that Collect refers to seems to be based on Joe's testimony. We know that just because the NY Times regurgitates Joe's presentation of himself isn't enough for a RS. That's tantamount to self-promotion. Also, more neutral sources don't depend on Joe's testimony. Certainly no one expects Joe to come out and independently and impartially proclaim that he has been working on an apprenticeship since 2003 and has no independent plumbing license. Only an independent, neutral source is likely to do so. Collect, it seems we have to reject the citation on that basis, even though it is definitely from the honorable NY Times. VictorC (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC) " " OK. Well in case anyone's paying attention, let's reject Collect's citation from the NY Times. I have three possible reasons for this: 1) There are more recent citations; 2) The reason we are using the citation is based on Joe's statements - not an impartial source - and; 3) The statements are among the quotes from Joe that he is "getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” that he "told Mr. Obama he has been a plumber for 15 years," the first of which has been debunked as not too reliable, the second of which Collect is basing his RS on. So, I propose that this source is no longer reliable: 1) it's outdated; 2) it's not based on an impartial source; 3) the source has been shown to have dubious reliability. If we can agree to drop this specific NY Times citation, let's agree on using a different source. Let's find one that's more up to date; uses a more impartial source (than the individual himself); and shows itself to be less dubious. VictorC (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)"

This is a tad inane since these folks rejected the opinions in

1)Ignore. 2)Ignore. 3)Ignore. All done. 'This is a diminutizing adjective - ridicule since... -- so now accusation of at best self-delusion and at worst fraud. Now the real issue that you'll waste valuable time answering is 4)repeat accusation. Anarchangel (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have a dog in this particular fight over "sources" but before anyone gets drawn into this, be warned that this will get messy. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_Joe_the_Plumber and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#is_Joe_the_Plumber_a_.22nickname.22_or_a_.22sobriquet.22. Mattnad (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but you do indeed have multiple dogs in the article talk page <g>. Collect (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey dog, how's it going. Collect's the big dog in these debates, and he's like a dog with bone when it comes to making a point - doggone it.Mattnad (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the noticeboard for

Therefore, the best approach may be to attribute the statement to the source and clearly identify what was actually stated. In other words, not "Joe is a plumber" and then a New York Times footnote, instead: "According to the New York Times, Joe described himself as a plumber" (or something like that; I'm not addressing the details of the use, only the source question). If the NY Times article does not have solid footing for determining Joe's occupation, maybe there are other sources that would be better to use for that. On the other hand, the way it's presented in the NY Times might still have use for the Wikipedia article - that is an editorial decision, not a

This citation is being sought by Collect for use in the infobox to support the single word, "Plumber", as Joe's occupation. There's a roiling argument on whether Joe is a "Plumber" or some subordinate occupation like "Plumber's Assistant" or "Plumber's Apprentice" or even "Unlicensed Plumber". The infobox will not permit a nuanced exposition on the NYT citation, vs. others that do not present Joe as a Plumber, but someone under the supervision of a licensed Plumber. Collect failed to provide that bit of context. Hope that helps. Mattnad (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The NYT specifically calls him a "plumber" and does not ascribe the claim to Joe. Thus it is a statement of fact made by an RS. As EVERY neutral person said "plumber" is correct in WP/BLP/N , Mattnad et al are simply edit warring such that the page is locked over and over. And NO RS is furnished to state anything other than "plumber" for the infobox. Collect (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an editorial content dispute and not a

request for comments. Those have the best chance of success if you organize the presentation of the issue question clearly in advance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The "decision" asserted was one specifically of finding that the NYT was not a "reliable source" -- as for RfCs, I take it that you have not visited the talk page for the article <g>. Collect (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NYT is generally a reliable source, but unfortunately not a definitive source on what's Joe's occupation. That's the crux of the issue in the Joe the Plumber talk page. Other editors have cited other reliable, and perhaps more authoritative, sources that state Joe is not "a real plumber". Collect has taken a different position and picked the NYT article to support his viewpoint. In the end, Jack-A-Row correctly identified the underlying editorial problem. Again, hope this helps. Mattnad (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_Joe_the_Plumber, he mwwts the Wikipedia definition of a Plumber. The sources, including the one in question from The New York Times, describe him as a plumber. It's still unclear if the issue is that he does not have a license, but that still does not affect the nature of his profession. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe there is no source where he called himself a plumber. Also, let's make sure no one is operating from the WP:POV or even WP:COI that anyone not "licensed" cannot be a "real" plumber. Carol Moore 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

As I mentioned earlier, Collect has not been clear on the context of this dispute (so see my comments above), but just as the Times mentioned joe as "a plumber" immediately after he became known, later on the National Post explains the distinction between a plumber and what Joe is [32]. So here you have two reliable sources that say different things about Joe's occupation. Collect would like the article's infobox to use the NYT as the source (Plumber), others would like to use other sources they feel are more accurate,like the NP article (Plumber's Assistant, or Unlicensed Plumber). So in the end, Collect is asking you guys to weigh in on something that's actually an editorial dispute. Mattnad (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from misstatements here. I did not think the infobox needed a cite as a general rule, but when it was demanded of me that I give a cite, I did so. The New York Times. The article was not from the day of the debate, but from well after the debate. The NP is a Canadian tabloid (in naturem, not that it has a compact format), with no special status as RS, nor special status as RS for US personalities. It is a reliable source for a number of statements like "Itan is going to require badges for Jews and Christians." I have no quarrel with any properly cited adjectives in the corpus of the article. I think that using POV adjectives in the infobox is silly. I do not think "Unlicensed Plumber" is an "occupation" -- one try was for "illegal plumber" as occupation! Collect (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Freeport Long Island History blog a reliable source? I know the topic reasonably well (it's where I grew up) and everything there looks well researched. The blogger identifies herself as "Regina, a librarian at the Freeport Memorial Library" and the library prominently links to the blog and says that it is "a joint project between the Freeport Library and the Freeport Historical Society." Sounds OK to me, but I know there is a strong presumption against blogs. - Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me too. Just because a site calls itself a blog shouldn't disqualify it; it seems as reliable for local history as the two sponsors, the Freeport Library and the Freeport Historical Society.John Z (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is editorial oversight, "This blog is maintained by Regina, a librarian at the Freeport Memorial Library", and the blog is used as a convenient means of uploading (usually sourced) information. Ty 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor has claimed that an article from the

Huh? This matter has been under discussion for all of TWO HOURS on Talk:JtP and you come here making inaccurate comments about the dispute? My point is that the "National Post" is currently not just in "compact format" but has been described in many places as "sensational" and publishing inaccurate stories (such as Iran requiring Jews to wear badges), that it does not have a high reputation for fact-checking (the first requirement for a "reliable source", and that it is not a reliable source for US news as it relies on US sources for its own stories. This is not "derogatory" it is a statement of fact. Thus, in legal terminology, it is far from "best evidence" and thus it is not a good replacement for the current New York Times article used as a source (the National Post is the "replacement" ref!) This is, in fact, part and parcel of the NYT discussion already given, with the side benefit of an inaccurate and biassed POV in presenting the issue. As for it taking controversial positions, that is irrelevant entirely. It is relevant that the NP has more than its fair share of libel actions, in a nation where libel actions are rare. Collect (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're really spoiling for a fight - you say "sensationalist" - OK fine, we'll use that word. I was trying make your point that your weren't referring to "tabloid" in the size sense. So, sometimes sensetional, doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. Fox News has sensational coverage too. As does the NY Times.

So let me quote for this boar your your single sentence on why you wanted the article excluded, "A Canadian tabloid is still a tabloid. Not RS. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" Anyway, please let others weigh in. Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We have two issues here: 1) Is the NP a reliable source under this guideline... the answer is "yes". 2) Is the NP the best source for the particular statement in a particular article... From what I gather of the facts, the answer is "no". We encourage our editors to use the most reliable sources possible. I would agree that the New York times is more reliable than the National Post. Thus, the Times should be used and not the Post. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also offered Wash Post cites and more <g>. Collect (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect has been selective (no surprise) to make his point - there are other NY Time articles that mirror parts of the national post article. For instance, see this [33]. Still, I see the point that if we had only one source to choose from, we'd err on the side of the NY Times. But what's important here is that it's a reliable source and we can let the editors decide which one makes sense in what part of the article. (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think referring to me by name affects the value of your post? <g> I have proffered now many other articles which are more RS than the NP. Accept one. They are from November, not October 16. And your "new" article does not call him "unlicensed plumber" as an occupation. Which means your "new cite" from 16 October does not support your claim, which is a very interesting way to choose a cite for sure! Collect (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell me that this is yet another argument about Joe the Plummer? For Christs sake folks, does it really matter whether the guy was or was not a licenced plummer? In the long run, I don't think it does. Think about what people reading the article five years from now will care about... what will matter is how "Joe the Plummer" became a concept, a symbol for "the average man". Not whether Joe the person was or was not an actual plummer. Sheesh. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to the BLP noticeboard.)

--Lawduck (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My view is that public court records are

WP:CITE for that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 05:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Extensive previous discussion has concluded that they should generally not be used, unless reported in a secondary source, particularly if they contain contentious material. Anyone can say anything they want in court, but unless it gains wider circulation, it's not appropriate for wikipedia. Ty 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote that they are primary sources. In other words, it can be used to report what happened or was said in the court proceeding, but not to draw any conclusions about the content or accuracy of the reported statement or use it as support for anything other than a description of what happened during the court case. For example, it could be used to report that there was a conviction or acquittal in a particular case, that would be a valid use as a primary source.

If the prior discussion you mentioned disqualifies court records even as primary sources, I would be interested in reading that to update my understanding of the consensus on this. Do you happen to have a link to where it was discussed? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion. I reverted an edit in the Janine Lindemulder article due to BLP issues. I don't question the verifiability of the primary source claims. BLP frowns on editors digging into court records where no reliable secondary source has done so due to privacy reasons along with the idea that editors are not supposed to be reporters. This discussion should be in

WP:BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This simply enhances the absurdity of any literal application the policy without considering context, and raises significant issues about the reliability of Wikipedia in general. Real information is banned because a newspaper (for example) hasn't reported on it yet. Being both a former journalist and current lawyer, I am painfully aware of the idiocy of relying on media to comprehend, much less properly report on, legal documents and proceedings. Yet, apparently, that same idiocy is the minimum threshold for acceptance. That's nonsense, and raises the very real spectre of Wikipedia knowingly providing false information. The specific case referenced above is a prime example. Court dockets (date, time, place) and charging decisions (i.e. title of crimes) are not open to debate or interpretation. The "reliable secondary source" relied on in the Wiki article in question is (1) out of date, (2) wrong, and (3) incomplete and inaccurate. But because it was wrongly reported in a secondary source, it passes muster. Go figure. Worse, the reversion to the edit, which updated the correct docketing information reflecting a continuance of the sentencing hearing to a later date, re-inserts information stating that sentencing will be done on a date now well in the past. Consequently, because an "editor" who apparently doesn't understand context decided that literal, if misguided, application of rules trumps truth and accuracy. This is bad. Very, very bad, and certainly precludes me from ever again relying on a Wiki entry as anything other than a starting point for further research, and even that with a very large grain of salt.Lawduck

(talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense, rather, it's the least imperfect means to permit a volunteer group of contributors, many of whom will have the same difficulty comprehending legal proceedings as the media does, to write about events with legal import. I don't read the discussion about as forbiding you from using court house docket to state a pending date, or cite correct charges. The problem is that very quickly things slide downhill. Is the case criminal or civil? Is the charge a misdemeanor or felony? and so forth. It so often requires synthesis to make this information useful to the reader that the policy wisely is cautious about its use. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source or a tabloid.It was a broadsheet paper now being published in tabloid format.One article which is being used is this [34].Can you please clarify on this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

American usage of "tabloid" is not just a function of format. The NY Daily News, for example, is a "tabloid" in format, but used as RS in WP. Rather, the American usage is to refer to the most lurid supermarket "newspapers" (generally issued weekly) which carry no "hard news." Papers which have "Jimmy Smoots' Secret Love Affair" in large red letters are what are not usable as RS. The Daily Mail carries stock tables, hard news etc. and is certainly RS. The article on it, however, looks like it needs a lot of work! Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that tabloid-format dailies are generally reliable, the New York tabloids tend to have looser editorial standards and a penchant for sensationalism. The New York Post likes do the big bold punny headlines, and uses pejoratives like "sicko" in its articles, so you'd have to be more careful about what you pull from the Post or NYDN. And even in the UK, there's a clear difference in standards between the traditional broadsheets and the tabloids - The Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster comes to mind. I realize the Daily Mail isn't going to suddenly turn in to the News of the World, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that it's not just a matter of printing format. --Mosmof (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Even the NY Times has used puns in headlines at times. The NYPost is considered a RS by WP standards as its actual articles do conform to normal standards. As for low standards, try looking at the papers from the late 1890s. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that puns were necessarily a bad thing - it's just that the Post often uses pejorative or presumptuous descriptors for the sake of pun or sensationalism. I think it's perfectly fine for verifying facts, but phrases like "pervy pol", which would never make a hard news story on a paper of record, shouldn't be pulled as quotes or as statements of facts. --Mosmof (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you name any mass-market paper which has not used any "colorful" language? Usually the pun is in the headline, not the text of the article. Collect (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be good to find other sources corroborating the story. I wouldn't cite it extensively, or without attribution, if it's the only such story around. The Daily Mail is so-so. Jayen466 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not find any archives which found the Daily Mail not to be RS, but it took a while. All contentious claims should have a second cite, but that is widely not followed. Collect (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen466 - it's 'so-so'. Anyone know anything about the actual reporter? I've seen some really fringe stuff in it in the fields of history and archaeology (not news articles). Anything like this shouldn't rely on the Daily Mail alone.

talk

) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail gets sued quite regularly. It often ends up having to issue an apology or retraction and pay damages. [35] [36] [37] [38] etc. That's not what one would hope for from a first-class encyclopedic source. Jayen466 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from my perspective, the Daily Mail coverage of medical and scientific issues is atrocious, on a good day. A wise man once noted that they're on a crusade to divide every susbtance known to man into those that cause cancer and those that cure cancer. It's not categortically unreliable, but should definitely be taken with a grain of salt and vetted on a case-by-case basis. I would be very hesitant to use it as the sole source for tabloid-like claims in a

WP:BLP - after all, Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a tabloid. MastCell ^Talk

17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Daily Mirror might be of interest as well. My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks All,It is resolved as far as I am concerned .Thanks Chris for giving the link to Daily mirror archive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In the past five years there has been almost 15 magnificiant discoveries dugged up in south India. multiple iron age urn burials in 2005 to magnum opus script inscription lately - but none of this issues made to be published as a book or official jurnouls. All of this have dated Tamil language usage to latest 3rd century BC and earliest to be from 6th to 7 th century BC. Based on thier inscriptions. The only available resources on these are not from journals or books or thesis. but news of reportbased on carbon 14 reports on newspapers and official online such as BBC and so.

I would like to know if this web site [39] - by historian, BBC documentary broadcaaster and prinston teacher; michael woods - is reliable

and this [40]

and this [41]

and this [42]

and this [43] to be used as references on the article about first written Tamil at [44] --Master YODA (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

After viewing those sites, I would consider the BBC, the Times of India, the Centre of Excellence for Classical Tami, and Frontline to be mainstream publishers qulified as reliable sources. The Ultimate World Languages website might have good information, but it's a commercial site selling products, so I would exclude that one, unless there is more information available about how they generate their editorial content that conveys reliability. The BBC link, although the publisher and author are reliable, presents very limited information, so I don't see how that one could be of value to a full article; however, for including the topic in a list article where verification of the list criteria is the only use of the source, it could be OK. So, to summarize, it looks to me like all of those are reliable for this use, except the Ultimate World Languages website. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the editor who asked refers to editors here as "graded officials to agree and acknowledge these recources as more then reliable. " I agree that they look ok (depending on how they are used of course) except for the Ultimate World Languages site.

talk

) 13:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This New York Post article is used to support the statement "...Hicks claims she was "swindled" out of her fair share of the film's profits..." about the Hicks-Byrne controversy in the Esther Hicks biography. There is an ongoing discussion about this on: Talk:Esther Hicks#Hicks claims she did not receive her fair share of the film's profits. I would very much appreciate input on whether this is a reliable source in the present context. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The NYP is unquestionably a reliable source when reporting news, but I would not be comfortable relying on a writer's stray comment in the Entertainment section (where, after all, there is some vested interest in using sensational terms such "swindled") to source a core issue in a BLP. The comment is not a quote, nor is it attributed to anyone, making verification difficult. On balance, I would not use the NYP article as a primary reference for this information. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone who has patience to go through these previous mentions of the New York Post on this noticeboard and see what lessons they can draw:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Wikinews_redux
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Talking_Points_Memo_Election_Central
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_York_Post
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Are_mainstream_newspapers_reliable_sources_on_law.3F
• Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source

If you search for the word 'tabloid' in the archives you might find other relevant stuff. I find it curious that people are calling the NYP 'primary'. This it does *not* appear to be the case. There are previous discussions here at RS/N where some sources are recommended over others, but it's very context-dependent, and needs description of exactly what you are relying on the source *for.* The term 'swindled' should preferably have confirmation from at least one other source, in my opinion. If you are going to use such colorful language, then consider also including Hicks's own account of what happened in the film negotiations, though it would have to be found from a better source than that website. 'Swindled' seems to me like a strong word to use in the text of the article when there is no published hint of any litigation. Better use another word, unless you can find a second source that also states that Hicks was deceived by the makers of the movie, or at least *believes* that she was deceived. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the New York Post is a reliable source under the guideline's definition. I also agree that if a less contentous word that "swindled" can be used here in wikipedia it would problably be best. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above - "swindle" should be avoided since it's not a direct quote from Hicks. As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, the Post is fine as far as factchecking, but I would always be cautious about using any unattributed subjective descriptions that Post articles like to use, like "swindle", "pervy" and "menace". --Mosmof (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Are these considered a reliable source regarding description of production issues, etc.? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If the record is not self-released by the artist, the liner notes are printed by a third-party publisher, so that seems clearly reliable as a secondary source. If it's self-released it could be considered self-published. That could interfere with reliability as a source, depending on the reputation of the artist/publisher. Even in that artist self-release situation, it could be used as a primary source, with attribution - though also with care and avoidance of any kind of extraordinary claims. That's my view; your milage may vary... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jack-A-Roe's common-sense answer. If an album or DVD is produced by a major, recognized label (such as Disney, Sony, etc.) and is used as a source for basic biographical information and the like, it would be a reliable source. On the other hand, promotional zeal used for extraordinary claims would hardly qualify, such as a CD cover proclaiming its performer, "The greatest singer in history!"  JGHowes  ^talk 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Liner notes are a primary source. Theyre fine for facts about the album, but they don't establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're correct that liner notes are not secondary for the purpose of establishing

notability

for Wikipedia articles, that was not the question in this section - the question is, are they a "reliable source regarding description of production issues, etc.?" For that use, as a reference, with the exception of self-published albums that would be primary sources, liner notes are a reliable secondary source.

For article-notability, the requirements are different - the reliable secondary source must be independent of the subject. Independence of the subject is not part of the definition of

no original research policy; that policy requires only that the secondary source be "at least one step removed". The notability guideline has a more strict requirement that " reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". But that's not a definition of primary and secondary sources for use with articles, it's for a different purpose - determining whether or not a topic should have an article in Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 04:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the standards are one and the same. The record company is not like an academic journal that vets the wording of what's in the liner notes; they would allow the band to write whatever they wanted. The liner notes are a primary source, and they are a reliable source for articles about the band, album, or songs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This must have come up before but I don't see it in the history - where do we stand on the use of indymedia as a reliable source? It seems to be used a lot in fringe political articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where they'd fall between a "citizen journalism" site and a highly political newspaper. Our article on Indymedia says that they do have editorial policies though they can vary from chapter to chapter. It's probably well-used in cases where they broke a story which the mainstream media then covered, or if they have a unique take on a story reported elsewhere in the news but without extraordinary claims. I'd cite them as "the leftist/anti-globalization Independent Media Center ran an article...", and I wouldn't use them for BLPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute if private genealogy website can be used as a source for articles on Polish-Ukrainian conflict during WWII. All request to provide evidence per

Is Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski a reliable source in history articles? List of WP articles that cite him: [48]. He is not a historian by training; the advantage of being an amateur is the lack of professional accountability. Sample statements from his website: "The author, Jeff Sarlet is so far the only journalist who succeeded in documenting the activities of the hidden elite, headquartered in Arlington, on the outskirts of Washington DC, “The Family,” at the core of American fundamentalist Protestant power, was originally created along the lines of European fascism in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, who organized the wealthy internationalist elite...They have had an enormous impact on the beliefs of Americans in the 20th century and on U.S. imperialist policy in the 21st century, through their secret machinations which have been unsuspected by most Americans." [49]. Yikes. Novickas (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that citations of this author could be reliable or not. They would have to be evaluated individually. For example, who published the book or article? If it is a publisher with a good reputation for fact checking and overall academic quality, that would support reliability. On the other hand, his essay on his own website, such as the one you posted the diff for, is self-published and therefore not reliable as a source - unless he is clearly a notable expert as recognized by other reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case but would need more research to determine for sure. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider him a reliable source for controversial material. The statement given above is the sort of extraordinary statements that requires extraordinarily reliable sourcing. Is it typical of his site? If so, it's enough to discredit it based on internal evidence. I do not like the sources cited in the article on him to establish his reliability, as they do not seem to be published reviews, but rather blurbs, where even good academics sometimes say something nice about anything they get sent a copy of. . We should try to find some actual reviews of his work, or document where the ones listed have been published. If no academic journal has reviewed his book, that too would indicate something. It's worth doing, for the book has been used a number of times in Wikipedia.DGG (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Ongoing edit war at Magee Secondary School about who the current school administration is.

• The school's own website is being disputed as a source because the date at the top says 'Tuesday, 07 November 2006'...although the bottom states that it was 'Last Updated ( Friday, 03 October 2008 )'

Discussion from a few days ago can be found at the bottom of this page and

The website uses an interface called Joomla, where webpages are written like articles. It is likely that the page was first created in 2006 (hence the top date), but has been updated many times to present new information, up to its most recent update as of 2008. I would guess that Mr George is the current principal. --Joowwww (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the underlying issue is that the school's administration may have changed since the 10/3/08 update of the web-page, but there is not yet a reliable source to support this fact. If so, my advice is... wait... have some patience. It will not be long before the school either updates the page or issues a reliable publication under the new administration (at which time you can change the text, citing the revised website or new publication). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In before photoshop Dustbomber (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous. NWA Rep claims that he believes that the principal who there from 2001 to Dec 2006[50] is still the principal there 'cause he heard it from a guy and they don't promote VPs to Principals in the same school. Yeah, whatever. Why is Mr. Grant at Kitsilano Secondary then [51] [52] and why is the school board and the Ministry of Education promoting the lie? Hmm, who does one believe? Assuming good faith is way over. User:NWA Rep was long informed of the truth with sources on his talk page, on the article, and here. Further reverting is continued clear deliberate vandalism and will be dealt with appropriately. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent) Content dispute != vandalism, and please do not ever say that again, Double Blue. In fact, I see very little discussion of this matter on the talk page of the article. Why is it happening here instead of there? Go back to the TALK page, outline the different references available, and as a group determine which of those sites provides the best information. If none of them appear to be reliable, perhaps the best solution is *not to include unverifiable information in the first place*. It is not the end of the world to have a blank in an infobox, and would be preferable to having incorrect or out-of-date information. Risker (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable information? What is? The user in question removed a source documenting that the person he was reinstating as principal had left. He has also removed the references provided to him on his talk page. There is no content dispute. The sources are crystal clear and I provided them above. How can you possibly not see that knowingly reverting verified sourced facts to verified falsehoods is vandalism. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, It seem clear that there are more that enough reliable sources that all verify Mr. George as the Principle of the school. Unless there are reliable sources that explicitly say otherwise, I think this discussion can end with that. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cristol, A. Jay (2002). The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's.

His website [53]

Relevant AN/I thread here: here

I found them and I'm not even computor literate. You can find them much faster than I could. Go for it.

Requesting independent third party judgment on the credibility of this source as per

Brassey's is now Potomac which appears to specialize in books on defense and baseball (odd mix). It is a real publisher and not a vanity press or publisher with specific political points of view. I would consider it as valid as any books published by specialist publishers in the field. [54] purporting to debunk the book is in the honored tradition of conspiracy photo analysis. From Amazon customer review "Cristol, in addition to being a Federal Bankruptcy Judge is a Navy Reserve Pilot and I think his flying experience helped him. He commenced writing about the Liberty to fulfill the requirements for a dissertation." which rather implies that the author is a Judge, served as a Naval piliot, and wrote a dissertation. Another "debunking" is at [55] which, as near as I can tell, debunks nothing at all. I'd use the book Collect (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would note that one of the debunking pages you've referred to was written by one of the editors seeking to have Cristol removed as a credible source. Justin talk 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying an editor is using his own writings as a source? WP:RS etc. basically decry that. See

WP:SPS Collect (talk

) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was being used by other editors. The author is an editor who is also active on the page. It has been removed now, I think, from the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading request (this comment added by an involved editor) - nobody has set out to claim that Cristol's book is not an RS - the problem under discussion is the UNDUE we've giving it over better regarded sources/books.

Cristol's "The Liberty Incident" 2002 gets 1 cite (and his 1999 dissertation gets two) according to Google Scholar - by comparison, Ennes's 1979 "Assault on the Liberty" gets 5 citations. Other books with chapters on the incident are much, much better again - "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-secret National Security Agency" - J Bamford - 2001 - Doubleday - Cited by 47.

And yet, the treatment we give Cristol, both as to his person and his book, is far better than what we give Ennes and Bamford. There are lots of other serious problems at this article (eg treatment of possible motives for Israel attacking is extraordinarily POV) which I could go into, but this request is a complete mis-statement of them. There is, however, another source being used that is non-RS, at one point in the article, Cristol's views even get a second bite of the cherry by re-statement in an opinion piece from the ADL. PR^talk 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, my summary and request is accurate: "Cristol is a target for criticism, from what i've seen so far, because he is an author who fits research around a preconcieved idea. It makes no difference if he is right or wrong, the fact he fabricates discredits any good work he does.", "The more I research Cristol the less reliable he appears.", the intention is clear to deny that it is a credible source and to use others the editors concerned consider more reliable. Editors concerned have edit-warred previously to include an edit that claims the attack was deliberate, using the Moorer report as a primary source.

Also I would dispute the use of Google Scholar, Cristol's Book published in 2002, is bound to be cited less than a book published in 1979. Now I asked for an independent 3rd party viewpoint, please allow that to happen without disprupting the process with reams of criticism. Justin talk 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with citing the book. As for how much weight to give it... that is something that goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and must be determined on the article's talk page by those who know more about the subject... ie the editors who regularly work on that particular article. Content disputes are never easy to resolve, but if you assume good faith and work to achieve a neutral POV you should be able to resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another source

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E Borne Published by Reconsideration Press, 1996

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E. Borne Published by New York University, Graduate School of Arts and Science, 1993

Two different versions of the same source. I'm finding it difficult to find any information about Reconsideration Press. I'm presuming the second reference is the publication of a doctoral thesis. 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are those two reliable in matters of Egyptology?

For more information here is Tom Harpurs biography, and Massey's booksMadridrealy (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say definitely not in most cases, there may be some exceptions when dealing with fringe claims, but not for general use as a RS in Eygptology.

talk

) 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, [www.imdb.com] IMDB is editable by any user and does not cite the sources editors use when coming up with a plot synopsis. Where a work needs interpretation, does IMDB cut it as a reliable source of information?

I believe

WP:SELFPUB answers your question. (That answer being, no, it is not) --Bobblehead ^(rants)

23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is not self-published, and though editable by "any user", it does in fact (at least as of yesterday) require confirmations and sources for submitted informations, and it routinely rejects user submissions that are not themselves accomanied by sources... though IMDB does not share those sources as Wiki requires for its own articles. Different entities, different rules. Keep in mind though, that IMDB's usefulness as a source is in continued contention (see CIMDB and (recent discussions)... and you will find editors wishing it banned outright. That being said, and the arguments about its usefulness notwithstanding, it is still a terrific tool to guide you to other locations for finding the informations you wish. If you find a plot synopsis on IMDB, it is extremely likely that you will find a better and more complete one elsewhere, as that better one was likely used as a source for whatever is on IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.

talk

) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB to this discussion, and based upon its language, the information on IMDB is indeed self-published: IMDB is an open forum anyone may edit. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk

) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Alternative media claims that the mainstream media is in error, even slanted towards some agenda. Wikipedia claims that Alternative media is unreliable. I'm here for clarification only. Powerzilla (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some examples:

I would say it's reliable. It is being used to support a statement of opinion (ie a statement as to what the website says about the book), for which it is definitely reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is this site? --neon white talk 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixed... parts are reliable, and parts are not. Much will depend on exactly what you are trying to use the source to support. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is mostly opinion columns. It looks like the columnists are mostly mainstream and respected, but they provide opinion, not investigative journalism. They're facts are usually going to be correct, but not always. Since they are simply offering opinion on news they've read, you should be able to find a better source for any information you find there. So if you find something on that site that you think is worth mentioning, it's probably correct information but you should really search for that same information from another source - and if the information is correct you should have no trouble finding it. Readin (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The news is usable (almost all from AP, in fact.) And news makes up a lot of the site. Since the articles are AP, they are citable. They are not "simply offering opinion on news they've read." Opinions are ... opinions, and generally marked as such. When citing them, treat them as opinion. Townhall.com is more reliable than Salon, not as reliable as The NY Times. But even the NY Times can be unreliable -- what you are claiming in a RS is that the facts are generally right and subject to editorial oversight. If you look for AP, you will likely find the exact same articles. Collect (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect is right. I missed that there were news articles on the page. The columnists have a significant presence and should be treated as I described above. But the news articles are as reliable as their source. Readin (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But AP's own site, or their links to papers which republish the articles, are preferable; readers should not have to make this analysis before accepting the source as reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think this was concerning the blogs part some seem to be by some quite notable journalists and political brains.
  Matt Lewis (political analyst), Carol Platt Liebau, Amanda Carpenter, Hugh Hewitt --neon white talk
  00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As always: Blogs are reliable primary sources for the blogger's own views; secondary sources are preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please could you give me your opinions on whether (and which of) the following magazines and ezines could be considered reliable (and non-trivial), especially in regards to their analysis and criticism of lesbian culture:

• Diva Magazine (UK)
• Sapphic Central (UK)
• G3 Magazine (UK)
• Gaydarnation (UK)
• Velvet Magazine (UK)
• crAve Magazine (UK)
• L Mag (Germany)
• eurOut (Europe)
• Gingerbeer (UK)
• Go Magazine (US)
• Curve Magazine (US)

kiden (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It very much depends on what it is you're using the information for. There is not a large body of criticism on lesbian literature, culture, and history. Much of it comes from a small publishing base that produces these magazines. Some publications in the 1960s and 1970s (The Ladder (magazine), The Furies Collective, Sinister Wisdom) look very do-it-yourself and put together with tape and staples, but since mainstream news and literary criticism did not address lesbian issues, this is pretty much all that is available to gauge what lesbians were doing. I have used Curve and Velvet. The others I have never seen before. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just added URLs to the list to help assess kiden (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor Hbent has been removing "photobucket references" from articles. This is what I stated on Hbent's talk page:

"Would you mind explaining why you made this edit? What policy on Wikipedia says that we cannot use photobucket as references? If Wikipedia does say that, then I am sure that the policy is in regards to photographs at photobucket due to the fact that photographs can be doctored.

My point is that photobucket is not the reference for those references you removed from the Todd Manning article. Those references are from valid soap opera magazines; the "photobucket references" are showing scanned articles from those magazines in which validate the article's text being stated. If you were going to remove all those references, the least you could have done is format the references so that they do not need urls.

I see that you have removed "photobucket references" from other articles as well. You should first discuss stuff like this over with other editors of the articles you are removing these from. There is no telling how many valid references you have removed from articles because of this.

I have reverted your edit to the Todd Manning article."

Of course...I would like clarification on this matter from editors here at the Noticeboard.

Hbent stated this answer on my talk page: "The photobucket links in question were links to copyvio content. If you want to cite an article in Soap Opera Digest, cite the magazine article itself, not an image in violation of copyright. I have fixed the citations, removing only the photobucket URLs."

I understand Hbent's point about copyvio.

talk

) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience so far, at least 75% of the links to photobucket I have seen (whether inside references or not) were copyright violations. I have been removing photobucket links in general; they are almost always used inappropriately. There were some pages, like the one Flyer22 mentions, where I removed references that could have been reformatted or refactored instead. If the refs are salvageable then I have no problem fixing them in the future instead of just deleting them, and I apologize for not having done so previously. Unfortunately, I came across many refs where there was no real source info other than the photobucket picture. In that case, I am loathe to spend my time fixing refs that shouldn't have been added in the first place. hbent (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if this is really viewed as a copyright problem by Wikipedia, then I will start removing other "photobucket references" I have included in other articles. Heck, I will likely do that anyway, so that I do not come across this problem with other editors.

talk

) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's really a legal problem if we link to copyvio content hosted on other sites. However, it doesn't seem needed in this case anyway. Citing the magazine as a source without a url is perfectly valid and copyvios on other sites are liable to be taken down at some point. DOUBLEBLUE (talk)

I added them in url format because I was like, "I have visual proof of these articles, so why not? Isn't visual proof better than simply words?"

talk

) 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I understood and it makes perfect sense to increase verifiability but it is, of course, unnecessary and if a copyvio then, it appears, actually not "a good thing". Cheers! DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DoubleBlue, I respectfully point you to

WP:COPYLINK, which states that, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." And while it would be nice if photobucket patrolled their site for copyright violations, I've seen no evidence of that in practice. hbent (talk

) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder, though, how this is any different than linking to a copyrighted interview at an actor or actress' website where the interview features that actor or actress, such as this. I mean, Wikipedia allows us to link like that all time as a reference because it is the actor or actress' official site. I mean, is it because, unlike liking to a scanned magazine article through photobucket, the articles at these actor and actress' sites are usually not the scanned images of the articles? Even if that is the case, I must point out that they sometimes are.

How is linking to photobucket any different than uploading copyrighted images? Is it because those copyrighted images must provide a fair-use rationale saying that they are copyrighted and a license also saying that they are copyrighted?

talk

) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the issue is that if you link to a news article, say, at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. On the other hand, if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I'm not sure I understand the second question though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is some confusion here about the difference between copyrighted content and content that is a copyright violation. Linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source. We wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all if you couldn't do those things. The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder. Magazine scans on photobucket are a perfect example of such a violation. Magazine scans elsewhere are trickier, but I would think that it can be presumed that scans (or interviews, or what have you) on an official site have probably been cleared.

Copyrighted content hosted on Wikipedia is only okay within limited circumstances, and those circumstances are policed here. I very much doubt that you could get away with uploading a scan of a copyrighted magazine article here because it would not qualify as fair use. I can't imagine that having the scan on photobucket would be any more legal than it would be here.

I asked on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for someone with copyright expertise to weigh in here, and hopefully that will happen. hbent (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify: if you use a copyvio magazine article somewhere as source and then cite it as just the article, without the image link, I don't see how we could prevent that. hbent (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

the usual solution is to give the reference to the source used without it being an actual link. The court decision cited there refers to links, not references. DGG (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your question on the copyright desk while I was there asking a question myself. No expert on the legalities, but Wikipedia policy is perfectly clear if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work (

WP:LINKVIO) SpinningSpark

17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not truly confusion on my part, guys. I just wanted clarification. Thanks for that. I mean, Squidfryerchef, of course I know that if you link to a news article at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. And that if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I was just wondering about reprinted interviews at an actor or actress' official site. hbent, I know that linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source, and that we would not have much of an encyclopedia at all if we could not do those things. But your statement "The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder" is what I was going for when asking how is that different from uploading a copyrighted image...such as a screenshot where we do not have permission from the copyright holder or holders. I was wondering if the difference for that is because by linking to the images instead of uplodaing them here at Wikipedia, we are not providing fair-use rationales and licensing stating that the images are copyrighted.

But, again, thank you guys for your time.

talk

) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Again,

WP:LINKVIO gives the reasons for the policy: it shows Wikipedia in a bad light. There are also legal problems in the US with doing this (very possibly other countries as well) but the main reason is we do not want to be seen to be flouting the IPR of others. SpinningSpark

19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand.

talk

) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to use your own judgement on whether an actor's site is more like a corporation's "in the news" page or more like an enthusiast's page. I'd assume an actor's official site would have an agent take care of copyright clearance, but I'm not too familiar with the show business. The second question you ask is a question about "fair use", and that is a very complex topic in copyright law. Basicially it allows you to make copies, usually small parts of a work, under very limited circumstances, and there has to be a justification, such as for academic criticism. Every time you quote a passage from a copyrighted book, that's using fair use. For instance WP allows a screenshot of a movie in an article discussing the movie. But you cannot upload the whole book or the whole movie, nor would you link to such. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I am attempting to show that an organization is not tax-exempt according to the United States Internal Revenue Service. The organization doesn't appear in Publication 78( a list of "all" tax-exampt organizaton), but may meet the guidelines for not having to be published in Publication 78. They do appear in the IRS Business Master File, which also has a list of tax-exempt organization. However, if you call the IRS Charities dept on the phone, give them the name or EIN of the organization, they will tell you that the organization has been tax-exempt since 2003. That is, however, the only information the I.R.S. can give over the phone because of "the status of the organization". I'd like to say something about the organization's tax-exempt status since I feel the organizations Wiki page misrepresents its tax-exempt status.

In other words, is saying "You can make a phone call to the IRS" a reliable source? Any suggestions?

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like

talk

) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. You need a source that's published somewhere. Conducting your own telephone interviews is definitely original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This one web page is acting as source for a large percentage of Inter-Services Intelligence, an article about the ISI. I think the whole thing looks sketchy, but that may just be me. I'm open to comments. [62] CSHunt68 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fairly dodgy to me - a former indian minster talking about a nation they have much strife with ? hardly a NPOV source and the hosting site looks fairly dodge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The same paper can also be found on the website of South Asia Analysis Group, which is a legitimate Indian think-tank on security and international affairs issues, and hence a reliable (though not neutral!) source for wikipedia. Hence the article can be used to provide a perspective on ISI, as long as the views are properly attributed to the author/SAAG and not simply stated as facts. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Used in

The

It's clearly an official source, a coalition as you say of several states of the USA. No problem whatsoever with its reliability on the environmental aspects of packaging. Obviously you should make sure you reflect its content correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this website the official MOD site for this unit of the TA. An IP has stated that it is a self published website by Gareth Baillie and not the official MOD site would the IP be correct or is it official thanks. If not official would its claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt. BigDunc^Talk 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an official MOD site - that would end in "mod.uk", It also says that it's copyright "Gareth Baillie". Looks self-published to me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking further it's the self-publishedassociation website not for the actual unit._{normally I'd head over and remove it but since it's on a NI article, I have more sense than to get involved...} --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron. Should it be removed as a reference? And if yes what rational? BigDunc^Talk 11:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a self-published website and therefore should not be used for anything that might be controversial. I don't know what article you are referring to but yes, it probably needs to be removed for that reason. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, my removal of a reference on

Just to add my comment as the editor who reverted - my viewpoint is that the source is not being used as a reference (i.e., to back up a fact that is claimed in the article), but is instead in the External Links section. I imagine it is listed to help establish notability for the article. From Wikipedia:External_links, it is acceptable to consider linking to "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Mdwh (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's still in there as footnote #5, though :> Perhaps it will be okay as just an external link. Although it occurred to me earlier today that for all we know "War Chicken" is on the game's (apparently extensive) development team; the tone of the review seems rather promotional in the last few paragraphs (complete with snappy slogan), with no real critical analysis. Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago (35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads:
"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."

The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled Space music. The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded.

The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Wikipedia article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist.

Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising.

(The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.)
Milo 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying:

Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(

What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article.

But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources.

Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(

The big names in creativity won't be affected at Wikipedia, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Wikipedia. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing.

Are you sure you want to go there? Milo 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Roe 03:05): "did I write so unclearly?"

What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): "Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..." and "...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."

There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show (using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above).

What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): "He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography."

Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work.

(Roe 03:05): "I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above." ... "I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."

Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of "spacemusic" is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates.

Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of "spacemusic" genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? Milo 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[Note: the article version as of the above date was Space Music 18:38, 14 November 2008.]

The problem is that "space music" is not a musical genre and Hearts of Space did not invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with

appropriately weighted

within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source.

In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to all of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is

New Age or electronic

, and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music.

Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply cannot be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the

article request for comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a primary source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends

original research theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --Gene_poole (talk

) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[Note: at this point the article was edited twice: Space Music 21:45, 17 November 2008 and Space music 21:46, 17 November 2008.]

Let's be clear that Hill has significant commercial interests and arguably has a vested interest in seeing that this label is utilised as a branding device. Hill has published nothing on this subject but we do have verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic, notably Lanza who offers a view regarding Hill and the space music domian in general - in the context of the subject as it is expressed in the current

Haydn to Yanni), this statement is backed up by nothing other than the brief statements on the Hearts of Space website, it's a deeply personal view. In terms of offering a qualified secondary perspective on this, Lanza, the musicologist, is the best bet, not the radio producer and record label boss. Also, note that a number of the statements attributed to various cited sources are synthetic, the first two sentences in the lede being the most problematic. Semitransgenic (talk

) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for making the claim of, "The statement above [quote from 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle ] ... not verifiable, and is in actuality false." ?

If you think the statement is not verifiable, how do you know it's actually false?

Since they already verified it, are you seriously claiming that The San Francisco Chronicle is not a reliable source??

If you are challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting of the facts, what is your evidence to the contrary?

If the San Francisco Chronicle's source on the quote is Stephen Hill himself (reporter Sande can be asked), and you can't prove the statement is incorrect exactly as written and spelled, then you have potentially committed libel per quod - potentially a covert defamation of Hill's veracity and professional expertise. If so, it's also a WP:BLP-talk violation, and you could be required to retract the statement.

So how do you explain your self-contradictory and worrisome comment? Milo 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle article cited above is entitled "The sky's the limit with ambient music". The article's opening paragraph states "spacemusic, also known as ambient...". The article goes on to note "a prime mover in the ambient/spacemusic genre...", and "the best description of what we do is contemplative music". This does not support your

Spacemusic article confirm that it was in use by others at least 20 years before Hill started using it - as you should know, given that you added those sources yourself. All the other statements in the SF Chronicle article are not false. Your highly selective synthetic interpretation of them is false. --Gene_poole (talk

) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, what I should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong. The relevant literature does not support the thesis Milo is presenting, but that is not the even the point, the point is the article is breaching guidelines on

WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material. Semitransgenic (talk

) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic (22:44): "should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong."

A further self-contradiction. We agree that the term "space music" (two words in English) was a term in use for other kinds of music prior to 1973. But SFC reported that Hill "coined the term "spacemusic"", and exclusively used that term spelled "spacemusic" (one word in English) throughout the article.

A reminder that you were the one to raise the issue of branding: ""Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic", this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive,..." Semitransgenic 00:39, 8 November 2008.

If you can't prove SFC's statement is wrong, exactly as "spacemusic" is spelled (one word), and Hill is SFC's source for the statement, then you are now potentially facing a second count of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (22:44).

You are still challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reliable reporting of the facts – what is your evidence to the contrary? Milo 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Libel?? LOL : ) yawn...you are a dreamer. Yes the SFC is wrong, Newspapers are often wrong, about lots of things, often intentionally so. And yes, I do have evidence. Fact check: The term 'space music' was in existence long before Hill coined it. But, this is not a forum, nor is it the place to discuss content disputes so let me reiterate: "the point is the article is breaching guidelines on

WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material." please deal with this fact Milo rather than attacking editors who disagree with your views. Semitransgenic (talk

) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Semitransgenic refuses to discuss the distinction between the two spellings "spacemusic"/"space music". For brands, a minor spelling difference greatly matters, and he originally claimed that "spacemusic" (one word in English) was a "branding drive"[64].
2. Yet, he has persistently challenged the San Francisco Chronicle's fact reporting reliability, apparently based on his self-contradictory implication, that "spacemusic" (one word) is not different from "space music" (two words), and therefore "spacemusic" can't be a brand of "space music". He wants to have it both ways.
3. He has presented no valid evidence that the San Francisco Chronicle article's reporting by Sande is unreliable or excludable from citation. He doesn't agree with it, but asked twice, he can't say why without either generalizing or contradicting himself.
4. He treats concerns about libels that might ruin other people's reputations as a joke.

This thread was again and again bloated with claims about non-sourcing issues. Since they were off-topic at this noticeboard, I ignored them. Now Semitransgenic yawns and claims to be attacked. Experienced editors will recognize these distractive ploys that herald a thread to be ended by gainsaying last-worders.

To summarize from the top post:

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The RS answers are:

• Stephen Hill is a notable expert as described under WP:V(WP:SPS). Hill's reliable secondary source expertise covers his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists.
• Hill's comments on his personal life, meaning those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work, are reliable primary sources.
• Additionally, the 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle article by Steve Sande, quoting Stephen Hill and others with analysis of this music, is an article that can be cited as a reliable source.

Milo 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, you are very confused, read the article, read what you have written in the article, you interchange space-music and spacemusic throughout, but now, because the flimsy tissue of lies that you call

WP:OR thesis is indefensible, and this is something you should come to terms with. Semitransgenic (talk

) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to, but mostly did not write the current article. It was not my decision to interchange "space music" and "spacemusic", but for consensus I let it pass. The version of the article I referred to at that link was deleted by another editor long ago. I was gracious about it since I wanted to collaborate to produce a better article. Milo 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But Milo, in this very declaration you refer to space music?? so do please forgive me for finding this inconsistent of you. It all seems rather disingenuous and we would be better served here if you stopped entertaining yourself at our expense and instead made a genuine effort in resolving this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an obscured research issue embedded in the second paragraph (Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007): "... points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds,...". "Spacemusic" and "space music" sound about the same on radio, so I wrote it down as two words. I expect others did the same. Milo 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"obscured research issue"? you mean

WP:OR. Sorry but this is again disingenuous. You say you heard the term on the radio and wrote it down as two words yet your first major contribution to the article demonstrates you had knowledge of the Hearts of Space website so were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill - but you still explicitly use the term Space music throughout. Semitransgenic (talk

) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

""obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR."

Lose the sophistry.

"were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill"

No. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling on the website. Creative spellings are routine in popular music "biz" writing, so I didn't notice until it emerged as a research issue during 2007. Milo 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore: the SFC is wrong. Thanks for confirming this. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling. "Discuss" means "b: to present in detail for examination or consideration" (M-W.com). Not discussed doesn't imply that "spacemusic" isn't mentioned by that spelling. My recent search of HoS.com displayed 155 hits on "spacemusic" (one word) and 11 hits on "space music" (two words). The 11 hits on the two word spelling appear to be quotations including album titles.

The earliest preserved, dated usage of the "spacemusic" spelling is the HoS website's intro announcement for Hearts of Space radio program #003 of 1983-01-12. That's consistent with the 2004-01-11 SFC report statement reading: "Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago,...". Milo 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you are insinuating that Hill's neologism - following the transference of a contraction into a compound word - makes him the co-founder of a genre but space-music and spacemusic refer to exactly the same thing - in the same way that space-craft & spacecraft mean exactly the same thing; yet the person responsible for compounding the words space & craft is not credited with being a co-conceptualizer of space-travel. I recommend you look at the Oxford English Dictionary online under space and count the number of times you find similar examples. Also, note that the very book Hill cites as "the best general treatment of the subject" does not mention spacemusic - nor is there mention of this in the books precursor, David Toop's Ocean of Sound (nor does it feature in Timothy Dean Taylor's book Strange Sound which includes a chapter entitled Space). There are, from what I can see, only two published secondary sources that mention spacemusic/space music directly (in keeping with how article wishes to define itself) that's Lanza and Birosik: and note that Hill's partner and co-founder of Music from the Hearts of Space, Anna Turner, in Birosik, uses the term space music, and not spacemusic. It's clear that spacemusic and space music are one and the same thing so you need to stop with all this nonsense about Hill being the creator of a genre, or even genre of genres for that matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that this has evolved into a content discussion with significant ramifications for the article, I've copied it to Talk:Space_music. Please continue the discussion there. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bay Area Music (BAM)

I have an editor reverting edits/removing citations for BAM because they have never heard of it and because it is/was "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". For those who may not know BAM was a California based music magazine for over two decades that was published in both a Northern and Southern California edition and also sponsored the yearly BAMMIES. It was as "local" as the NY Times is to New York City or to the LA Times is to Los Angeles. It was mainly about music but not specific to one style of form or even subject. "Frank Zappa - Interview from Hell" was only one cover story in it's history. At one point BAM merged with Seattle's Rocket ("West Coast music magazines BAM and Seattle Rocket combine forces; now third-largest U.S. popular- music publication") and the BAMMIES were always a notable event in the Bay Area ("Show Shouldn't Go On", "Bammies go one step further -- bronze plaques in the sidewalk", "Journey Induction into the BAMMIES Walk of Fame", "The Bay Area Music Awards", "ARTHUR M. SOHCOT Award", "Chris Isaak, Primus top Bammie ballot ;17th show honors Bay Area musicians on March 5" and "Nostalgia plays well at California Music Awards. Young bands win, but veterans steal show"). The overall issue here is when editors have never heard of something they sometimes remove a citation or information associated with it. A person outside of the industry may not have never heard of R&R, Pollstar, Entertainment Design or even Billboard because they are all, very clearly, "niche" publications yet they are all very good sources. Guitar For the Practicing Musician, Modern Drummer, Bass Player and Guitar Player Magazine may not be read by non musicians, however if someone started removing facts or information where any of these were cited as sources because they were "niche" publications it would be somewhat ludicrous. I don't live in Chicago but that does not mean I would discount an article on a Chicago musician who was featured in the Chicago Times, thusly included citations for that publications, because it was a "local" publication. For information about musicians that were playing in, lived in, and considered part of, the California scene a source such as BAM would a goldmine of information on certain "local" artists. Van Halen, Journey, Guns and Roses, RATT, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Quiet Riot, Carlos Santana, Frank Zappa, The Eagles and so many others were all covered at various times. So the question is, really, should a magazine that mainly covered the California music scene be considered a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Niche" does not equate to "unreliable". From what you have said here this source should be reliable for facts about rock musicians and bands but probably not beyond that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If info can't be verified it can't stay on Wikipedia -

wp:v

is one of the 3 most important policies on Wikipedia. With one wiki editor saying one thing, and an emailer saying another - we need sources editors and readers can verify and agree are reliable. This is the basics for tertiary sources like encyclopedias, especially ones written with wiki software.

The

New York Times is a newspaper of record, and it and the Los Angeles Times

are major international newspapers, with world wide archives that allows Wikipedia readers to verify info sourced to it. BAM's none of these things.

I've removed the

notable, better sources that are known for fact checking will exist to reference it. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-24t

14:06z

Stricter rules apply in the case of

WP:BLP, but from the history talk page of the article I think is under discussion, it seems to be only the date and title of an album release that is at issue. Could this be found in material issued by the band or their recording company? Itsmejudith (talk

) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are for copyrighted information, such as a photographer allowing use of an image. Wikiepedia articles are not "owned" in the same sense although if there were a copyvio it could be certainly be removed. However I have no clue why this OTRS ticket relates to BAM as a source. And

WP:BLP

however, and it is highly doubtful BAM would have lasted for as long as it did, or been part of the music industry, had it been nothing but slander and misinformation.

There are thousands of sources not "online", but that does not mean they do not exist of can not be verified. I am sure if Jeandré is in California s/he can locate a source. Perhaps UCLA archives would have them or some place else. There may be some sort of online archive that is searchable. I did find Bam Forever however it is under construction. The issue is not if a source is found "online" or not, nor is it, as Jeandré first argued, because a publication is "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". To answer Itsmejudith's question about albums. An albums existence could be verified by any number of sources such as an official website, an official press release, publications such as Pro Sound, R&R, Billboard or the album itself. But, again, I have no idea, really I don't, what that all has to do with BAM or the OTRS. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood, it is not about an album release but about band membership. I can't see why this would be controversial, and I would think it is still within the areas of expertise in which BAM would be reliable. Of course if another source contradicted it then that would be a different question. Perhaps one of the other respondents to this board will have a different view, or you can take it to the BLP noticeboard for further advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• As a local music magazine, BAM would not necessarily be considered as reliable as a mainstream newspaper or a national music magazine, but it was published for 23 years which suggests stability, and it is collected at a few libraries. Apparently the claim under dispute is that a certain person was formerly a member of a certain band, which is something I would expect a music magazine to be reliable about. If I understand the situation, there is nothing obviously controversial about this claim. So I don't know what the OTRS ticket would be about -- did the person contact the Wikimedia Foundation to deny that she was ever a member of the band? And, if so, is it necessary to keep the OTRS ticket a secret? Couldn't whoever handled the OTRS ticket put a notice on the talk page saying that the person has contacted the Foundation to deny ever having been a member of the band? I don't see potential harm in the situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

questionable sources

or sources of dubious value should not be used"

wp:v#Questionable sources

"Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature"

I can't republish the OTRS emails because of Wikimedia's privacy policies, I can however say that the emails are about Cara Crash (living person) being a member of a band (living persons)/or not. The only source is a local music magazine which isn't archived like newspapers of record are, and is therefor not

verifiable by Wikipedia's readers. This source was challenged in an email to the foundation. I don't think local music magazines are good sources, so what I'm asking for is a reliable verifiable source for the info I removed (which was called vandalism). If BAM is the only source for this fact, is it even of encyclopedic notability? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-25t

11:56z

Lets see, several issues at played here. First - so you are saying anyone can email the foundation and say somehting like "they were in a band" or "they were not in a band" and than that information becomes "secret" as well as a valid source? That is a new one. To this comment: "I don't think local music magazines are good sources" I say "People with limited knowledge of a subject should not be involved in editing an article" Well, in either case I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website.(The same member who's personal statement was deleted for being original research by

wp:blp out of context. it was intended to prevent un-sourced, un-cited, comments such as "They were fired because of drug abuse" from appearing, not "After they left the band they were in another band" with several cited sources backing it up. Your edits were removed as vandalism because you keep removing cited sources and you are being asked not to. This is the first mention of the OTRS being directly related to the article, however, as I pointed out, if all someone has to do is send in an email making a statement they did, of didn't do something, and then you accept that as "fact" and refuse to actually provide "proof" it opens up a whole new way to have article edited. Soundvisions1 (talk

) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of an aside, but as this "secret" OTRS email about band members that also seems to imply that BAM is considered a poor source, I would ask that Jeandré revel if this secret person explained this: "We want to be on the cover of BAM now!", BAM, #409, June 4, 1993. 4 Non Blondes Cover Story. Seems funny that, as the magazine in not reliable and simply a "local niche", why a band would "want to be on the cover" of such a magazine. (Of course one would have to wonder why well known artists such as Tom Petty, Sinead O'Connor, Pat Benatar or Crosby, Stills and Nash would even agree to be interviewed for a cover story either. I know if I were a musician of that stature I would never ever want to be associated with such a "local music magazine" that is a "questionable source") Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we assumed that BAM was an unreliable source, we might explain the cover by suggesting that BAM bought a picture of 4 Non Blondes from another source and made up a fake quote about them wanting to be on the cover of the magazine. In actuality, I don't assume that BAM is unreliable or that they made up a fake quote from the band. However, BAM's coverage of 4 Non Blondes is the issue being disputed here, so we can't use BAM's quotations from the band to prove that the coverage is accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok - back up. Now what are you talking about? Is there now another article being discussed? There are are no quotes from BAM in the 4NB article. This has zero to do with any sort of debatable issue and, unless the OTRS is made available here, than it is up to all of you to proove that that the images are faked, the album/single I have in front of me is fake, the reviews of it are fake, that former 4NB guitarist Shaunna Hall is lying and that any other possible future source about Cara Crash and Wanda Day being in Malibu Barbi are not true. Until than this is asinine and a bogus discussion based on some unseen email from some unknown source.

Can we try to keep this on topic. BAM - reliable source or not? Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is kept by several libraries, so verifiability does not seem to be an issue. --NE2 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get any more from this noticeboard than what I and others have said: a magazine like BAM should normally be reliable for simple facts like who was or was not in a band. The usual caveats apply: not all verifiable facts are notable; usually reliable sources can make errors; sources may disagree. Usually who was in a band at any one time is not particularly controversial. Members of bands generally like to be credited for their contributions. Here there appears to be some sensitivity that we have not been made party to. This is not the place to unravel it. The BLP noticeboard might be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• "are saying anyone can email the foundation [...] and than that information becomes [...] a valid source?"
  • No, the info in the email's not verifiable. It is however a challenge and
    wp:v says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged" - which leads to the questioning of BAM
    as a reliable source, and as Metropolitan90 points out, you can't use BAM as a reliable source for showing that BAM is a reliable source.
• "I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website."
  • [65]: see
    wp:rs
    .
• "It is kept by several libraries, so verifiability does not seem to be an issue."
  • NE2's link leads to [69] which shows that 12 libraries have some copies of the magazine. While I don't think that qualifies it as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, the argument can be made (by e.g. Soundvisions1 and Itsmejudith) that it's not just some zine of "
    rumors and personal opinions, [...] promotional in nature", and, as a music magazine, is a good source for saying a living person was a member of a band. What I'm asking for is another source showing that Crash was a member of 4NB: a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-26t
    12:37z

← To Jeandré Invoking Monty Python skits may be cute at first but this is getting ridiculous. With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification, so it makes me question this secret OTRS even more as it couldn't be from a band member. (Note that Self published sources can be, and are - all the time, used to verify certain facts, they should not be used to establish notability. However in this case that link is not "self" published by the subjects of the fact being verified as is not Wanda Day or Kara/Cara Crash saying "I was in Malibu Barbi", nor is it the source being used to establish notability of either musician so they can have their own stand alone article) Next you say, of an image gallery: "...this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing". Please note the following text that sets up the images: "When Rude Girl broke up, Sandy joined up with Heidi, Joann, and Kara from Missconception. They formed Malibu Barbi. While Leather was on the 12" recording, Melanie sang live and most other recordings. Later Lupe joined up with Kara and Joann, Industrial Rainforest. Pretty much, everyone local knew everyone" Kara = Cara. Clearly, because you feel BAM was a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source", you also feel that because this photographer was a local San Francisco photographer these photos are not reliable sources. But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable. You appear to rely on "I have never heard it" put under the guise of a policy/guideline that you feel implies that if an editor has never heard of something than it could not be used as a source. This is an open challenge for Jeandré to now prove that this band did not exist and that the members who were in it over a several year period were never really in the band. I have done more than enough to verify the band existed and that both Kara/Cara Crash and Wanda Day were in the band. If you feel it is some hoax that prove it. Or just be 100% honest here and say "I have no clue about BAM, the music industry, the California music scene or the musicians that were part of it, are part of it or may be part it in the future" and we can move on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• "With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification"
  • The page at Shaunna's site [70] does not say that Cara was a member of 4NB, it says she was a member of Alcohol of Fame and Malibu Barbi. The article at [71] doesn't mention Cara. If there was an article written by Shaunna published in the LA Times saying Cara was a member of the band; or if something like the
    All Music Guide's page
    said it, those would be reliable sources.
• "Kara = Cara"
  • If the image gallery on the cosplay site can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention her surname, its not a reliable source. It also doesn't say that "Kara" was a member of 4NB.
• "But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable"
  • wp:v says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Several editors have now said that BAM should be good enough, so what I'm asking for now is another source stating Cara was a member of 4NB - a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows that this information is of encyclopedic notability and is good enough when discussing living persons. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-27t
    12:37z

Stop with the Monty Python skit Jeandré, I get it and it is not funny anymore. So really only four main things to say:

1. The "Dog Ass" article does not say Cara was a member of 4 Non Blondes, correct. It was not used to cite that fact, it was used to cite she was in Malibu Barbi - another of the facts you keep removing from the article because it was in BAM.
2. The "Life and Times of Wanda Day" citation you bring up does not mention Cara, correct. But it was not used to cite Cara or her involvement with 4 Non Blondes in this specific case, it was used to cite Wanda being in Malibu Barbi. The direct sentence says "After leaving the Blondes in 1991 Wanda continued drumming with Malibu Barbi, and then Bad Dog Play Dead." As above, this fact was removed by you more than once because it was in BAM.
3. Kirk Douglass, as an example. His real name is Issur Danielovitch but if someone from Amsterdam, NY posted personal images of him before he took a stage name you would say that "If the image gallery can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention his surname, its not a reliable source." Perhaps it is not known, by you anyway, that performers often create stage names. Johnny, Marky, Dee Dee and Joey did not (do not) really all have "Ramone" as their last name. "Danny Dangerous" and "Sammy Serious" are not really the names of the bass player and singer of The Zeros. The fact that a guitarist named Kara Cross became known as "Cara Crash" is not all that shocking. And, as with the other "I have come for an argument" arguments, you conveniently overlooked looked where the citation was used, and for what reason, just so you could come here and argue some more. It was used to cite that Cara was in Malibu Barbi.
4. Citations were provided for the comments you removed about Cara and Wanda being in Malibu Barbi as well as Caras involvement (However briefly) in 4 Non Blondes. May I remind you, and point out everyone reading this, that you also removed Shaunna Halls edit that confirmed Cara had involvement in 4NB. Now it is not up to me, it is up to you to do as I have asked because it is only your opinion that BAM is unreliable and so is it to your opinion that Shaunna Hall, because she was in 4NB, is also not reliable.

I maintain that the perfect source for much information about a turbulent time that most outsiders would never be privy to would be from the people who were there. And, again, this is not about some extremely controversial issue. Would I be arguing if you removed the statement that Wanda Day had been fired because of drug addition and there was an OTRS on it? No. You admitted you could care less about the article itself, or what it says overall, only that BAM was not a reliable source and there was an OTRS ticket on the magazine. The rest has been made far more clear in this discussion and it really does not appear to be solely about BAM as a source at all. Your opinion on this matter is clear, no need to add anything further to this discussion unless it supports your views that BAM in not reliable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the topic-specific details of this long discussion, I can offer my outside view that

notability and was widely respected. Unless there is conflicting information in other sources, I'd have no hesitation to use it as a source. If it published information that is disputed by other reliable sources, then both sources can be used, but with attribution for clarity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If BAM is reliable enough for an encyclopedia, why do other reliable sources like

All Music Guide's page on the band

not include BAM's contention that Cara Crash replaced Hall on guitar?

1. The DoggAss page is still a
   self-published source
   , and therefore not reliable enough for an encyclopedia. Even if it was a reliable source, Cara would first need to be shown to have been a member of 4NB before one would need to say she was ever in Malibu Barbi.
2. Loudithfaire looks like a personal site, not a reliable source. Even if it was a reliable source, why doesn't the article it mention Cara?
3. The cosplaytimes photo page doesn't look like a reliable source. Even if it was, another reliable source would need to be given to show that the Kara mentioned there changed her name to Cara later, and even then it's sourcing of Cara being in Malibu Barbi would only be useful in the article once Cara was shown to have been a member of 4NB.
4. Shaunna Halls edit's are not reliable sources since anyone can create an account on Wikipedia. Even if a reliable source indicated that username X was person X, their edits would not qualify as reliable sources in and of themselves. If someone challenges a source, better sources need to be shown, unless it is clear that the original source is good enough: e.g. a reliable peer reviewed journal, a book by a reliable university press, a newspaper of record.

In summary, several people are saying that BAM is a reliable source for saying someone was a member of a band. My standards of sources for encyclopedias seem to be much higher, and require a shown "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -

wp:rs. I'm now asking for another reliable source saying that Cara replaced Hall, a source that is clearly reliable. If there is only 1 source, and that source is not clearly reliable, is the information notable? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t

05:11z

Medical Books

I'd like an unbiased opinion on the reliability of these two books:

Edelman, E, Natural Healing for Schizophrenia, Borage Books, 3rd edition, 2001
Pfeiffer CC. Nutrition and Mental Illness: An Orthomolecular Approach to Balancing Body Chemistry. Healing Arts Press., 1988.

They form the basis for a couple of contentious articles. Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Healing Arts" is an imprint of Bear & Company, which is not a medical publisher as such. See [72].

"Borage Books" is a single book publisher with an obvious interest in pushing the one book. I doubt it qualifies as RS at all as a result. It links to "clinics" and the like which have a financial interest in the book as well. Collect (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if they are on the boarderline as to reliability... perhaps reliable for an attributed statement as to the author's opinion (assuming the authors are considered "experts" in their field). Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Borage is decidedly iffy. "Healing Arts" does work mainly with "holistic medicine" etc. so that might be a factor in how much weight is given it as a cite. Collect (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are used as sources in topics related to

simple rules)

15:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Book Reviews

A simple question, should a book review be used as evidence of what is in the book?

My reason for asking is that the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article contains details about a controversial book on the subject based on a Guardian newspaper review, not the book itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs)

Per

simple rules)

17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is not a "book review", it's a news report on the book, which quotes its author and comments from other academics. A review would be quotable as an assessment of the contents by an expert on the topic. This is probably reliable as a summary of the argument, but not of its academic notability. Paul B (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a distinction that I didn't see. I'd still say the preference is to cite the book directly, but based on this I think the broad statement in the article is sufficiently backed by the review you could simply cite the book. I'd mine the news report for the academics' names and see if they've published reviews in the appropriate journals.

simple rules)

18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War / Status of Forces Agreement

Resolved

 – Both parties are apparently new editors; article semi-protected and versions merged. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please have a look at Iraq War? User:99.137.127.111 (contributions, talk) and I are both up against 3RR on it: my preferred version; 99.137.127.111's preferred version;

• diff; and
• Talk:Iraq War#SOFA ratified by Parliament discussion. (Please see both.)

99.137.127.111 is intent on: (A) placing reports of Bush being burned in effigy in the introduction of the article, which I believe is unwarranted by the current length of the article (206 KB!, but there is no noticeboard for long articles) and (B) using newspaper reports attributed to anonymous sources claiming that they request anonymity for no other reason than that they are not trusted to speak with the media in order to stir up dissent about the recently-ratified

Status of Forces Agreement

based on supposed rationales which are completely ungrounded in facts.

At what point does a source's reliability depend on the reliability of its underlying sources? I would argue that any source always depends directly on the reliability of its underlying sources, barring some underlying accidental situation, and that we should always consider the underlying reliability when making judgements about what to include in any articles, let alone space-limited articles.

Does anyone disagree? If you agree, please revert to my preferred version or some reasonable merge thereof. Thank you. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The newspapers seem reliable to me, and one of the newspaper articles says that its sources are anonymous because the text of the SOFA was classified by the USG as Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU). Other sources are also provided which aren't anonymous in the articles. Rather than immediate reversion I might encourage discussion on the article's talk page.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

99.137.127.111's misrepresentations of his news stories' subjects' reasons for requesting anonymity are outright lies. The text of the SOFA is public, and the reasons stated by the so-called officials request for anonymity are, "because he was not authorized to speak to the media," and, "because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters." Their reasons for refusing to speak on the record may have been because they didn't have a translation, but that was not their reason for requesting anonymity. Translations have been available since shortly after the debate in Parliament began. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacking my integrity and trying to tell me you are from the same place as me on my user page isn't going to advance a discussion or intimidate me. Newspapers often use anonymous sources, and a variety of them did in covering this story. The one McClatchy article explains:

All three declined to speak on the record because the administration, which had planned to release the official English language text last week, has instead designated it "sensitive but unclassified."

The article also cited specialists who weren't barred by the government from speaking to media. Anyone who actually reads the articles will be able to tell this. Finally, the sources are attributed as anonymous in the article.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see just how much you know what you are talking about here. What is the difference between off the record and anonymous? Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job or your job to be knowledgable, and maybe that's for good reason. Wikipedia lets the sources speak for themselves. I'm going to try to let some others have input.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Thank you. However, my job in fact does require I be knowledgeable, and I'm sure there is something to that effect in one of these policies and guidelines which I would rather go eat turkey than read. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)