Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29

We can use non-English sources, but we should have a good reason to do so, such as lack of availability of English sources. A lot of the non-English sources aren't going to be any more reliable than the English sources citing to them, which is why they're only being cited by the unreliable English sources. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, etc.; the Italian interview sounds

WP:PRIMARY to me, at a minimum. THF (talk

) 14:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much obstacle to using non-English sources (I've used some in FAs, for instance). It seems that the Corriere interview is now cited by the article. I understand Italian, but I haven't read it, so I can't be sure of what Cossiga says and if he was properly cited by the AFP. If he really makes the point, it should be quoted from him - what readers will find is exactly what it is: the singular POV of a probably senile figurehead. In any circumstance, the AFP quote, and anything on that level in the article, should go, and if the info they support isn't backed by reviews in the mainstream media, then the info they support should follow them out the door. Dahn (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this debate has got this far - even a cursory examination (and I'd never heard of it before) of it's "stories" shows it to be trash, the usual mixture of zomg the jews are taking over the world via banking crap. I wouldn't consider it a Reliable source in form. It should be used for claims about itself and that's about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Far-right doesn't necessarily mean an extremist organization. And the sources quoted above could be considered its political foes. I'd rather we quote the BBC or Washington Post for a viewpoint on whether the AFP is extremist or not. As far as the other issue, I feel it is appropriate for an article about conspiracies to reference, with attribution, some conspiracy-oriented media. And there is, I repeat, there is no policy to avoid non-English sources. If you have two sources that are of equivalent stature then you'd pick the English one. But here I'd rather have the Italian source, especially if the Italian source is in a mainstream newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "far right" is the very definition of extremism - "extremist within the right-wing context". And, as I have made it clear above, other RSes simply don't give a damn about the organization in question either way. Using the Washington post as a source would require the Washington Post submerging to that level of internet memes in order to recover this exact piece of anti-"ZOG" propaganda and label it. Not a reasonable expectation, and a rather sophistical argument. Within the source's context, the only ones that mind it are neo-nazi bodies which spam with it and a handful of RSes, all of which evidence its bias with some rather explicit terms. Dahn (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think we have found another conflict between WP:RS and WP:V... the POLICY on this is WP:V... and specifically

WP:QS

which states:

• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscientific. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source. (bolding mine)

This policy statement makes it clear that one can use extremist sources in articles that are not specifically about the source (or group that publishes the source), we can also use them in other articles that discuss the source (or group).

However, WP:RS is more limiting... stating:

• "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities" (again, bolding mine).

So which do we follow? To me that is clear... Policy rules. RS is a guideline that is meant to further explain the WP:V policy. When the two conflict, it is RS that must be amended to reflect WP:V. I will raise this conflict at the relevant policy/guideline talk pages and amend the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? what you've highlighted states that it shouldn't be used in this case. I'm a bit confused what your point was. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cameron Scott. The former does look a bit different, but I can't really imagine how it would contradict the second - it doesn't validate quoting the source discussing itself in an article that is not strictly about the source (if this is what Blueboar meant), and, if anything, looks a bit more ambiguous while making the same basic point. Dahn (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was in reply to

WP:QS. Whether AFP passes or fails the test is a different issue. Blueboar (talk

) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the issue, and our article quotes both the Italian newspaper and the American Free Press. So, we only need the Italian article. If we quote the AFP at all, we could use it to say something like "and [story] was picked up in the U.S. by the right-wing American Free Press". One could argue that it's a story in itself why an opinion from a former head of state in a major Italian newspaper would be picked up only (as far as we've gotten in this discussion) by partisan sources, but quoting it in this way puts it in perspective. Quoting it in this way also takes us into the realm of writing about the AFP and thus within the boundaries of

WP:V regardless of the outcome of the "extremist" debate. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The original quote was in kind of a strange context, and he may have been mocking the conspiracist viewpoint. Irony doesn't translate well, and if he was speaking in jest, well, that means something very different to our article. I'd feel a lot better about this if someone from one of the Italy wikiprojects would check out the original article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to use this source in Design 1047 battlecruiser, but I really have no idea if it is a reliable source or not. Thanks for any help! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sketchy. The first thing to do with web sites is check their about page. Apparently they're a gaming company, so they're probably only reliable when talking about their games. Other things to check are if the author is an expert, and whether other reliable sources use them as a source (which I haven't checked). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has 18 hits on Google Books, most related to gaming books, but a few crediting him for help, including one from 2003 saying that he was "a doctoral candidate in history", and the page I am asking about says that he has a PhD... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One should also bear in mind that he is the President of Avalanche Press, but he does seem to have some knowledge in the area:[20] "The German Colonial Soldier"; "Great White Fleet";

However I do believe that in this case this one area/page is a reliable source. TARTARUS ^talk 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor Eubulides has entered some information on this topic that is inaccurate and medically biased , and insists that this medical bias is the only accurate and verifiable POV of relevance, and insists on negatively-biased medical sources as being the only accurate ones to include in the article. This editor has persisted in reverting entries I have brought to this topic to add the non-medical POV for greater accuracy and reliability on this topic. My sources are shouted down as being unreliable. It seems to me that this editor is attempting to exclude the balanced POV that including these references would bring. comments, please.Jvanr (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the previous comment is talking about the article Auditory integration training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Jvanr happens to be forum shopping, so caution should be used here. --

talk

) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But this would be the correct forum, wouldn't it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Is no flying no tights.com [21] considered a reliable source?

Does it have an identified author? Someone known as some kind of expert? If not, then there's probably not a lot it should be cited for. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is basically a web site that reviews graphic novels/comics. I was wondering if it could be cited for that.

talk

) 22:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is reliable. Blogs are not considered reliable (The exception to this are those rare bloggs where the author is a noted expert in his field of study... and in those situations, the blog is not reliable for anything except the a statement as to the opinion of the expert). The typical Blogger's opinion is not reliable or notable. To relate this to noflyingnotights.com, for it to be at all reliable you would need to estblish that the author is a notable expert of graphic novels... For example, if he/she has published books on the subject, or was hired as a reviewer by a major comics industry magazine... or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a lot more than a fansite. It appears to be a library guide to graphic novels. Click over the the staff bios page, most are librarians and many have impressive academic credentials. Click over to the "press and praise" page, many articles have been written about it, and many libraries link to this cite as an informational resource. Sounds like a fine source for Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this site reputable enough to be used as a source for the Rigor Mortis article?

"How Muscles Work"

--72.207.17.89 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they are reliable. I think they're a part of the Discovery channel or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it passes the bar of reliability for broad sweep statements... but it is probably not the most reliable source for specifics. Having seen the broadcasted TV show, I know that it often over simplifys things... I would expect the same from the website. So, if the source is contradicted by more reliable sources, I would go with the those instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is the right place, but there is nowhere else to discuss single sourcing. Late last year I had a fairly critical review of

I have fairly serious concerns about the sourcing, in part because the article relies on two, one book by a self proclaimed former intelligence operative and a newspaper article about a related criminal trial that restates a number of the points in the book.

• Tony Geraghty: The Irish War Johns Hopkins University Press 1988
• Article by
  Duncan Campbell on the attempt to prosecute Geraghty & his source here and here
  .

ALR (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you doubt information that's already been published in a secondary source, the answer would be to quote it with attribution. By the way, you basically removed everything except for the intro paragraph (opposing editors have since reverted). Was all of it unsourceable speculation? If you think the entire page is nonsense you might want to take it to AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I think what I left in place was a bit of a statement of the bleeding obvious I didn't think it was worth AfDing, there are Int systems in the province, although finding anything reliable about them will be a challenge. I'm also realistic, trying to AfD anything related to an intelligence subject ends up mobbed by keep votes because it must be troo. In any case... None of it was adequately sourced, and some of it was speculation. Most sections took what little there was available and started building on that, so predominantly OR.

I've read both the sources used by Campbell, and I don't trust either of them very much. I would go so far as to say, when I don't trust a source and the information is not corroborated, then I don't use it. Unfortunately the desire seems to be using the secondary source as corroboration of the primary sources, which is why I'm asking the question. Is single sourcing an entire article acceptable? I suppose a related point, although perhaps not for here, is basing an entire article on a single source that is not inherently reliable enough to establish notability?

ALR (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking this beyond the article in question (and even beyond intel related articles)... I agree that basing an article on only one source is poor scholarship. But I can see how this could happen... Someone reads a book on a topic that interests them, they come to Wikipedia to find out more... and discover that there is not article on that topic. So they write one based on the book they just read. This is fine if all you are attempting is to get a stub (or, at best, a start level) article in place. The hope is that others who are interested in the topic will add more information and more sources.

But that raises a second question ... are there other sources? Can the article grow beyond a stub cited to one single source. If not, then we do have to ask whether the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With a bit more digging around, the original source is an excerpt from a strategy document and the books speculate based on some unidentified verbal accounts. I don't believe that there is anything particularly credible available, but I'm also realistic about posntial success at AfD...

ALR (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The concerned editors of The Man Who Would Be Queen have a question,Hfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We have the unusual case of a academic/scientific journal publishing peer commentaries, which were called for from the concerned segment of the general public. The paper being commented on addressed a controversy, in which allegations of professional and sexual misconduct were leveled at J. Michael Bailey. The editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior,Kenneth Zucker wrote of these commentaries "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author." and stated that he published all the commentaries recieved. We haver refered the issue of weather or not these should be treated as being reliable sources on par with peer reviewed articles twice already. [22],[23]

User:Soulscanner Summed up the conversation and majority opinion thusly "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter."[24]

Specifically We have the comment by Charles Moser Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco. Some of us want to use the following quotes from Moser in a section of our article entitled "academic freedom". Found in this commentary [25]

1. "Did she uncover a pattern of lies and false allegations? No, the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct,"
2. "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial. Can we all get back to science now?"

Which of those can we use?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The above is the question and it is meant to be neutral. This is what I personally think based on the facts, and WP policy. As I said a long time ago. "They, unlike Dr. Wyndzen, are known to us. People can look them up and judge for themselves what weight to give each of their comments. Just like they can for self published sources authored by autorities on the subject of the publication. Therefore I argue that those commentaries should be included. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)"[26]."

Those commentaries from people who are recognized academic experts should be included. But we have to be careful and discriminating in what we use. The above is a good test case for this principle. Mosers first statement that the allegations of professional and sexual misconduct against Bailey were basically true is in my opinion not includeable. He is not and no one person alone can be an expert on those. That is Mosers opinion and nothing more. However what Moser writes in his second statement is 100% includeable he is as much an expert on academic freedom as any academic. Moser is as much an expert on academic freedom as practically any expert can be. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether the experts are writing about something directly within their field of study, or are stating their opinions on a tangential issue. In this case, I think Hfamer has it right... the first quote is not about something within the field of study (but about the conduct of a collegue), while the second is. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I had asked Hfarmer not to bias the question by asserting that these invited peer commentaries are "letters to the editor" or that as one guy opined "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum." In fact, the editor did not publish all submissions, but most of them, the ones that addressed the topic to some extent at least. They are "commentaries" on a "controversial paper" co-published in a special issue. The controversy can not be fairly reported by relying on one side of the arguments as if it's "peer reviewed" and other other as "letters to an open public forum." And the controversy is really about opinions, not about facts or expertise; that's what makes Dreger's "controversial paper" so controversial; the facts in it may be peer-reviewed, but basically it's an opinion piece in which she takes the side of her colleague at Northwestern. Anyone who needs to see these to help form an opinion about the structure of this special issue can email me for a copy. Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick we have already had two RfC's about that. The notion of using those as if they were equal to the peer reviewed article was rejected twice.

What we both got was the commentaries included in some parts. The appropriate parts. Take the victory you have.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to have them treated as peer-reviewed; they're published opinions, like Dreger's. Victory would be when you stop misinterpreting those previous discussions, stop telling me you're on my side, and stop telling me I lost or won. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points for now, because we've gone {{

1. About the commentaries: The editor's own introduction to the issue, at
   Arch Sex Behav
   directly and confirmed that they did not verify credentials or even insist that authors use their real names.
2. About Moser:
   accredited college or university
   . His PhD is from the same non-accredited "Institute" that he works (part-time) for. Moser has never published anything about academia. He has published several papers on sexuality. Therefore, Wikipedia would accept him as an expert on sexuality, but not on academic freedom.

This doesn't seem very complicated to me, but we have literally covered the same ground four or five times now, with apparent amnesia between the conversations. In the previous RSN conversations, the conclusion was generally to treat these commentaries as

Ok. This is like the fourth time I've seen this on RS/N. I'm not going to push people to forum shop (I still don't understand what was wrong with the outcome the last two times), but I don't want to see it back on this board. We are going in circles. The right answer is to move up the dispute resolution chain. If you can't solve this problem, request the assistance of a mediator (I'm already assuming that you are past the "third opinion" stage). If that fails to be resolved that way (and I notice, though have not investigated, that an RfC has failed), then the next step is arbitration (though they will probably reject it as a content dispute). It is not okay to keep bringing this back here. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbComm rejected the case. Formal mediation has failed twice in the last month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Parity of sources

I think that

Can anyone confirm that the German website splashcomics is a reliable source for reviews ?
Some clues [27] [28]

Sorry for bothering again and this time with some exotic request. --KrebMarkt 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help knowing what articles you wish to use it in.--

Otterathome (talk

) 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,

Use of reviews to assert notability of manga outside the English speaking area & use of reviews to develop reception section of related reviewed manga.

Thanks again. --KrebMarkt 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well to read about this source you need to know German, you may want to post a link to this at

Otterathome (talk

) 15:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It really doesn't appear to be one, as it hosts mostly blogs, unreferenced information, and tries to sell a lot of products. It is also very biased to a specific point of view. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd regard it only as reliable as
  WP:CITE#Convenience links (if reproducing material previously published elsewhere), or if the author of the material in question were themselves considered reliable as an expert on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P
  ) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Careful. They have two distinct publication venues, the "Kiosk", with only minimal editorial control, and the "Library", which has historical papers and also publishes modern essays with strict editorial control and peer-review. I would accept library documents as reliable for most unexceptional claims, i.e. put them on a level with e.g. normal newspaper articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Robert M. Price biography links to this short bio. This seems to be information that could be found elsewhere (haven't yet), but is linking to a page that has quite a few ads. As an EL, it would probably fall under reason #5 not to have it. However, it is used as a reference which is why I am trying to figure out the status of this site. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL#5 refers to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising". I don't see that applying here at all - there is very little and very targeted advertising on that page. The amount is comparable to e.g. [29] and [30], and much less than on [31]. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on the page gives me 50% of it devoted to banner ads. The New York Times has two minor ads at the very top and a tiny ad at the bottom. The FoxNews website only has two ads and on the side, not in a prominent position. PCWorld is the only one with comparable size and probably shouldn't be linked unless its of utmost importance. I also think its a tad misleading to try and compare this website with some famous and well known websites that whose merit would override any banner ad concerns. Remember, number 5 is to keep down promotional material to small sites that seek to use our servers to raise revenue. Seeing as how they have a campaign trying to get 40,000 dollars, that shows they are a small site and also trying to get revenue. Remember, this is also a subpage. The main page is 50% advertisement, which is more than even the PCWorld page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the Wikipedia fundraisers? Nevertheless, I agree with Rima here; there's no need to use this borderline source when there are better sources out there. That whole Robert M. Price page is a mess and needs to be stubbed. THF (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about Wiki's obnoxious fundraising. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get 50% from? The home page [32] has 2 tiny banner 'ads' at the bottom, the 'needs your support' ad, and an ad for its bookstore. 10% perhaps.

talk

) 16:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a revival of the unanswered Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#cal.syoboi.jp.
The issue is whatever the Japanese website cal.syoboi.jp is RS for the original broadcast date of anime episode and episodes titles.
Additional clues : Errors on the TV program schedule are notified here and not directly corrected by users. Every broadcast date has a backlog indicating who, why & when modification occurred.
As this source appeared in quite a number of FL, an answer would be great.--KrebMarkt 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As Japanese language is required, you might get some feedback posting it at

Otterathome (talk

) 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any previous desicion on this site? --neon white talk 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a search engine at the top of the page that reveals Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#www.musicianguide.com_-_a_RS.3F, which suggested without "deciding" that it's better to find other sources if possible. I would tend to agree. THF (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd site, it appears to me to be a compendium of bios that seem professonally written though there is no indication where they are sourced from. --neon white talk 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The site famoushookups.com [33] is used repeatedly as a source in BLPs. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia RS requirements about fact-checking (among other things, it has X-Men comic book artist John Byrne married to actress Tilda Swinton (or else has Swinton's husband married to Byrne's (ex?) wife. So I believe these citations should be removed as it is a gossip site. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.

talk

) 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The John Byrne thing is at least partially true, but their link should be to

John Byrne (Scottish artist). While that site is not reliable, I would be careful removing it wholesale, because some of it is backed by reliable sources, which should be substituted in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The four times I've substituted out famoushookups, three of the times it checked out in reliable sources. 75% is nowhere near good enough to go into a BLP, but it's good enough that before deleting it, you should do a cursory Google News search. THF (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the article on RAF Menwith Hill a user is trying to suggest that a passing reference in a news article about another subject is enough to state that the location doesn't appear on many maps, a conspiracy theorist position. In practice the source, from the [^[1]. Independent] states that it doesn't appear in the AA Road Atlas. An alternative source says that it appeared as a collection of aerial symbols until recently, a clear indicator that it was identified as a wireless station, in Ordnance Survey parlance.

I'm pretty sure the user is a sock puppet, due to phrasing and the use of the Cite template with no edit history. Unfortunately the indicators have been removed from Wikipedia in a recent deletion

Grateful for some thoughts on the most appropriate way to deal with this.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey... you know, the sock master is right... It isn't shown on "many maps"... For example, I don't see it on my USGS map of Eastern Connecticut, or in any of the maps that are in my historical atlas of the US Civil War! It's a conspiracy!

Seriously, saying it does not appear on "many maps" is more than a bit weasly. Even if we assume this to mean modern maps of Yorkshire, we should not be surprised that some have it and others don't. A lot will depend what the map is trying to depict... a map that is trying to show where the best pubs and hotels are, or one showing how to get to the local antique dealers, may not have a need to mention that there is an RAF facility down the road. Even if the AA Road Atlas doesn't show it (and I would want to double check that against the actual AA Road Atlas itself), that really does not tell you much of anything. Unless we know why the AA does not show it (and for that we would need a solidly reliable source) it simply is not worth mentioning. I would delete the line.

Oh... and just to quiet the conspiracy nuts, I found it quite easily using Google Maps (seach "Menwith Hill" and zoom in a bit... and there it is, clearly labled). Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is slightly more use. It isn't a conspiracy theorist position, the MOD do keep locations of sensitive bases off maps. Also The Guardian and the BBC, although the BBC article indicates the stance has softened slightly. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point... the fact that some maps don't show RAF bases might be worth mentioning in an article about how the MOD has handled sensitive information through the years, but I don't see this as being important to the article on RAF Menwith Hill. Furthermore, mentioning that "many" maps don't show it is misleading, since it would be just as accurate to say that "many" other maps do show it. The fact is, it simply depends on which map you look at. Now, if it didn't appear on any maps... that might be a fact be worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in whether the text belongs in the article, I am just providing sources that do source the text under dispute, or an amended version of it. O Fenian (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What the sources demonstrate is that the fact that Menwith wasn't explicitly identified on older OS maps is largely meaningless. IT says that all MOD sites were unmarked, not just sensitive. It used to be identified as a wireless station, as all other military communications sites were, partly for navigational reasons as antennae are quite distinctive and useful as nav markers.

ALR (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a disagreement regarding the typing/subtyping of transsexality at

user:Jokestress has asserted that the blog Suck my Manhole consitutes an RS,[34][35] and is comparable to blogs appearing in the NYTimes.

I believe it does not. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

(To forstall the potential question: I am quoting the above verbatim; it is not my intent to slant anyone's input by using vulgar or attention-seeking language.)

— James Cantor (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a reliable source for some information. I wouldn't use it for categorizing types of sexuality, though. Probably shouldn't use it as an example to assert that certain types of sexuality exist, either. They don't seem to be writing it from the point of a sexuality expert, but more from a porn industry goings on standpoint. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This really strikes me as the sort of question that answers itself when we're talking about a BLP. THF (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think I agree. However, because the other editor does not see it the way I do (and because this is part of a long series of disputed pages) it seemed logical to me to seek input from editors who could not be considered biased (as the other editor considers me to be). If you'd like to have a look at the diffs in my original post here (and in the discussion around it), neutral input there would also be very helpful. Thanks.

— James Cantor (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, I think it could be used as a source for saying that such & such a person says they are [whatever], or that X Y & Z do.... all preferably quoted. The interviews look responsibly done. If individual people say they are of a certain type of sexuality, it exists, at least in their minds. DGG (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's just that one person saying there some type of sexuality is not the best source for asserting that it exists. It's an RS for them saying they identify as an X. I think it would go against UNDUE (or some other acronym), I guess, to then extrapolate that X is a category deserving mention. It's tricky, but I guess the upshot is that it's an RS, but where and how to include the info is an editorial decision that may have to be informed by other guidelines. I'm sympathetic though, because it seems like an important subject that is probably hard to find sources for. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could Billboard magazine be considered secondary source? --Efe (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes... whether it is a reliable secondary source depends on what you are citing it for. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where the concern has been raised: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)/archive1. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check it please? --Efe (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason to think that it's not a reliable source? THF (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought "number one single", meant number one on the Billboard charts.... Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the articles is sourced only from Billboard and not any other sources, I told the nominator at the FLC that the article needs a variety of publishing sources not just one primary or secondary source. So I requested for at least one other source (from another publisher to be added).--TRUCO 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not actually in any way a problem in this particular instance. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not the variety of the sources used as it is not a requirement in FLCs. Its if Billboard is "reliable" enough and could be considered a "third party" source. --Efe (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is reliable, not a third party because its an official publishing site for the Billboard company.--TRUCO 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Djuro Schwartz reliable source? His book (?):"in the Jasenovac camps of death" is used in multiple wikipedia articles but for google Djuro Schwartz do not exist or maybe is better to say the he exist only in wikipedia mirrors [36]. Situation is very similar in google books where there is no books of Djuro Schwartz [37], but his testimony is used in book of Milan Bulajić which is known for writing controversial testimony [38] in his books.

Because it is possible that I am POV in this question, I am interested to hear your comments if Djuro Schwartz is reliable source.--Rjecina (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Djuro Schwartz is actually Duro Schwarz, a man who's testimony appears on Yad Vashem's website. It's reliable, though not spelled correctly. --AniMate^talk 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yad Vashem Studies by Yad ṿa-shem, rashut ha-zikaron la-Shoʾah ṿela-gevurah Published by Yad Vashem Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, 1998 (page 65) Duro Schwartz was a prisoner in Jasenovac from August 1941 until April 1942. He was released because he was married to a non-Jewish woman.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A trade association puts out a report written by a university professor criticizing an organization opposed to the trade association's goals. My own independent research shows that the report has factual errors (and perhaps outright misrepresentations), and those factual errors are making it into Wikipedia articles. I recognize that my own

Well, the original research policy only applies to article content, so there is no problem with using a talk page to debate the source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now less hypothetical: The Burke Group

• The Burke Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's unquestionably the case that the source (which is funded by a union group opposed to TBG) is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court, and falsely implies that the award was the result of the actions of the subject of the article. On the talk page, two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong and left out the fact that the award was for unrelated issues, but insist that the source is still reliable and its misleading remarks about the subject of the article should remain in the article. At a minimum,

There is no such thing as the "Court of Appeals." Logan must mean either the "California Court of Appeals" or the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," probably the latter as most labor law in the United States is federal. [39]

Note that "Court of Appeals" appears in the names of both courts. THF may believe this is falsification by the source, but any reasonable person (without a source-impeaching agenda) will conclude that the source simply used the shorthand term, perhaps assuming that the reader either will know which court he was referring to, or that to those who do not know, it will not matter.

This is also a misrepresentation:

two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong...

I am one of the two editors described. What i actually acknowledge is that the amount of the award has been increased by subsequent court action, from $2.5 million, to $5.19 million, including "10 percent interest on the original award of $2.5 million."

Specifically, i had responded on the talk page,

"I acknowledged no such thing. The cite was outdated because there has been subsequent court action, and the amount of the award needs to be increased. Your extrapolation of my acknowledgment serves your own interest in helping to sanitize the Burke Group article, and it is likewise unfriendly."[40]

Five hours after i clarified in no uncertain terms that i did not acknowledge "that Logan was being dishonest" -- in THF's characterization of my words -- THF reports here that i "acknowledge" error in the amount. It wasn't error in the amount, the amount changed (again, due to later court action after the initial amount was correctly reported) and i had merely observed that the article needed to reflect that.

Now this response of mine on this page is not entirely Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and i apologize for that. But we're referring to an article that has been under constant attack for the better part of a year, and my AGF has worn thin. I'm trying to explain the issue as accurately as i am able, and i no longer have a lot of energy to AGF.

When it comes to reliability of sources, the practice of hanging "unreliable source?" tags throughout an article, as here: The Burke Group, of alleging falsification when the only real offense is abbreviation, and of misrepresenting someone's opposition as support for one's own editing goals, ought to be the real issues in question here. The overuse of "unreliable source?" tags in particular creates an impression of uncertainty in the reader. Thus, by raising a multiplicity of challenges to an article, a critic of the article can create an image of unreliability, whether unreliability is a factor or not.

Bottom line: several of us editors consider John Logan, the London School of Economics professor, to be a reliable source, an expert on the subject matter of union avoidance, and his research is worth noting in an article about a union avoidance company. I'm confident enough in that, i'd be happy to hear what others have to say. Richard Myers (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been commenting there as well. There is simply nothing linking the award to Burke- Logan doesn't say that, and the article doesn't say that. I don't know where that idea is coming from. As much complaining has occurred over the "Court of Appeals" quote, I fail to see how that would invalidate the source- besides, I reworked that section so that the ruling was covered over a different source. There shouldn't be an issue here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some help from uninvolved editors? I'm getting tag-teamed here, and, as you can see, their style is to turn everything into a

AGF chief; the only long thing I've posted on the talk was a direct quote. I don't see it as tag teaming when you're discussing us on another board, especially when your post is as one-sided as this one was. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone who's familiar with Swedish media comment on whether or not an article published by Svenska Dagbladet could be regarded as a highly reliable third party source. The article states that the Swedish band Roxette has sold 70 million records (albums and singles combined). The figures are not directly within the article but separated in a column to the right which includes facts about the vocalist of the act. I need to make sure of Svenska Dagbladet's reliability in order to proceed with adding Roxette to the list of List of best-selling music artists wherein I am trying my best to support artists' stay with highly reliable sources. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the wiki page, it sounds like a totally reliable source. It's a newspaper that's been around for more than a hundred years, and is third in circulation for its country. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Svenska Dagbladet is as reliable as any other mainstream newspaper in the Western Hemisphere.PelleSmith (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, it's possible that Svenska Dagbladet was just repeating sales figures from a press release supplied by the band's record company or publicist, which may or may not have any clear connection to reality. I note that discussion at Talk:List of best-selling music artists has questioned whether Roxette could have achieved 70 million in sales, given that their sales certifications in major territories don't approach that number. The question is whether their sales in other territories (plus sales of recordings that did not achieve certifications, plus sales beyond the last certification) could get them up to 70 million. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're after verifiability, not truth. We can't second guess RSs without proof, because then our whole system falls apart. I looked at that list, and a lot of it seemed unreasonable. Bing Crosby at over 500,000,000 (that's a lot of 0s, like national debt sized)? Ace of Base in the 10s of millions? I guess it happened, but it sounds crazy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn Kolbert's criticism of Rick Warren was mentioned in CNN. Are that [41] and her later statement [42] reliable sources, when what she has said is attributed to her, ie: 'Kathryn Kolbert said...' ? This is being discussed here: [43] Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They're reliable, but it looks like you've got editorial decisions to discuss. Not all reliable sources are necessarily included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you think her opinion should not be included? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into it. It looks a bit too involved for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a few instances recently of this site being used as a source in biogs. My feeling is that we should not regard them as reliable, even if they purport to be the account of the actual person, because as far as I can tell, there is no way of verifying this. Also, our article says that the site has been compromised already this year. Thoughts welcome, as we do not seem to have addressed this as yet. --Rodhullandemu 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter.com is just a hosting site for microblogs. Our existing

self-published sources policy pretty much covers it. I can't imagine a good reason for a Wikipedia article to cite to a "tweet" except as a primary source if someone gets in trouble for a tweet they made. THF (talk

) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't use it except as a primary source in another story. For example, there was something on CNN about how the Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 crash was reported on Twitter, so it may be appropriate to cite the blog in that situation. ( The mainstream media has gotten quite an obsession over Twitter, so it's not hard to find published articles that link "tweets" to notable incidents. ) But for a biography you almost never use a blog as a source, except if it's the blog of the person the article is about. And you've doublechecked to make sure it's really their blog. A gray area would be a biography where the blog is written by a third party but published media strongly references the blog; in that case you would ask for consensus here or on the BLP noticeboard. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe break it down by institution? If you added sources to that list, the page would get much too large. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There should be no problem documenting this properly and objectively, using the biographies on the Nobel prize site. But that amount of work, although I think a matter of counting , not synthesis, is a substantial project. The sources are the ones used--they are reliable within their limits, and the limitations are specified. I think it meets RS. The quality of formatting is another matter. the use of color to indicate prize name is a poor idea; and I do not think it needs to be columns--i.e.

Cambridge university

Undergraduate degrees

List of people......

Graduate degrees

Visitors

I think this may be what Peregrine Fisher has in mind? further discussion would seem to go on the talk p. there. DGG (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using the Nobel Prize biographies site should be indisputably reliable - if the institution is not mentioned in the Nobel biography, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion on a list. However, would one then take something like the

WP:N problems. Should this be AfD'd? Madcoverboy (talk

) 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

CorpWatch homepage

Would it be considered a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.252.81 (talk • contribs)

Only for the POV of CorpWatch, so

WP:UNDUE comes into play. I'd recommend against it except to the extent its reports have received independent press coverage. THF (talk

) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'd recommend against it except to the extent its reports have received independent press coverage. I see on the

WP:LINKFARM messes, and did a little cleaning. THF (talk

) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you want to use it for. It appears to have an editorial board, and according to our article on them, it has broken some important stories. On the other hand, it has an obvious anti-corporate point of view and our article also has some criticism to that effect. Generally, political watchdog groups may be used, but neutral sources like newspapers are preferred. What article did you want to use it in? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been asked/covered before, but http://plastics.inwiki.org is not a reliable source because it is self published, correct? Wizard191 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Otherwise, one could add info there and cite it here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot! Wizard191 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Other wikis are self-published and not generally used as sources, but if the wiki has good information it may be appropriate to include it in the

external links section. However, if text from that wiki was copied into the article, you have to make sure we don't plagiarize the other wiki, and that's more important than RS in most situations. Either leave the citation link but add an "unreliable source?" note until other sources are found and the information rewritten in your own words, or remove the text altogether. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We generally do not link to wikis either, per

WP:EL. (Or at least we aren't supposed to, there's a lot of wikilinkcruft on the site that should be removed.) And in the situation you describe, we should remove the text altogether, as there is no reliable source for it and there's no reason to leave junk there whether it's reworded or not.DreamGuy (talk

) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

EL is okay with wikis that have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", and often an appropriate choice is to link to a more specialized wiki. This happens a lot in pop-culture articles. Anyway, the cited article appears to be a fork of an earlier version of our article. So plagiarism seems less likely and the text can stay. The link should be avoided so we don't have an "echo chamber" issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this page, mangalorean.com, be considered reliable. It seems to be news-based but I'm not sure if it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Copana2002 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which article on the site is in question? Appears to be a newspaper but has some comments/blog section. There's also a "voices" section which I'm not sure whether it's staff columnists or if its a citizen journalism area. And if its a wire story you're interested in then the wire service would be the source for RS purposes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is from the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS), so I'm guessing it would be considered reliable although not necessarily the entire site. I'll go ahead and include it and if I'm wrong hopefully someone will let me know. Copana2002 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source? Seems

Not SPS in the sense a personal blog is. Newsletter from an anti-war group that's been around for >20 years, though couldn't find any info on their editorial policies. I could go either way on this. Maybe good source for an article on the anti-war movement in Canada. Which article is it being used in, and how are they using it? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is at Business Plot; they're using it for a conspiracy theory relating to the FDR Administration. THF (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source from a noted anti-war group. It is relating to a congressional investigation, which found that there was evidence of a business plot. What sections of

WP:ELNO

? 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether an anti-war group from Canada is the best source for historical events that happened in the U.S. in the 1930s. But this is really a "convenience link" issue; the cites to COAT are really for excerpts of published material or reprints of government reports. While I think they are reliable enough to reprint sources, we don't really need the convenience links. That article though has a lot more problems than RS issues; it's all over the place. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this site, which to date has been the only place on or offline that I have been able to find good quality information on armor specifications for naval vessels. Before writing and article with this as a primary source though I would like an opinion on whether or not this meets WP:RS standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. On the face of it it looks like a fansite (so to speak), but there are scans of original material. However, it doesn't support the whole text, and the cited work isn't shown. Have you tried emailing the creator to find out what it is, or ask him to put cites on his own page to whatever Navy manual it's from? That might shore it up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It's heavily cited in

Hm. I strongly suspect not. At least it's only in the one article. THF (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely say that it is not a reliable source... it is a self-published news webpage created by a self-proclaimed "alternative investigative reporter" (he apparently also has a self-broadcast web "radio" show). He seems tied to the Truther movement. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's linked from a couple more articles, too.

Far right and Croatian Liberation Movement. It's not necessary for those, either. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbed. Good catch. THF (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have run across this as a reference in several biographies, and would like to know if it qualifies as RS ? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just seems to be a parked page with a search portal? do you have some examples? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some examples of articles cited: (for Fascism [44] , Ed Masterson [45] etc. all seem to use "freepedia" which is not a RS as far as I can tell. So is this site usable as RS? It is used as a ref or external ref in well over a thousand articles it appears. Collect (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's not a reliable source. Based upon the excessive amount of advertising found on such information-light pages it's probably a coordinated COI/linkfarming/spam attack on Wikipedia as well. DreamGuy (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the input. Collect (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – wrong forum Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone please take a look at the verifiability of the name of a city and the list of People from this city. From its foundation in 1237 as Elbing in Prussia until 1945

A user (group?) 77. and 213. range re-adds incorrect, that People are from Prussian city of Elbląg, latest [User:213.238.123.205] about a Prussian city of Elbląg. I explained on the list, that there was never a Prussian city of Elbląg, only a Prussian city of Elbing, which since 1945 is named Elbląg and since 1999 is assigned to Warmia-Masuria.

As verifiability of “his/their proof” this 213.238.123.205 uses a Polish search engine, which shows from 1000-1800 Elblag Results 4 books Elblag in Polish language, which actually use Elblag (and 2 German with Elbing of which 1 is referenced in Polish).

I changed the name to Elbing on the same Polish Search Engine he posted. It gives for the same time span for Elbing = = Results 732 books Elbing

After pointing out to him that there are a handful (4) books in Polish with Elblag and over 700 books (732) with Elbing he disregards the very clear proof against his false claim, and he changed it again and writes personal attacks. This (group) 213.238.123.205 wants by false statements and intimidation tactics enforce an incorrect version on Wikipedia, thereby on the general public.

Someone else please check into the personal attacks Also, if it is appropriate that a person can dictate by intimidation that 4 Polish language books about Elbląg take precedence as verifiability over 732 books about Elbing, the official name of the city from 1237-1945.

Thank you.(71.137.194.48 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

This isn't really a

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I'll warn the user about his uncivil comments. THF (talk

) 19:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

THF, thank you very much A.O.71.137.194.48 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)}

The editor 71.137.194.48 first claimed that the name Elbląg was invented in 1945. I showed him that there are books using it from 18th century.

There are also 448 books using this name edited before 1900 see here.

So his main argument about the invention of the name in 1945 is simply untrue. Therefore his aims to change the category description, made since March 2008 (than known as 70.133.64.78), have no actual basis. They were reverted since March 2008 by various editors who propably share my point of view. Cheers 77.253.67.106 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, but that's what

WP:LASTWORD on this board isn't going to help either of you. THF (talk

) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, it is not a step in

dispute resolution. I don't see anywhere in this section a question about the reliability of any source. Dlabtot (talk

)

Two editors, hgilbert and EPadmirateur, reverted my edits to Rudolf Steiner. In particular, they claim that an ARBCOM decision disallows my placing an external link to an article titled "Rudolf Steiner and the Jews", and that this was not a Reliable Source. I have read the Arbcom decision but found nothing in there to support their claim of exclusion.

They then undid my edit trying to make the "Judaism" section more balanced.

Finally they removed the NPOV tags I placed before discussion on the Talk page had run its course, which I believe violated the usage instructions for the NPOV template.

Upon looking up the Arbcom decision, I discovered that hgilbert is a Waldorf School teacher, and so I have placed a COI tag at the top of the article.

More eyes on this would be welcome.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't give us much to go on here, not even a link to the source in question. This does sound like a

WP:AN/AE issue, though it sure seems to me like the arbitration ruling requires use of peer-reviewed sources in the Steiner article, and your proposed polemical source doesn't come close to meeting that requirement. THF (talk

) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't see anything about "polemical sources" in there. That Steiner said the things he is quoted as saying is verifiable, and I don't see original research either.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, don't believe me, and take it to

WP:AN/AE, and they'll likely tell you the same thing. But perhaps I'm wrong when I read "third-party peer reviewed sources" as requiring third-party peer reviewed sources. THF (talk

) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your reply as an admission that your characterization of the article Rudolf Steiner and the Jews as "polemical" is entirely your personal opinion and itself polemical. (You would have had no argument from me had you characterized it as "critical".) I've added an analysis of the present state of the "External Links" section of Rudolf Steiner and its woeful unbalanced state at Talk:Rudolf Steiner.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you're not interested in neutral editors' opinions, you just want to

forum-shop for people who agree with you. THF (talk

) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question is whether the waldorfcritics.org source is RS for Steiner's views on race, my view is that no, I don't think it is. The precise relationship between theosophical notions about "ancient races" and early C20 racism and antiracism is a complex topic in the history of ideas, and an academic source is needed. However, the waldorfcritics source might be reliable for the fact that criticism has been made of Steiner's work on that account. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, a solid "Criticisms" section is a viable project for the future of the Article. At this point, however, we are not talking about incorporating something into the body of the Article - it's about one (1) external link to a critical article, which the pro-Steiner editors are fighting tooth and nail to keep out. An external article, moreover, that is mostly summary and quotations from Steiner, and should not be kept out under

WP:RSN is the closest thing to it. We really need more editors at the article, at present I am outnumbered by the polite POV pushers. --Goodmorningworld (talk

) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. 1) I detest 'criticisms' sections, explian the criticisims in the context of the whole topic. Especially for something as broad as an educational philosophy. 2) the specific waldorfcritics site is simply self published opinion, not any manner of reliable source on any aspect of the topic. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Steiner never said what he is quoted in the article is saying? At what point, in your opinion, does the behavior by pro-Steiner editors Hgilbert and EPadmirateur turn into naked edit warring with the sole purpose of keeping out information that they deem embarrassing to Steiner – at the cost of keeping the article less encyclopedic than it could be? Have you examined the sources and links that Hgilbert and EPadmirateur have deemed acceptable for the article? Did you read my analysis of the external links on the Talk page? Do they meet the standard that Hgilbert and EPadmirateur profess to uphold? And – addressed not only to Rocksanddirt – when can I get some help here? Do not let the fact that Hgilbert and EPadmirateur maintain a facade of politeness and never use cuss words fool you – these two are among the most single-mindedly determined POV pushers I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from steiner himself from his lectures are problematic. His lectures were transcribed by people in the audience. (it's been a while since I read it, but the whole race thing that waldorfcritics likes does seems to be a misquote take out of context from several lectures and then not very acurately translated into english). The help you seem to want is to find more reliable sources for the article that have different views than what is there? am I correct? I somewhat disagree with your statement about Hgilbert and EPadmirateur being "among the most single-mindedly determined POV pushers." Prior to the arbitration, they were amongst the moderates, and have done more to remove poor sourcing from the articles around Mr. Steiner than most (certainly than I have). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are already a number of much better (academic, peer-reviewed) sources used in the article to support the fact that Steiner's work has been criticized in this realm. See the article's

talk

) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the talk page of the Mountain Dew article, and one guy had posted a concern about the reliability of Reference #5. Here is what he said:

"the current #5 ref (the one that lists health problems supposedly caused by the ingredents) CLEARLY lists wikipedia as it's main reference. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't such references considered unreliable."

This user is going by the name of StoneCold89. I believe he has a big point there. How could a reference be considered reliable enough for Wikipedia if that source uses Wikipedia as its source?

I thought I would bring it up here so that I could get a more knowledgeable desicion about it. In my opinion, I agree with the guy totally.

--[|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is clear -- no cite tracing back to any wiki is a valid reliable source. Travcing back to WP is a double whammy. Collect (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That would be an "echo chamber". A self-published source citing the WP shouldn't be cited by WP for the same information. Also the health claims are problematic as well. We should just have a list of ingredients; the corporate web site probably has one. We shouldn't make any nutrition claims about the ingredients, unless we have a source that specifically mentions Mountain Dew ( per

WP:RELEVANCE and some interpretations of OR ). The user can click through to the articles about the different ingredients if more information is desired. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted the additions. OR from an unreliable source. --Onorem♠Dil 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It is a free online encyclopedia of stuff related to Washington state; the About Us section says content is submitted by "staff, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts"—"with a few noted exceptions." This particular article does have an author listed, so I'm assuming it's probably good, I just wanted to check. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good as an

Otterathome (talk

) 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone come across this site before? http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/aboutus.php --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Use with caution, as this appears to be a site primarily involved in stopping and protesting against the expansion of airports, it is likely to contain bias. Using it in certain articles may violate

Otterathome (talk

) 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Web Japan is sponsored by the MOFA Japan. So that make's it reliable right?
• Tokyograph gets their information from Japanese language sources and translate it into English. All of their information is accurate.
• One of the contributors of Nippop, Steve McClure, is a writer for the
  と日の出
  ^~Sunrise~ 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can't tell, probably (don't use it for anything controversial). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. ^~Moon~

と日の出

^~Sunrise~ 04:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.

It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.

Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.

Help? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're unreliable based on thier wikihitstory, but please provide links and specify articles. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved editor - the first RSN on CAMERA was swamped by involved editors (and I regret to say that I then joined in). However, the result (from the uninvolved editors) was clear and summed up in my words: "the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care".

There was a second such RSN cut short when some objected to it being characterised as a hate source. But the conclusion from amongst the uninvolved editors was the same.

The wikihistory of CAMERA is that one of their staff (the director?) sought editors who would subvert the processes of the project, and found an enthusiastic ally in an active editor, who proceeded to plot to create faux administrators. On that occasion they were detected very early on and this one editor was indef-blocked. Please note, there have been persistent efforts to claim that this affair concerned a tiff between

Electronic Intifada (eg here), this was not the case. I regret to say that this account I'm using has a history of wiki-stalking, so if a large number of other involved editors arrive, it may be considered important that they identify themselves as such. PR^talk

09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Use with care. My advice would be use it minimally. It is an advocacy organization which has a history of interfering with Wikipedia. It isn't outside the realm of possibility to envision them releasing materials with the express purpose of impacting debate here. That notwithstanding, we can treat them like we treat any other advocacy source--with grave caution. Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise. Where those sources do not, we should use them exceedingly rarely. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Such sources can definitely be used for statements of opinion, attributed to the source... for statements of fact, reliability often depends on exactly what is being said in the article. If there is doubt, it is probably better to find another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

@Protonk -- a question. Does CAMERA have a history of fact checking? Not clear what "responsibility" means in this context. Appreciate an expansion of your comment. Thanks.

talk

) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki campaign or no really has no bearing on CAMERA's reliability or lack of. Even bias does not necessarily speak to reliability. In fact, I can't find anything in

talk

) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA breaches the same policies as does

major Israeli newspaper said of them (copying in CAMERA's Israel Director Tamar Sternthal!) "In the event that this [CAMERA complaint] gets to you: We have a quasi 'policy,' on the orders of [editor-in-chief] David [Landau], to ignore this organization and all of its complaints, including not responding to telephone messages and screening calls from Tamar Sternhal [sic], director of CAMERA. Otherwise, we will never finish with them." PR^talk

10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

false analogy and ad hominem. [46] I ask him once more that he stop this foolishness that hasn't helped his cause even once and will never help his cause. --GHcool (talk

) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a Godwin's, innit. B'er Rabbit (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that comparing one's ideological opponents to Hitler is useful - but using David Irving as a touchstone against which to compare RS is valuable. Racism and falsification march hand in hand - we've seen lots of evidence of both at previous RSNs and on TalkPages. PR^talk 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ, PR, give it a rest. <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I believe we have all had enough of your comparisons of pro-Israel scholars to Holocaust deniers. I am warning you that sooner or later I will report you for violating

false analogy/reductio ad Hitlerum. You have been asked to stop more than 8 times now.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] I suggest you take my request seriously this time. --GHcool (talk

) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the assertion that CAMERA's campaign to influence wikipedia (however small, misguided and unsuccessful it was) should have no bearing on our treatment of their reliability. I don't think it should disqualify them per se, nor do I think, like Cerejota does, that we should "punish them" for their meddling. I just think that if we are attempting to examine their record, it would figure somewhat prominently. As for "responsibility", I mean that they present facts without distortion, that they don't have a history of ethical problems (plagarism et al.) and so forth. We don't have the talent or the resources here to conduct some thorough review of CAMERA's research and publication history. So barring some external review (say, from an award or E&P or CJR looking at them), we have to judge "fact checking and reliability" based on some related heuristics. In cases like this, where we are attempting to judge the reliability of an advocacy organization in a pitched battle, we should have a pretty high standard. The outcome from christening them as a font for reliable information (if they are not one) will be to shift the weight of the related articles too much. Honestly, I think most advocacy organizations should be quoted with caution. In most cases, there is not a shortage of material, there is just a shortage of material available online at the click of a button. There are scores of books published on the Israel-Palestine conflict every year. The vast majority of those would work fine as sources. Using CAMERA (or whatever their Palestinian equivalent is) as a source in place of those (or newspaper articles, or magazine articles, or journal articles...etc.) strikes me as unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [55] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [56]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart.

I assume IronDuke's comment that CAMERA "weirdly [isn't] linked to Holocaust deniers" is

tongue in cheek. --GHcool (talk

) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption would be correct.

IronDuke

22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:) --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a RS, but should be used sparingly because of the crap you're going to get if you do use it. See WP:IDONTNEEDTHISCRAP (forthcoming)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So that makes 7 people who commented saying that CAMERA is an RS (however, it ought to be used with care) and 2 people who commented saying that CAMERA is not an RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All nine of you, heavily involved editors who should know better. As to my opinion (as an equally involved editor) CAMERA fucked with wikipedia, we should return the favor. Full stop. Any uninvolved editor should see this, as should any involved editor. Any organization that active seeks to subvert the very existence and viability of an NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit should be a RS only about itself, and even then with extreme prejudice. Their forefeited their RS card when they fucked with wikipedia. The day the New York Times does the same thing, my position will be the same. --Cerejota (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, are we being a little melodramatic here? CAMERA is highly partisan, not at all objective, should be cited sparingly for relatively non-controversial entries, and their history of trying to undermine the Wikipedia cannot be discounted. But to suggest some sort of tit-for-tat rationale is an unacceptable position to take, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a sort-of-involved editor (same topic area) I suggest that CAMERA should be cited only as a source on what the opinions of pro-Israel advocates are. Their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least. But there are articles like

I agree whole-heartedly with Eleland's post above. CAMERA is an RS most of the time. I have never read anything by CAMERA that made me feel as though they were guilty of deliberate falsehood. The worst one can say about them is that they are one-sided, and that affects their research and conclusions. The "fucking with Wikipedia" thing failed miserably and they likely won't try it again, but that is evidence of Wikipedia's strength, not CAMERA's weakness. --GHcool (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure. I would say they wised up, but I the face of a lack of public mea culpas etc, I am weary of them getting anything out of us. There are other equally partisan sources we can use that are not them. There is no reason for us to link to them except as a source about themselselves.--Cerejota (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GHcool: wha? How can you say you agree with my post, and that "CAMERA is an RS most of the time?" The whole point of my post is that CAMERA should not be used most of the time. One can say far worse about CAMERA than "they are one-sided;" if you want my opinion, they are vicious, vaguely McCarthyite, negationist, nasty, and relentlessly dishonest. Looking at this RSN posting, it seems that you're only hearing what you want to hear. All uninvolved editors who've commented here have expressed grave doubts about CAMERA's reliability, including me. <eleland/talkedits> 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a reliable source for information about the world, only for information about the perspective of exteme pro-Israel advocacy. This is readily apparent from their publications, but it should also be blindingly obvious that any organisation that would attempt to secretly interfere with an encyclopedia in order to promote their perspective cannot be trusted to be honest in their reporting. That has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" reprisals, it is simply that their action has proven them to be devoid of the principle of honesty. Disclaimer: I've edited

OK, now CAMERA has been equated with Hamas. Does CAMERA fire missiles randomly into Gaza? Probably better to compare them with the EI, both somewhat partisan activist groups.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I compared them in terms of being unreliable sources on points of fact. They both engage in propaganda and have scant regard for honesty, and can only be used as sources for their extreme partisan positions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, just looking over your talk page and your edits to the article in question, I tend to question that you are raising hackles of both sides in approximately equal quantities. This isn't the place for that debate, but I really don't think the anti-Israel (so I term them, my opinion) editors use your name as a target for darts or whatever other aerial missiles they currently favor. Not the place for that debate. I just don't see anything, though, that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS. A partisan one, that should be used with great care, but a RS under our rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "a partisan source that should be used with great care" you mean that CAMERA should never be cited on points of fact, only as partison opinion, then we are in agreement. Is that what you mean? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think they could be used as a RS. In practice, I would advise against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we essentially agree in practice. In terms of Wikipedia, isn't practice all that matters? What is a "reliable source that I'd advise against using", really? And for that matter, which of the criteria on

WP:RS? Are all sources assumed to be reliable sources until proven otherwise, or do we require that they actually meet the criteria? Ryan Paddy (talk

) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this I can't hear you? I said it above, don't use CAMERA because you are going to get a lot of flak about it here, so it is not worth the grief. All the same it is a RS. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's not about whether people will give you flak for using a source or not. It's about whether the source meets the criteria in

There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:

Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate

As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching ^[

In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?--kelapstick (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed at length and more accurately on the article talk page, starting with

talk

) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no

WP:RS and can't be used. Dlabtot (talk

) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to use those sources. You could say "candy retailer XXX sells them in YYY sizes", but it woulnd't be very encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst the above points are correct according to
  ignore the rules. --neon white talk
  03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement, otherwise we would not be engaging in this discussion. No, this certainly does not appear to be a case where one could justifiably ignore

WP:V. Dlabtot (talk

) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh, OK. To be honest, I'm amazed that this article has generated so much fuss. To be perfectly frank, I'd be all for a merge to the candy article. But, since I've already responded on the talk page via an RfC, I figure "In for a penny, in for a pound". First let's make clear that WP:RS is a guideline as opposed to a policy, there's a big difference. Second: verbiage such as "ignore" indicates a willful attempt to circumvent the policies and guidelines; and I don't see that as the case at all. This all seems to stem from the desire of the editors to include, and I paraphrase Stick candy is 14" long. Apparently the UP, and API wire services haven't done a whole lot of reporting on stick candy, so finding a good secondary source is the crux of the problem. This leads us to the use of a candystore.com site [sic?] for the reference to the candy size. Now, looking at WP:V, we find the following. "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources:" My interpretation of this is such that due to the lack of a good secondary source, the candystore.com site which makes this aforementioned candy stick, would be acceptable per the "acceptable to use in some circumstances" part of the WP:V statement, If the candystore isn't blacklisted, and if the editors don't have a COI with the site. I'm not sure about the former, and have no reason to question the later. Even myspace and youtube are cited on a very rare occasion.

This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and really the only thing relevant here is whether sources meet the criteria for

WP:RS. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html or similar sites do not in any way meet those criteria, not even as self-published sources. It doesn't even claim to be a source of information - it's a candy store. It's simply totally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia in any way whatsover, in my opinion. Dlabtot (talk

) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We either aim to be as encyclopedic as possible or not (we do). As such, we use the best possible sources. Blanking information such as typical dimensions and flavors from this article, as well as the best possible sources, simply is not helpful in ensuring we have the best, most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. Threatening to merge the Stick candy article (one of the most traditional and historical candies in the United States) to Candy is similarly unhelpful, and perplexingly so. Badagnani (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Permit use.
  WP:NOR
  policy here. In relevant part, it states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

In other words, there are two concerns, and in this case they are easily addressed:

• "Reliably published". Is an online retailer a reliable publisher of the specifications of its wares? Vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product benefits and underestimate the all-in cost to the consumer. Other than these two related issues, vendors are privy to the most not least accurate information about their product. The potential conflicts can addressed (and should be addressed) in either or both of two ways. First, corroborating the information with multiple different vendors would be sufficient unless there were thought to be a widespread coordinated fraud amongst vendors selling $0.15 products. Second, checking for positive reviews of the vendor and lack of negative reviews could establish the reputation of the vendor for fair dealing.
• "Description only". The intended use is only for description, so this poses no issues.

It is mind-boggling to me that this issue has been taken this far. If there are any legitimate issues with the text and the citations that are used to back it, they are whether the information itself is sufficiently notable or encyclopedic to include. While to me this issue appears to me to have been established in the affirmative, but if people disagree, there are other venues for addressing it. Bongomatic 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see so much interest in the

Personally, I have to wonder if the statement that is being made is really accurate, dispite the source... sure, these may be standard sizes and flavors for stick candy being made by big commercial candy companies, but surely there are other, smaller candy manufacturers that make non-standard flavors and non-standard sizes. What about the hand-crafted candy shops? I think it would be safe to use a commercial website for a statement as to what that particular company sells... but not for a broad statement about an entire genre of candy. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I never eat candy... I'd rather prefer not to know the size of a candy stick or just guess it from the picture or - why not - believe it with no source offered (it's hard to imagine somebody would invest much energy only to fool me into a wrong belief about candy stick size) than to link to commercial companies as a good source (even if I've no doubt they'll be accurate about their products) By the way, if the candy page was in need to be edit-protected for a week as to avoid further armed incidents about candy size, don't you think it qualifies for

WP:Lamest Edit Wars? Sorry, I just couldn't avoid this comment, you'll excuse me. Cheers and have a sweet day.--Ilyacadiz (talk

) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found - wrong. If they aren't RS (and they're not), they can't be used. Did you notice the period at the end of that sentence? Policy is clear on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations are made to pages that are not reliable sources all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? Editors do a lot of things 'all the time' on Wikipedia that are blatantly contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is covered by the same case-by-case standard as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Is_a_Discovery_or_History_Channel_documentary_considered_a_reliable_source.3F. In this case, the documentary simply gives a platform to the conspiracy theory of John Buchanan (American politician): a couple of editors are arguing that "the BBC" is a reliable source, and therefore Buchanan's views about a historical event are entitled to the same reporting as (and perhaps more space than!) Arthur Schlesinger's. Full discussion at Talk:Business_Plot#Buchanan. THF (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. Are you talking about a document displayed on BBC4 page? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We're pretty safe in considering the BBC a reliable source. Or more specifically, that if the BBC interviews somebody, it's a safe bet that what was said in the interview, however controversial, is important enough to be mentioned in our article as somebody's opinion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Why is a BBC4 radio documentary about a conspiracy theory more reliable than a

WP:FRINGE, raised to a reliable source just because he shows up on the BBC? THF (talk

) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "why" question is not relevant. The question is whether the BBC is a reliable source per wikipedia requirements, and in particular

WP:FRINGE. Ty

23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all correct, up to the last couple of sentences. Reliable sources often report fringe views. They don't report them as facts, rather they quote the source of the fringe view. For example, the BBC could interview people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. Also "Therefore per NPOV we should also represent them" is not really correct. Just because one RS has reported a view, that doesn't mean it must be reported on Wikipedia. Views should be given due weight based on how widely they are reported and in how much depth. A single report of not much depth, regardless of how reliable the source is, doesn't give a view a great deal of weight in terms of whether it should be described on Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is the link to the

IMHO the show is RS only to the extent that opinions presented in it are reported in WP as opinions and not reported or used as facts. (and a transcript is infintely better than a recording as sometimes people hear what they wish to hear, and a transcript is verifiable per WP guidelines far better than a recording is). The reliability of Bushanan should however be germane to discussing his opinions, no? Collect (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how Buchanan is used: the article quotes his opinion in direct speech attributed to him with the BBC item as a reference. People read what they want to read as well. The key point is whether material can be verified by readers and other editors. In this case it can, as the programme is available online to listen to. If there is a source that challenges his opinions on the subject in question, the Business Plot, that should be included. Otherwise there is no discussion of his opinion, merely a presentation of it, so the reader can make up his or her own mind. Ty 01:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The show is an RS for "Mr. X said 'ABC', not for "ABC is so". A secondary source as reputable as the BBC would imply that Mr. X's saying "ABC" may be important enough to mention in a WP article. ( I'm trying not to use the term "notability" because that's really for articles as a whole ). But there's still an editorial decision on how much weight to give this opinion. One sentence should be plenty. Heck, in the past I've cited sources just for a single adjective, so as not to run into issues with weight. Also, yes, a text transcript is much preferred over rich media for several reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article., what is? THF (talk

) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your evaluation and hence

WP:UNDUE demands it should not be given excess presence, and, as Squidfryerchef suggests, it is just given one sentence. Ty

01:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, it's actually given four sentences and 153 words (compared to three sentences and 101 words from Schlesinger), and the reader is given no hint that Buchanan is a fringe conspiracy theorist and 9/11 truther. THF (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And please stop saying "that is OR." The whole point of RSN is to do original research on sources to determine if they are reliable. Show us some OR that contradicts the facts I've been telling you. THF (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will note for the record that WP:OR (and our other content policies) does not apply to Policy pages and talk pages... only to articles themselves. So the fact that his views may or may not be OR is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The exact text on Buchanan is: "In The Whitehouse Coup, John Buchanan says President Roosevelt stopped the investigation for a political deal: 'The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted'." OK, two sentences. Apart from you, are there any sources that say with regard to the Business Plot that Buchanan is a "fringe conspiracy theorist"? If so, they can be included. This isn't an article about 9/11. You seem to have difficulty recognising that the BBC is a reliable source and we follow sources. This is NPOV, and your approach is violating that policy. Ty 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I'd like to add that I don't think its constructive when the "conspiracy theory" card/label (using the term in a disparaging way) is used so often by an editor because it has the effect of a slur on the content in question. It really,unintentionally I'm sure, puts the editor which supports the content in a position of having to shift focus to debating the "conspiracy theory" categorization of the content. That categorization tends to stifle and deflect discussion and restrict appropriate article discussion and content (because very few editors want to be seen as supporting any kind of way-out conspiracy theory). Usually,as in this case, it is only a personal POV as to whether something qualifies as a so-called conspiracy theory. I also think these types of comments make collaboration almost impossible: "not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does... not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it.", even though directed towards content, it fuels combative editing because it makes editors who think the content is valid for the article feel as though we are promoting some kind of evil and crazy agenda that I,for one, certainly don't want to be promoting. It's also annoying that Collect and THF keep running to noticeboards and administrators when any article discussion is not going their way; at least that's the way it appears to me. Abbarocks (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When a person's views are reported by a reliable source, it means we can report those views as verifiably belonging to that person. The weight that is given to those views in an article should depend on the weight that is given to them in reliable sources. Whether those views will be presented as likely to reflect objective reality will depend on whether the person quoted is considered an expert in the field. Expertise can be established by how reliable sources (including those other than the one used for the quote) describe the person's expertise, and whether they are widely published as an expert in the field. Buchanan is quoted by the BBC on this subject, which means his view may be worth including as a reliable source has reported it (although unless his view is also reported elsewhere, that doesn't give strong weight to including his view as the BBC report may be a lapse in editorial judgement). If Buchanan has a reputation as an unreliable expert on political matters, especially one who has many