Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37

  Cs32en  22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's acceptable without adding in one form or another that this paper cannot be regarded as peer-reviewed. Because that's what most readers will think when they read such a passage. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I wouldn't object to adding information on the controversy regarding the peer-review process at the journal. The Jyllands Posten article says that it's a peer-reviewed journal, and there is no reliable source, to my knowledge, that says that it's not peer-reviewed. Which kind of information do you think would be appropriate to add on the journal? Would it be better to give just the title of the article, but not the name of the journal?  Cs32en  23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Those sources User:Autonova pointed out as citations/points for/of dispute are not sources at all. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that user TheFourFreedoms has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It seems hypocritical to dispute the reliability of an academic source by citing forum posts and emails. 213.40.98.154 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting using these as sources for an article. These are only being used to determine it's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking which is poor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All of those were published before the scandal broke and the chief editor resigned. Please remember that a reliable source is one that has earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that academics don't want to do be associated with Bentham Open is an indication of its poor reputation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It could just be indicative of the paper's wildly controversial claim. 213.40.111.193 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Those four references are meaningless, if editors are using those to prove some sort of a point, it might be indicative, in some way. As for resignation, imo, it states more about academic freedom, than about the reliability of the source. It's just an opinion though. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

AQFK, the only available reliable source we have on the question of peer-review is the one that was published on April 4th, which says that the journal is peer-reviewed. What effects the resignation of the editor in chief may or may not have on the question of whether the paper is to be considered peer-reviewed or not is entirely

original research at this point.  Cs32en 

18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, nobody is suggesting that we include this information in any Wikipedia article. Instead, we're using this as information to detsermine if this article meets

reliable sources noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the paper's been rigorously reviewed or not, it did make the ( Danish ) news, and should be discussed as a facet of the 9/11 conspiracy theories related to thermite. World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories may be a more appropriate article to place it. Just don't overemphasize the term "peer reviewed" because that's under debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to determine whether a source meets the standards of

WP:RS. Whether something should be included in an article is an editorial decision and outside the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 12:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but many sources are RS for some facts but not others, and many of the debates here stem from undue weight or not putting citations in their proper context. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could create a

WP:NPOVN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said over at the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, best to lay the whole controversy out in the article, including the fact that the editor-in-chief resigned in protest and said the paper wasn't properly reviewed. Incidentally, someone published a computer-generated junk program in Bentham Open recently. II | (t - c) 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• For scholarly sources, one paper in one journal is not a reliable source. Per
  WP:RS - "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Hipocrite (talk
  ) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this[13] site constitute a reliable source? Specifically for the page on the

According to the source, this website seems to be self-published. Per

WP:SPS

, self-published sources "are largely not acceptable". As the publisher of this website in particular chooses to remain anonymous, there is no way to confirm that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

In summary, my answer is "no", fwbo-files.com does not constitute a reliable source for the

^discuss

02:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Levine. Editing it now.--ObscureFruits (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the website [14] and there is the document The FWBO Files [15] and [16]. Two different things. The website is published by Verdex, a former FWBO member in Germany, and he writes a little bit about himself here[17] and also provides an email. So not anonymous, though not RS either, but his website does include some RS material, such as the 1997 Guardian article [18], possibly a letter [19] from from psychiatrist Dr Betty Tylden [20] possibly a 2002 letter to the Times [21] and possibly other RS material.

The anonymous document 'The FWBO Files' is available on two websites (links above) and is not RS, but I believe it is referenced in a number of academic books and is also discussed at some length in John Crook's article [22]. So I think the FWBO article should at least mention the existence of this document, and preferably the existence of some responses to it, including the FWBO's own response.

Certainly IMO the 1997 Guardian article is RS, even though it is hosted on two non-RS websites [23] and [24]. So it is not black and white as regards RS or not. My view is that it is appropriate to provide an external link to at least one of the two non-RS websites which host the Guardian article, partly because a link to the Guardian article (in the main text) is inevitably also a link to one of the hosting websites, and partly because there are also a number of external links to FWBO sources, which are non-RS themselves (because they are self-published, not 3rd party sources). I feel there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if the principle of RS is applied too rigidly. However strictly it is applied, it should be applied equitably to all non-RS sources, not just to those which criticise the FWBO. EmmDee (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an anonymous attack website - not even a blog - transparently operated for the purpose of promoting hatred of members of a buddhist group. The site boasts on its front page that it defames. If the information has any verifiable value, then it would be obtainable from reliable sources and could therefore be properly referenced. The integrity of Wikipedia depends, among other things, on it not being misused to further campaigns of abuse or harassment. Bluehotel (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the 1997 Guardian article, citing it from the FWBO-Files feels a bit like plucking fruit from a poisonous tree - the tree is not RS and it therefore seems to taint the Guardian news article hosted on the site. What would be better is to search the Guardian's online archives (it goes back to 1984!) or some other RS news archive service and cite the article from there. --

^discuss

04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about plucking fruit from a poisonous tree, but might I suggest an alternative simile; that the FWBO-Files.com and the ex-cult.org/fwbo sites are smallholdings growing a variety of produce, only some of which is RS. I agree that it would be better if the 1997 Guardian article was available on the Guardian's own website, but AFAICS it isn't. It may be available from some other RS news archive, I don't know. The article does exist, I have seen a copy, and it is referenced in a number of RS's. EmmDee (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Levine regarding the "poisoned tree" although it may contain reliable sources, they should be found on other, more trustworthy/neutral sites, and then referenced from there.--ObscureFruits (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also in my opinion, Verdex is anonymous, we do not know anything provable about them, and do not have a real name. Also the "FWBO-Files" themselves are hosted on, as it has been decided, two unreliable websites. The document itself is Original Research, potentially unverifiable (though it does have sources and also homophobic to a degree (it implies Homosexuality is worse than Heterosexuality, or at least claims Buddhism is against homosexuality by default and that the FWBO are not "correct" Buddhists because of this.)) Also these sites [25][26] [27] [28] refute this claim (First I pulled from google) --ObscureFruits (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The document 'The FWBO Files' is Original Research and is not RS and AFAICS it is not quoted from anywhere in the article, though the existence of the document is mentioned. However, I am a bit suprised you consider 'The FWBO Files' homophobic and that it implies Homosexuality is worse than Heterosexuality etc. It criticises Sangharakshita for wearing the robes of a celibate monk while engaging in sex with his students, and criticises S and some senior order members for allegedly presurising their students into sex as a 'medium of spiritual friendship' etc. It would be the same if it had been heterosexual sex. These allegations also appeared in the Guardian article (which predates the Files) eg:'Now the British-based cult is engulfed in allegations that it manipulated vulnerable young men into becoming homosexual' (header paragraph) and: 'Even more disturbing, the cases of three vulnerable young men have emerged which detail sexual manipulation and oppressive authoritarian cult behaviour which, in the case of one man, has been cited as a significant factor leading to his suicide.' (3rd paragraph in main text) [29] EmmDee (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not overtly homophobic, but the tone of the section implies heavily something is wrong with homosexuality[30]--ObscureFruits (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It just goes to show how much the world has changed in the last 12 years. The Guardian would no more today say that someone had been manipulated "into becoming homosexual" than it would say someone had been manipulated into becoming an elephant. It's hardly surprising that an anonymous attack site, plainly operated by or in cahoots with the person who made these "allegations" to the Guardian in 1997, and who I believe is now an editor at Wikipedia, wants to highlight such notions, but the Guardian is a recognised source, and anonymous attack sites are not. Bluehotel (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The site should never be used. The occasional RS on the site appear to all be copyvios. DreamGuy (talk)

Seems pretty much decided then, thank you everyone --ObscureFruits (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of vicious personal attacks, POV pushes, and edit warring have been made about this article, but I'd like to set this all aside and get some outside help about the core part of this dispute- which is about classifying sources.

At issue is whether or not the articles cited in

I'm unfamiliar with the Institute for Policy Studies but they appear to be an advocacy group. The last 3 sources appear to be opinion pieces which mean they are only reliable for their own opinion. Whether their opinion is important enough to be included in the article is editorial decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas is also claiming that

Talk:Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009#Recent_additions_to_post-speech_section. The Squicks (talk

) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is indeed just an 'editorial decision', what do you think should occur if there is a dispute between a majority and a minority of editors about that? The Squicks (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at a concrete example. Source, inside a literal quotation from Foukara:

But you get people in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan, for example, who say, "OK, he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces."

Our article:

Foukara also said, "he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces".

I am surprised this was merely tagged with "this primary source citation needs verification", given that it's a plain misrepresentation of the source. Introduced, by the way, by The Squicks. [35] Hans Adler 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that a misrepresentation? Are you kidding? The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Foukara was talking about what the hypothetical Muslim man on the street would say and he expressed agreement with such a hypothetical man. What the article does is typical quoting.

Introduced, by the way, by The Squicks. I see that you refuse to stop assuming bad faith. Please stop. The Squicks (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To address the various issues above:

1. All the sources listed in the original question are reliable sources for the opinion of the authoring individual/organization.
2. Typically encyclopedia's avoid non-scholarly (and especially partisan) opinions, but whether to include these opinions in this particular article is an editorial judgment to be decided through discussion on the article talk page. A point to be considered is whether these opinions are themselves notable, i.e., whether other news sources cited them. If a consensus cannot be reached on the talk page, try an
   dispute resolution
   processes.
3. Hans Adler is correct that the quote from the article misrepresents the source and needs to be removed or rephrased. To understand why it is a representation, consider me writing an article which says:

   Twentienth century Luddites continue to say, "Gravity is a myth"

   Paraphrasing that as:

   Abecedare says that, "Gravity is a myth"

   would be blatantly false assignation of the opinion. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm also more than willing to compromise on the wording. Would Foukara also said that Pakistanis and Afghanis may think "he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces" in response. make more sense? The Squicks (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact phrasing is best decided on the article talk page where factors like

dueness of the source and opinion can be considered. I was just affirming that the phrasing quoted by Hans Adler was indeed misrepresenting the source. Abecedare (talk

) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas also stated that

News Hour with Jim Lehrer are not reliable sources since they are "primary sources". This to me seems wrong, they look like secondary sources to me. The Squicks (talk

) 21:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the format of AC360, but I can comment on Newshour. The question of whether it is a primary source, depends on the particular news segment format:

• The initial straight news roundup (usually by Lehrer) is certainly a reliable secondary source.
• In some segments the program has a neutral expert recounting and analyzing some news, example Jan Crawford Greenburg on Supreme court cases. These are secondary analytic pieces, generally usable on wikipedia (although, of course, more scholarly or detailed sources may be preferable).
• Certain segments are set up as debates between proponents/partisans on different sides of an issue. These are equivalent to opinion pieces in newspapers and should be used only if the opinion is notable and due. Ditto for the "essayist" pieces.
• Interviews with persons involved in an issue, should be regarded as primary sources (which can be used, but require care).

Hope I have addressed your query. Of course it is always better if you can specify the exact source you wish to use and what you want to use it for, since then we can evaluate the specific circumstances. Keep in mind that editors responding at RSN are usually not familiar with all the preceding article history and talk page discussion - that's part of the advantage of the board! Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact sources being disputed are this from PBS and this from CNN. Viriditas claims that (a)both are primary sources and (b)Wikipedia rules prevent all primary sources from being cited. The Squicks (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas disputes the sections=

Some Muslim commentators had a more negative response. Rami Khouri, the editor of The Daily Star and director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, argued that Obama gave "a lot of good, positive vibes" but, ultimately, it "was only rhetoric". He referred to what he saw as the hypocrisy of Obama praising human rights after meeting with Egyptian and Saudi leaders who have suppressed those same rights. He stated that the Muslim world is still waiting for Obama's words to "translate" into real policy. Al Jazeera bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara made similar remarks, saying that "he talked about Palestinians killing Israelis, but he didn't talk a lot about Israelis killing Palestinians, especially in the context of the latest Israeli war on Gaza". Foukara also said, "he's come to us with his message of peace, but there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are civilians being killed there by American forces".

Christiane Amanpour of CNN has also described the Muslim world's general reaction as very favorable and supportive.

The fact that Obama never mentioned the word "terrorism" or "terror" was positively interpreted by many in the Muslim street, given that many of them see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam'. American conservatives also picked up on this and argued that it weakened Obama's overall message.

CNN pundit David Gergen argued that while, in his view, Obama has wrongly apologized for American actions before, he did not do so here and conservative criticisms are unfounded.

Viriditas claims that both 360 and the News Hour cannot be cited since, in his view, all primary sources cannot ever be cited and both of the sources count as primary.

Both you and A Quest For Knowledge have stated that it is in fact acceptable to cite non-primary sources and that there is no blanket prohibition of them. But the issue of whether or not 360 and the News Hour count as primary is something that I would like further comment on. The Squicks (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my position. You interpreted a television transcript to say what you wanted it to say, which is considered a primary source. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your position was (unless you've changed it) that no thing that is from a primary source can be added. This position is contrary, as it has been stated again and again, from Wikipedia guidelines which do allow primary sources. The Squicks (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything of the kind or maintained any such position. I use primary sources all the time, supported by and backed up with secondary sources, and I have discussed the use of primary sources in many places over the years, so your statement is patently false. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why we use use secondary sources. You need to stop editing against Wikipedia best practices and start using neutral, reliable secondary sources.

Your words, claiming that primary sources cannot be used. As has been stated here repeatedly, using primary sources on their own is fine. It is an editorial decision. There is no rule preventing their use. The Squicks (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said no such thing. As I have previously informed you, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is built on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources may be used, but only carefully, and whenever possible or necessary, with the support of secondary sources. That's what the quote you took out of context is saying. Again, I've discussed this in many places over the years, and I make use of primary sources quite a bit. But we don't use them the way you are using them, which is to pick and choose material, interpret it to fit an agenda, and fail to use secondary sources that describe, highlight, or note the importance of the material. For example, you've been cherry picking television transcripts to add material to the Obama speech article. But what secondary sources exist showing that these transcripts are notable, important, or relevant? You see the pattern? By picking and choosing primary sources, Op-Ed pieces, punditry, polemics, and editorialists, you continue to bypass the sourcing policies that allow us to fact-check material for accuracy, authoritativeness, and relevance simply by choosing the best sources that describe the topic. Instead, you are attempting to frame the topic on your own, without using the mechanisms in place to insure neutrality and accuracy. This is a very common mistake, by once you learn how to use the sources correctly, you are supposed to stop making the same mistake. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But we don't use them the way you are using them, which is to pick and choose material, interpret it to fit an agenda, and fail to use secondary sources that describe, highlight, or note the importance of the material.

As is stated in this noticeboard, what I provided in the two links were secondary sources, not primary ones.

As is stated in this noticeboard, primary sources can be used in the way that they were used- attributing the claims of notable commenters on a subject. And I did not add those sources in the first place.

you've been cherry picking television transcripts to add material to the Obama speech article

I am very, very tired of your stupid claims that I only edited the article to puff it with anti-Obama material. This is a lie, and you know that it is a lie. I added both anti and pro material.

Your argument boils down to: The Squicks is a piece of "garbage"; he is a POV pusher who hates Obama. Even though it is okay to cite primary sources in general, it is bad when he does it because he is "garbage". The Squicks (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, what you haven't yet figured out is that you can make similar criticisms about Obama's speech using reliable secondary sources. You don't have to resort to interpreting primary sources or using partisan material. I'm not sure why you don't understand this fact or refuse to, but there it is. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not put what I wanted it to say into anything. On the contrary, you have gone out of your way to remove anything that is anti-speech from the article and to preserve anything that is pro-speech. The Squicks (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Which explains why I removed an inappropriate use of sources from both the pro and the con positions. Not. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that my purpose there "was not to improve the article but to pave the way for POV pushing" against Obama. Which explains why I added sources from both the pro and the con positions. Not. The Squicks (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the hallmarks of POV pushers is introducing Op-Ed pieces, and relying on pundits, polemicists, and editorialists, as well as misusing primary sources and interpreting them without secondary source support. Have you done any of these things? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the hallmarks of POV pushers is making personal attacks such as calling people "garbage", "insanity", and "a fricking nutcase". Have you done any of these things? The Squicks (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out, again, that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia despite your commentary. The Squicks (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources cannot be used the way you are using them. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(deindent after ec) Thanks for the links, Squicks. Having read those transcripts, I would say that those are right at the border of analysis and opinion (I don't think the primary/secondary distinction is really relevant in these two case). The persons involved are not blatantly partisan figures, but they do seem to be chosen to represent different POVs and are stating their view of the speech, rather than purely objective facts. That does not mean though, that there is a blanket prohibition against such sources - rather we need be make sure the opinions are noteworthy and properly attributed.

In fact, I think the fundamental problem you are running into is not with

dueness and appropriate paraphrasing. In particular, it is not clear why the opinion of Rami Khouri, Abderrahim Foukara, Amanpour and David gergen (whose association with the GWB admistration is not even mentioned!) are important voices for an encyclopedic (as opposed to news) article. Also, saying that the "many of them [Muslim street] see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam' " in wikipedia's voice is certainly incorrect. I would suggest that you discuss on the talk page to find, (1) the best (scholarly and noteworthy) sources to cite the Muslim world's reaction to the Obama speech, (2) how to properly phrase the agreed upon sources and what weight to assign to them. Note: the second paragraph of my comment is general editorial advice, and not really a purely RSN issue. Hope it helps though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk

) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. If this is a weighting issue rather than a reliablity one, than the discussion can take place in other channels such as RFC and so on. Thank you for your advice. The Squicks (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the main talk topic on this particular RS issue -

Yes, consider anything from this site self-published. This does not mean that we can not use it, but it does mean that there are limitations in how we use it and for what types of statements. See

WP:SPS for more information. Blueboar (talk

) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The etst isn't the range of subjects, it's the level of editorial scrutiny: if the publisher just prints the author's work without any checking, it counts as WP:SPS but if it is vetted by an editirial board then it isn't.Martinlc (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When there is no connection between the author and the publishing house this is true... but SPS also applies when there is a close connection between the author and the publisher, such as both being tied to the same fringe group. In these circumstances we have to consider both to be "self-publishing" on behalf of the fringe group, no matter what sort of editorial "vetting" or scrutiny the publisher might give the work. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the person who used these in citations, I have the books at hand. There does seem to be some editorial process and variety of input, at least in the works being cited in the article. One of the publications cited contains a foreword by a respected academic (past chancellor of the U of Hawaii Manoa, and president of the Hawaii Loa/Hawaii Pacific U.), the other contains a foreword by the publisher. Both are footnoted, indexed and contain extensive appendices. Although parts of both do delve into refutation and polemics, they don't seem to be just thrown together rants, and do contain information apart from getting into such issues. The Wiki article concerns a religious group about which there is a limited amount of information available, not exactly a tempting plum for publication, just as for many subjects related to religion that end up with tiny publishers. The lack of materials is compounded by the group not having any publicly available written statement of faith, or other material which reflects its views or history. I personally think it is a stretch to label the 2 cited books as SPS, particularly when lack of citation has been frequently used to blank or nominate for deletion information in this and related articles in the past. • Astynax ^talk 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. That is really helpful, esp the principle of "level of editorial scrutiny".
As to how an SPS is used? The policy allows specific exceptions. If those specific exceptions, namely SPS by established expert or SPS is the topic itself, do not fit, does that mean NO use of the SPS is allowed? RSuser (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

the test...is the level of editorial scrutiny. Any suggestions on how to prove this one way or the other?

there is a close connection between the author and the publisher, such as both being tied to the same fringe group. I'm sure Blueboar will now explain how to determine whether publisher and author belong to a fringe group. For your info, this is also a matter of some subtlety: see

WP:FTN. I'll note that the Journal of Parapsychology would certainly pass anyone's level of editorial scrutiny smell test, as they peer-review articles via friends and foes of parapsychology. However both being tied to the same fringe group? Parapsychologists publishing in a parapsychology journal. Well? are they fringey? And who decides? Thanks. --nemonoman (talk

) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think whether it's a 'fringe group', per se, enters into the evaluation of editorial scrutiny. To determine level of editorial scrutiny you'd want to see an arm's length relationship between publisher and author. I could think of various ways to test that. For example, does the publisher have full time editors who work independently of the author, does the publisher employ legal staff to vet for libel, does the publisher publish a range of views on topic or variety of topics, and so on and so forth. Am I on the right track? RSuser (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all 'blueboar' is saying is that if the publisher and author are in a 'fringe group' then no level of editorial scrutiny is enough. Anyway, I don't believe the publisher in question is a 'fringe group' so we're back to looking at editorial scrutiny.RSuser (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the comment about SPS pertained to the web sites, not the books. We could use an opinion on the books mentioned by astynax, yes, no, or don't know. Here are the links to the publishers' pages on these books. [38] [39] RSuser (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The arm's length test is also a little doubtful. How arm's length was the relationship between William F Buckley and the National Review? I guess the desirable test for me is editorial accuracy and fact-checking. I'm a former technical editor back from the Bronze age when people cared about this stuff. I have had two books published by a major New York publishing house, and frankly any editing, proofreading, or fact-checking that got done was done by me and me alone. Nobody seems to give a damn. Arm's length would have been a step up. I could have called the light darkness and the darkness light, and St Martins would have pushed it out the door without a word. My personal experience with recent publishing colors my opinions on this matter. --nemonoman (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One topic publishers - random break

The lack of materials is compounded by the group not having any publicly available written statement of faith, or other material which reflects its views or history.

Unfortunately this is not really an excuse to cite dodgy references, but...

The Wiki article concerns a religious group about which there is a limited amount of information available, not exactly a tempting plum for publication, just as for many subjects related to religion that end up with tiny publishers.

I think this is a very good point in defence of this set of resources. In other words, although the publisher is limited to a single topic, this should not count against its perceived integrity in this case. I would be interested to see more comment from editors who've not been involved with the wiki article in question. Donama (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I used "Fringe group", that was simply an example. Let me rephrase... there are 3 types of self-publication that we must consider ... 1) the traditional self-publication, when a publishing house is paid by author to publish his or her work... 2) the modern self-publication, where the publisher is the author (most websites fall under this type)... and 3) When the publisher has a direct connection to the author, be it of a political, religious, social or other nature. For example, a religious sect may publish books about the sect which are authored by one of its members. Everything, from the writing to the printing the book (or hosting the website) is done "in house". That would clearly be SPS. However, I do admit that in many cases there isn't such a clear tie as in my example. Sometimes you have to dig a bit to find the tie. And sometimes the tie isn't really there at all, but may seem to be. In such cases, it is usually best to treat the source as if it were Self-published. Remember, we can use Self-published sources, we just have limitations on how and when we use them. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this description would fit university presses, foundation presses, and a number of other respected publishers.

Is a Hoover Institute white paper an SPS? From your description, I should say yes. Is the Chicago Manual of Style, published by the U. of Chicago, written by in-house staff? How about the Random House Dictionary: as you say "the publisher has a direct connection to the author" and Everything, from the writing to the printing the book (or hosting the website) is done "in house".

As to other publishers: do you really mean for an editor dig a bit to find the tie? What method would you suggest here? What would be a reliable source to describe the tie that would clearly delineate a publication as SPS? Do you REALLY mean to say: And sometimes the tie isn't really there at all, but may seem to be. In such cases, it is usually best to treat the source as if it were Self-published. What exactly is your criteria for "SEEMING" to have a tie?

Editor 1: I've looked into it, and this publisher appears to have no tie to the author.

Editor 2: Agreed. So since the tie isn't really there at all, we best treat this source as Self-published.

Editor 1: Thank God for your rational analysis!

Honestly, have you deliberated on the words you've written here, or are you improvising? Your responses sound pleasant enough, but practically they provide for a whole world of doubtful action if anyone should attempt to implement them. You have broadened the scope of SPS to cover a huge swath, and provided a rationale that seems prone to personal interpretations and original research for any but the most well-documented mainstream topics. --nemonoman (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point in defence of this set of resources. In other words, although the publisher is limited to a single topic, this should not count against its perceived integrity in this case. (Donoma)

I disagree strongly. Integrity is integrity. If the editorial scrutiny is lacking, then the source is worthless and its better to write with no source at all. It makes things worse in fact because it now appears that the article has been cited and source checked when it's the furthest thing from it. I'd prefer editors on this topic to write and not cite at all, than to cite poor quality sources. RSuser (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I have suggested in the past that we leave uncited material in the article, as long as the material is NPOV and non-controversial. We may not want to do that, but it's preferable to a poor citation which the writer says, "see, it is cited".RSuser (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that there are a few reliable sources that would create a good, concise article on the subject, IMO. RSuser (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I add an extended thought or two on this? I'm doing this because I sense you're not grasping 'blueboar's concept. I can relate to the idea of 'editorial scrutiny' through my experience in academic writing. Forgive me if I sound patronizing. The best sources you can find are -arguably- peer-reviewed academic journals where the ideas have been tested without partiality to a particular point of view. Next down are published books, periodicals from reputable publishers. The arm's length test means that ostensibly the material has been published with greater regard for accuracy and truth than for pushing the writer's viewpoint. If that arm's length relationship is missing, then we're into the realm of advocacy. This means that hypotheses are proposed without considering all sides of the argument. If you allow these kinds of hypotheses into articles as 'fact', you're polluting wiki.RSuser (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, allowing SPS sources in will create edit wars and endless discussions. I can see it happening now with the Christian Conventions article. RIS is an anti- Christian Convention advocacy group, and citing from their web site and SPS books is going to take much time to vet and weed out. We who are in the group can see the bias immediately. It's going to take time to explain the kind and source of bias to other editors such as nemoman. Do you have time for this? I've taken just the first paragraph as an example, and we have several thousand words of Talk!! Better to not let the cat into the pantry in the first place. RSuser (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have gotten off the topic you introduced - One topic publishing house acceptable as RS? and are now arguing on this page the same arguments you have been making for some time on the Christian Conventions talk page. It appears you are shopping for an advocate to agree with you. I will answer the concerns you raise on the Christian Conventions talk page. Please allow these good editors to address the question of reliable sources and your specific question. --nemonoman (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a direct response to Donama's idea (and yours previously stated) that in the absence of reliable sources we should allow ones that are not reliable. In fact, we have been arguing this endlessly in the CC article. Let's get some input from some editors who have broader experience. Frankly I'm tired of having to argue wiki policies based on your and my personal interpretations of them. So let's do it here.RSuser (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User RSuser has asked me to answer his "logic" here rather than on the CC talk page where it belongs. Here goes.

He writes: The arm's length test means that ostensibly the material has been published with greater regard for accuracy and truth than for pushing the writer's viewpoint.

Wherever did he get the idea that a publisher was going to assert a regard for accuracy and truth? The bias of publishers is so well-known that Jay Leno makes jokes about it and 8 million people laugh.

He writes: If that arm's length relationship is missing, then we're into the realm of advocacy. This means that hypotheses are proposed without considering all sides of the argument.

Wherever did he get the idea that reliable sources are free of advocacy, or that they consider all sides of an argument? What in the world? Name 10 publishers that achieve this lofty ideal.

He writes: We who are in the group can see the bias immediately. I'd prefer editors on this topic to write and not cite at all, than to cite poor quality sources. It's going to take time to explain the kind and source of bias to other editors such as nemoman. In fact, I have suggested in the past that we leave uncited material in the article, as long as the material is NPOV and non-controversial.

So long, apparently is it is HIS uncited material or material HE believes to be NPOV and noncontroversial.

In other words -- once again: Members may decide these things better than non-members. Members may define bias. Members may define POV and NPOV. Members may create uncited "facts" if they are "non-controversial". Citations and references? Who needs them? Scholarship be damned. Research be damned.

And I have a hypothetical question for RSuser: How am I to know that you are in the group. How do I know that your determinations are correct. What Reliable Source are you prepared to present as a credential of your bona fides that you are in the group and may therefore decide what counts as NPOV and non-controversial and not therefore needs no further citation?

This is just nuts. --nemonoman (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never written anything for the article. I'd like to see a much smaller article. I've been concerned with both pro- and anti- POV edits. My comment above is not to be taken as advocating "members only" input. A pro- reader sees the anti- bias, and an anti-reader sees the pro- bias. If anything my bugbear is that the writing from all sides has never been anywhere near an academic or NPOV level. It would take a lot of work to show the anti-POV edits in the article at this point, and I'd rather just remove the badly sourced stuff than argue everything out. Many of the edits are in an ideological context that is not well understood outside the pro- and anti- movement crowd. The non-trinitarianism debate is a good example of how difficult and how long it takes to work out these issues. In many cases editors are trying to do academic work that academics haven't done yet, so I think the best is to leave it aside. Don't say anything.RSuser (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As for me being in the group or not, who cares. As I said I have no wish to add anything myself to this particular article.RSuser (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing cited material is just as unreasonable as adding uncited material. Or as reasonable. Without reasonable references that back up your assertions, adding material pr removing material or demanding the removal or insertion of such material are all equally nonproductive.

Having to waste my valuable time on these demands, based solely on your assertion that something is wrong or POV or biased or whatever -- or on the assertions of others who claim membership in the group -- which membership, by the way is not proved -- has been a tremendous waste of my time. There is simply no satisfying or accomodating you or others who want the article to read differently. You make no attempt to find reference in support for your demands. You just demand. If you don't get your way, you claim that referenced material is incorrect. If you can't prove it's incorrect, you shop around for others to support your views. You have become troublesome. --nemonoman (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Things certainly cannot be a free-for-all, but it seems to me that restrictions and burden on editors on the level being hinted at in places here would be devastating. Many WP articles cite material from single-topic publishing houses. - even articles which have achieved FA status (see George Fox, among many, many others). Surely no one really wants to take this to its conclusion and go through Wikipedia ripping out references on that basis. • Astynax ^talk 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try again... I agree that we should not automatically call every publication from every single-topic publishing house a self-published source... however, because a great many self-published sources (especially those pushing minority and fringe views) are published by single-topic publishing houses, I think a yellow flag of caution should be raised when we come upon something published by one. In other words, when we come upon a source published by a single-topic house, we should not rush call a source "self-published" purely because of who published it. Instead we should take the attitude that it might be self-published. We need to look deaper and see if there is anything "fishy" going on. Final determination will greatly depend on what degree of "fishiness" is discovered, and how badly it smells. A lot will depend on the specific source, the specific author, the specific publishing house, and how all these things are, or are not, connected. Reliability is not always a black and white clear cut issue. Blueboar (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Caution's good. And there can be gray areas, the perception of which can be colored by individual editor's perspectives - there are many subjects where this is particularly apt to occur. I think I may be seeing where you may be pointing. If I can again use the George Fox article as an illustration to see if I'm getting it:

The Fox article is almost entirely based upon sources published by Society of Friends-related small, single-topic publishers. Apart from the fact that they are single-topic, the publishers are very much pro-Fox. Most of the best materials on Fox have been published by Quaker authors and publishers.

That should raise the yellow flag you indicated (I agree). Though bias can always be assumed, that does not of itself mean that sources do not contain objective and even necessary information, or that they are not RS. Article's editors can cite from those sources, but it would mean being careful as to what information was gleaned (separating opinion from facts, and even providing backup sources where possible). Watch out for publishers pushing fringe theories (“Fox was an alien from Zelgon, who implanted nanochips into Charles II's head, thus turning the British Royal family into a race of zombies”). And if there is a better source that supports the article, use it. If that's where you are going, then I think editors can work with that. • Astynax ^talk 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It comes back to whether the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy

WP:RS. If third-party authoritative sources are happy to cite the publisher's material as fact then it's an RS; if no thrid party soruces ever cite them, or cite them only in an arm's length way, then not an RS. The bias of the source need not affect its reliability for matters of fact.Martinlc (talk

) 10:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is simply no satisfying or accomodating you or others who want the article to read differently. I have tried to make exactly four edits to the article which are documented and defended in the Talk section First Paragraph. I agreed to hold off on these edits pending the resolution of this discussion. I don't see how that merits being called 'troublesome'. As it stands we once had an article with a dozen collaborators that has been replaced wholesale by a single writer using primarly one self-published source, RIS, and its original research. Check the article and see if this is not so. RSuser (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to look deaper [sic] and see if there is anything "fishy" going on. Are you suggesting that we need to have an open discussion about RIS on the Christian Convention talk page? I personally would rather not do that. Do the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, et al allow citations from their anti- and attack sites? I was hoping editors could look at the RIS materials and offer an opinion as to whether RIS is a self-published source and whether it should be used. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this page. In the absence of an outright ruling, clearer guidance is requested. Here is a quote from nemoman which he placed on the CC Talk page. Here's the New Nemo: You don't like something that has a reference or citation? Find a better one. End of story. That unfortunately is what we have to deal with. According to him the quality of the source is not an issue. If we are to take the principle that we source using a "best available" approach as Donama and Nemoman are advocating ... well, let's say it's not what I'm used to.RSuser (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, et al allow citations from their anti- and attack sites?... Um... yes, actually, they do. Or at least they should. Inclusion of the Anti POV helps keep the article

Neutral. But that is a different debate. Blueboar (talk

) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The [George] Fox article is almost entirely based upon sources published by Society of Friends-related small, single-topic publishers. The George Fox article appears to be based on his journals (primary source) and publications of the Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press and a few other legitimate publishers.RSuser (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

if no thrid party soruces ever cite them, or cite them only in an arm's length way, then not an RS. To my knowledge there are no third party sources that cite RIS. I stand corrected though. Clarification request - by third party, do you mean third party reliable sources? Because the various 'attack' web sites do quote and even plagiarize each other.RSuser (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another summary. I have gotten people upset because I do want to outright blank or remove unsourced or badly sourced material. I want to remove it based on the quality of the source. I don't want to argue whether the statement is right or wrong, because that comes down to he said-she said. Without quality sources, argumentation is futile. I do not want to do research based on primary sources to reach a conclusion (as per antiTrinitarianism discussion). If a respected authority has done all the legwork and can be cited I'm fine with that. Further, I know of only three reliable sources that can be used for summary hypotheses of this nature, Melton, Jaenen and Jaenen in the Canadian Encyclopedia. I'm also not against simple narrative or statement of facts based on primary sources or no sources. But as soon as we get into areas of ideology IMO we need airtight reliable sources. That's my position; if I am not in line with wiki policies, just tell me and I will back off. (I don't mean you nemoman). RSuser (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since RSuser has suggested that I am misrepresenting him, and further has requested that I address this concern on this page rather than the CC talk page where I believe the information belongs, I do respond:

...an article with a dozen collaborators that has been replaced wholesale by a single writer using primarly one self-published source, RIS, and its original research. Check the article and see if this is not so.

I have checked the article, which now contains 74 footnotes referencing 24 sources of which two (2) are publications of RIS, the publisher that RSuser is worked up about (which by the way is NOT a 'self-published source' as he asserts).

I will note that RSuser has changed tactics here, getting away from the question "One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?" and now requesting views on whether an "anti-" publisher's works may be cited in Wikipedia. And when he gets an opinion that publications cited by others pass the "fishiness" test, he now demands to know if he can dispute the validity of THOSE doing the citing as well.

I think the simplest approach here would be to say: RSuser, you are RIGHT. Wikipedia will never accept as reliable published by RIS -- or by any other group that you consider to be 'anti-'.

RSuser, being a member of this group, clearly knows best. If he says it's not reliable because it's 'anti-', I think think the best thing to do is to agree, as there appears to be no way to end this other than to simply accede to his opinions and demands. --nemonoman (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why I say that there is no accomodating this user.

"The bias of the source need not affect its reliability for matters of fact." -- Martinlc (talk) 6:11 am, Today (UTC-4)

"I do want to outright blank or remove unsourced or badly sourced material. I want to remove it based on the quality of the source. I don't want to argue whether the statement is right or wrong." RSuser (talk) 10:39 am, Today (UTC−4)

And based on my experience, this argument will continue unless and until RSuser gets what he wants. I recommend full compliance with his approach as soon as possible, and a revision of guidelines to give top priority to an editor's opinion of a fact (rather than the fact's accuracy).--nemonoman (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's twice now that you claim I go off topic when rebutting an assertion made by YOU. Anyway first of all, you seem not to understand the difference between "the quality of the source" and "the bias of the source". I've never said we should reject RIS because of their bias. They are amateur researchers, IMO. It's the quality I'm concerned about. Second, I've only ever asked about whether RIS is an acceptable source to wikipedia. I have made little or no case that it should or should not be. I certainly have my opinion, but I hold that in abeyance, because I'd like to know what more experienced editors think. If we allow amateur, unacademic research to be cited, then so be it.RSuser (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as the article being sourced from RIS, I think you'll find that many of the primary sources used have been compiled and are referenced from the RIS site. How many of the references are SPS sold or printed by RIS or primary sources that are stored on the RIS site? Anyone can go and look at the CC article and test my assertion but perhaps I went too far. I'm just using RIS as a test case. There are plenty of other attack/ anti- sites and if this one is rejected I assume the others would be also since the quality and lack of academic research is similar. But I'm not trying to prejudice the case - I'm pretty sure that in spite of whatever aspersions I come up with, they can make up their own mind. I'd just like editors to go and look, read some on the site, and tell me what they think based on their experience.RSuser (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, nemoman, what is YOUR assessment of the quality of RIS as a source? I don't know if you've ever said either.RSuser (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am not hard to accomodate. I ask only for answers, I really don't care what the answer is. Tell me what the answer is and I will adjust my behaviour accordingly. If RIS and similar sources are acceptable, then I will no longer attempt to blank badly sourced points. If they are not acceptable, then I will. RSuser (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked and of the 74 cites, 28 are to Fortt or Daniel, the two books directly printed by RIS and mentioned above. Most of the remaining quotes are primary sources.RSuser (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a hard one. The "church" itself has no organizational structure, so the publisher is more or less by definition "independent" of that non-existent structure. Being the official "spokespeople" for the body would make it acceptable as an SPS, but it probably doesn't qualify as such. The question then becomes is the publisher reliable in its own right. Generally, if the source is relied on by others, it is, basically, reliable. As the subject being written about is one that isn't written about very often, though, it's hard to find any other sources which have used it, and it's also somewhat hard to find other works which even cover the subject so that they would have a reason to use such sources. The site doesn't seem to have tried to gloss over the group's negative aspects, including links to pieces regarding sexual abuse in the group, etc., so my guess would be that it probably qualifies as a marginally reliable source. Information sourced from other publishers, who are better known and/or have a broader reputation, might well be better, and should be used if available, but I would think this publisher would be an acceptable source for significant, not apparently controversial material about the group if other better sources aren't available. Having said that, I'd welcome input from others as well. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The site doesn't seem to have tried to gloss over the group's negative aspects, including links to pieces regarding sexual abuse in the group, etc., so my guess would be that it probably qualifies as a marginally reliable source. Actually they are trying to expose as much negative material about the group as possible. If you look at the title screen (main link above) their avowed purpose is to lead people away from the teachings of the group, and back to the Word of God. Just thought I would clarify that one point, don't know if it makes a difference. A good example of the writing style is here: [40]. The Doctrine section near the bottom of the page is indicative. Draw your own conclusions. RSuser (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the lack of author name or corporate information makes it a

WP:SPS of unknown reliability: it could be complete fiction. If there was an About us section for RIS and some hint about their expertise in the area it would be a start, but as it is even simple data like death dates for individuals may be incorrect.Martinlc (talk

) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to RSuser for setting the record straight. --nemonoman (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Martinlc wrote: I think the lack of author name or corporate information makes it a WP:SPS of unknown reliability: it could be complete fiction,

I hold in my hand a wonderful book called "Sexual Life in Ancient India" which I used in researching my book on Indian eunuchs. A 1930 English Translation of a scholarly german work. My volume is a reprint, clearly from old plates, republished in the late 1980s by "Dorset PRess" which on careful inspection one finds is a division of Barnes and Noble.

Now if you google Dorset Press, you will find no information about it at all. Further it's pretty clear that nobody -- not Dorset, not B&N, not anybody, vetted or reviewed the info in this book. They just slammed through the photolithographers and out the door.

Yet this book IS a very edifying source book on this unusual topic. I've had to share it with a number of Oriental scholars, all of whom appreciated its information, not one of whom doubted its authenticity or accuracy (I asked). But you can't find good publisher information on it.

So is this another SPS? Is masthead information from google searches to be our determinant of reliablity?

I will be very glad when we adopt the suggestions of RSuser, so that such questions become at last inconsequential. When we do, at last!, simply calling a publisher unreliable is all that will be required -- no concern for actual facts involved. --nemonoman (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the INFORMATION that has been quoted in RIS-published references and citations, I DO have an opinion. Those statements appear correct and correctly referenced, and are not influenced excessively by bias or POV -- at least that's how it seems to this observer.

What does "appear correct" mean? How did you determine that the statements on RIS or from RIS "appear correct"? Is the appearance of correctness how we determine what's a reliable source? I'm still left wondering how you made that determination. RSuser (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can also turn your question around and ask, "Can someone use a source just because they SAY it is reliable?". I mean you say it is, and I say it is not. You just want to be able to declare out of thin air that this is a reliable source, and add your opinions to the article on that basis. RSuser (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the rest, again you incorrectly capture what I've been saying so if you don't mind I'll let that pass.RSuser (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you do have a dog in this, as witnessed by the tacit alliance you formed with the article writer on your talk page. You told him to stay out of this argument so that you could go to bat for him, correct? That would seem to indicate your mind was already made up long before. I have no problem with the alliance, but don't imply that your mind is open about this matter.RSuser (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did I SAY this??? Those statements appear correct and correctly referenced, and are not influenced excessively by bias or POV' YIKES!! God, what WAS i thinking???? What I meant to say was: How can a simple statement about the simple definition of a simple term be correct -- IF IT APPEARS IN A BOOK PUBLISHED BY RIS!!!???!!? My background, experience, intelligence, scholarship are USELESS NOW. I have been coerced by a one-topic publisher!!! Those RIS BASTARDS! Let's quick get rid of these referenced materials! The members know best!!! That's what I meant to say. Sorry. --nemonoman (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. You have no idea how to tell if a source is reliable or not, which is why we're here. I might have thought you'd comment on the level of editorial scrutiny at RIS but that would be too much to expect. RSuser (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that unless we can say who RIS are, where they got their information, and what they did to check its authenticity, the 'information' they provide cannot be an RS, unless we can find other RSs who have cited it. Nemonoman's example of the Indian eunuch book has got a named auther, a named publisher, a known publishing history, a named translator, and will have been cited by others, which isn't the same thing. In the absence of any information about RIS, we cannot tell how reliable their material is. But (to clarify) this doubt is not ebcause they are a 'single topic publisher'. If it is genuinely the case that there are no references other than RIS for this group, (in , for example, a history or encyclopedia of religious movements), it is doubtful that they are

Notable.Martinlc (talk

) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Martinlc, but I think you came in a little late. The materials being cited here are from BOOKS published by RIS, not from the website itself. Books can be bought on Amazon etc., are not ibooks but actual books, the books have introductions by scholars, the books have footnotes, notes, and references, etc., and authors named and I suppose contactable for further verification. I would agree that citing some random page off the RIS website would be dubious indeed. But again, we're talking about BOOK CITATIONS here. See the article for examples, with actual page numbers, etc. And as RSuser has pointed out, these books HAVE been cited by OTHER sources -- which to his mind places THOSE sources under suspicion as well. What RSuser is saying that because some aspects of RIS may be less than OK RS, does that not throw ALL materials related to RIS under suspicion. And also any source that has cited RIS. Etc. And the sooner we agree with him, the better.--nemonoman (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in no hurry, as I've indicated before. First, there are a few published reliable sources on the group, the Canadian Encyclopedia, the American Encyclopedia of Religion (Melton), and a chapter in a book by historian Cornelius Jaenen. There are many primary sources dating prior to 1910 but very few since. The various SPS sources have been set up by the anti-cult movement and also by various ex-members with varying degrees of editorial integrity. RIS is actually not all that bad, their critique is mostly a polemic based on religious argument and on doctrinal matters they appear overly eager to distance the group from mainstream Christianity. But on simple factual matters they seem pretty good. Another site, Telling the Truth, by Cherie Kropp, has acquired a good reputation among ex-members and some members. (Only a very few members participate actively on these sites). From those two, there are a dozen or so more sites in descending levels of quality and venom. All I've said is that these sites participate together. A number of them are registered to the same server. I would think the circularity of the sites neither adds or takes away from their editorial integrity. There is only one academic who has done any work in the field, Cornelius Jaenen. He is a member of the group and routinely discredited by the anti- sites and by the author of the present article doesn't seem to like him much either. Here is a brief CV: [41]. IMO, his work should take priority over these SPS sites when there's a dispute. Is that correct?RSuser (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RSuser writes: You have no idea how to tell if a source is reliable or not, which is why we're here.. You're the one questioning the source. What suggests to you that a SINGLE FACT REFERENCED FROM AN RIS BOOK in incorrect? RSuser writes: I know of only three reliable sources that can be used for summary hypotheses of this nature, Melton, Jaenen and Jaenen in the Canadian Encyclopedia. As you asked of me, I now ask of you -- tell me how you came to KNOW the level of 'editorial scrutiny' that makes these the three and only three reliable sources. Also explain if you will how actual source documents written by the early workers may not be considered reliable sources. Three and only three reliable sources...Nice. They'd love this in Iran, and the sooner we adopt these principles, the sooner everyone will be happy. --nemonoman (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone else could answer this? Why the American Encyclopedia of Religion by Melton or a book called 'The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship' by this writer [42] is considered a more reliable source than the RIS site? RSuser (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing the answer to this too, and perhaps RSuser can provide us with some insight into HIS reasoning. The book is actually titled Encyclopedia of American Religions

ISBN 0787663840 for those interested. What interersts me is that it is published by Gacl. Gacl publishes a number of scholarly works, see here. However: no website. No googlable information. No information about who they are, where they are from, what motivates their editorial scrutiny, etc. In fact, as a former college textbook editor and former university press editor, I can state without much doubt that many of their books have extremely limited commercial value, if any, and the impression one gets of their backlist is that Gacl may be a respectable vanity press for academics. So RSuser, tell us why this is a Reliable Source? Or you can follow MY logic which is this: Content is King. --nemonoman (talk

) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Gale Publishing is a publisher with a reputation for factchecking and accuracy, and produces a great volume of books which are including in my local libraries' reference collections, which indicates their reputation. The author of the book, J. Gordon Melton, is one of the most highly regarded experts on the subject of religion in America alive today. I would have to say that Melton's work is among the most reliable sourcing out there, and is, in fact, among those I most frequently use myself. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John, that is good to know. See my response to your point on the founder question. I will also obtain my own copy. Under $10 on abebooks!RSuser (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One topic publishers - Random Break 2

As to Jaenen's The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship

Within less than 200 pages, in the midst of a 17-century overview of heretical and mainstream movements, apparently, the Christian Convention gets a mention. So that's supposed to be go-to Reliable Source, to the exclusion of others actually written about the subject. Again I ask...Huh? --nemonoman (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, my colleague RSuser said to me: You have no idea how to tell if a source is reliable or not, which is why we're here.... I agree that he has put the question. And in fact I do. My idea on how to tell is the same as the ideas repeatedly expressed by the editors above.

Yet still we have to be confronted with more and more complaints, doubtful reasons, and most recently the RSuser List of Approved and Reliable Sources. Based on his examples however I'm hard pressed to say why his Go-to Reliable Sources are any more reliable than the ones he has earlier disparaged so vociferously.

And I further ask: When will RSuser begin to acknowledge that his topic question has indeed been answered -- not once, but many times above, and always with the same simple answer. When will he begin to ACCEPT the answer he has been given, and not bounce back with yet more creative reasons why the answer should be different. When? --nemonoman (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On further review, I do understand why RSuser has picked these sources, or at Jaenen. Jaenen is a member of RSusers church, the Christian Convention in fact, he is cited as one of the church historians. As a member, he is more reliable, apparently. The Melton encyclopedia appears to have been cobbled together from contributions from various authors, and I don't doubt that RSuser knows or suspects that the article on his church was written by Jaenen or another member.

So it all comes down to this in the end: Members only. --nemonoman (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice to live in an egalitarian world where every source can be trusted equally. Sorry, I will trust the work of a credentialed historian at a leading Canadian university published by an actual publisher over a no name web site whose avowed goal is to lead people out of our movement back to their version of the Bible.RSuser (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The last comment 'members only' is uncalled for. There is no members' input in the article. I ask only that the non-members' writing be fair. If we allow in the misinformation from these anti- web sites, I will give up on the article and you can have your way - a one author article as you see fit.RSuser (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked -- BEGGED -- REPEATEDLY for even ONE instance OF an the article referencing misinformation from these anti- web sites. Just ONE instance. Do you ever plan to do provide one?

Talk:Christian_Conventions#First_Paragraph Discussion of content issues in the first paragraph of the article.RSuser (talk

) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link to the books in the opening line, and discussed the books. However, we are discussing the publisher and the same publisher provides the web site and the books. Both are relevant.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You suggested that the article in question was written by only one author citing only works from one doubtful SPS. This also misled the board, who may not have time to investigate and prove the error of your spurious claim. The article has many authors, including me. It has 24 references, of which only 2 come from your suspect source. It has 48 footnotes that come from various other sources.

That is entirely incorrect. The original article is completely gone. A new article was provided wholesale by astynax a few months ago. Since that time there have been other edits. My exact count on quotes is above. Perhaps you read it?RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You have further muddied the waters by suggesting that other "Anti Websites", likely SPSs, are being cited as references. Again there is no basis for this charge which is designed, in my opinion, only to inflame and misdirect.

If you read above, you can see my evaluation on RIS. Their goal, very clearly, is to discredit the movement and lead members out of the movement back to the Bible. They are an 'anti-movement' web site like all the others. Some of these web site have a degree of integrity, even though against the movement. Just saying it is 'anti-' is not necessarily an issue. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do these things? Why would you burden editors who have better things to do. You may have provided an answer on your talk page:

If I disagree with something or think it is wrong, the first thing I will question is the quality of the source. Why? Because it saves a lot of wrangling. If the source is SPS, or there is no source, I can insist the point be withdrawn.

It's an interesting stratagem: Don't bother with the accuracy of the reference, just question the quality of the source.

Regarding this last sentence. I believe this is called the RS Noticeboard and it's purpose is to determine just that question.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have lost any credibility, and I suggest that the honorable thing for you to do would be to drop this spurious effort to win points by arguing law instead facts. I thought you had good intent when you posted here. I believe now that you only wished to find a devious way to argue against facts you did not like, not sources after all. This despite the specific instruction above:This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

That's doubly ironic. First, you ask me why I have not brought content into the discussion, and now you accuse me of it. Second, you're the one blowing up all this smoke, and I'm just trying to defend myself. Then you accuse me of wasting people's time. Does anyone else think I am wasting their time? If that reflects a consensus of opinion, other editors can let me know and I won't darken wiki's door any longer. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should apologize to the editors of this noticeboard for your misuse of their time.--nemonoman (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh-kay. See previous comment.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also YOU are the one who has unilaterally declared that works by only two authors are reliable, and one is a historian for the group of which you are a member.

That is correct. I have found only three reliable 'secondary' sources, and they are by two authors. Most of the things I say are indeed "unilateral declarations" as opposed to mere opinion. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally you made the comment: "If a member disputes what is said or how it is said means that you should seriously consider deleting the point. "So I might be forgiven for suggesting that you are erecting a 'members only' sign atop this article.--nemonoman (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The context of my comment is when wikipedia transgresses into purely ideology and religious belief discussions. Non-falsifiable, untestable premises. That is quite clear if you read the entire dialogue with astynax. In any case, this seems to be more irrelevant smoke from you. I would suggest that you resist copying and pasting comments from one part of wiki to another as you do, because I'm getting tired of cleaning up the trail.RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be cutting and pasting THIS new one, believe me: Most of the things I say are indeed "unilateral declarations" as opposed to mere opinion. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC). You are a piece of work.

That was sarcasm. Hoo boy.

I again ask you to stop bothering the members of this noticeboard with a discussion that rightly belongs on the article's talk page. Maybe you don't feel an apology is necessary. OK. But as long as you are ignoring this principle: This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content., moving this discussion to its proper venue would be a kindness and courtesy these editors deserve. --nemonoman (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Move what you want, wherever you want. I really could care less at this point. RSuser (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'Ill be cutting and pasting THIS new one'

I'll bet you will.RSuser (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification and apologies for a misleading statement

In my comments above I make a number of statements about Melton's encyclopedia, and a number of sarcastic remarks about its publisher Gacl. I've been informed that I was in error. GALE not Gacl, is the primary publisher of this work. Gale is a well-known academic publisher with a reputation for legitimacy. I apologize that my comments may therefore have misled others as I myself was misled.

When I looked up Melton on Amazon, I apparently found the one instance Melton's publisher was listed as gaCL, not galE. To compound this error, when I googled galC, a number of academic books and encyclopedias listed as published by galC.

See google for Gacl publisher here. The fourth item on the page is this which lists a number of academic texts. So I believed that gaCL was a legitimate publisher's name.

galC, as you might imagine does NOT have a home page, etc., etc. So I NOW see that galE, not gaCL is the publisher, and this removes any rationale for my comments.

My comments in the RS dialogue throughout were trying to see why a publisher with a single-minded list, however, would be considered a Non-RS, based on that criteria alone. To be told that a book from RIS, for example, should not be considered reliable BECAUSE CONTACT INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE seemed to me to be a VERY doubtful reason indeed to make such a declaration. I've seen Melton around in various libraries, and it's clearly a big honking piece of scholarship. A consideration of its reliability should NOT be based, in my view, in whether or not the publisher has a website consistent with the expectations of certain editors. The CONTENT must be a primary factor, if indeed not the ONLY factor. My comments saying that the publisher had no website, and therefore Melton must considered as suspect as RIS were based on my Google errors. But the BACKGROUND of those comments -- that a publisher's website should not trump content: I believe that in that regard my logic stands.

Please note that Amazon lists 2 other publishers for the cited Melton encyclopedia, in addition to Gale and Gacl -- McGrath Publishing (google shows a newspaper group in Kansas) and Triumph Books (google shows a Chicago sports publisher). Also, amazon lists Melton as the author of Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology and The Vampire Book: Encyclopedia of the Undead. So raising the issue of Publisher Credibility for an RS, or other views that an author might hold as a criteria for RS, seems to me a questionable enterprise.

But I screwed up, and I wish to make amends by clarifying and apologizing here. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

Thanks for everyone's input. I've written an ultra-brief guideline which I think accurately reflects consensus here. Please have a quick look and let me know if this is okay.

Back in 2003 it was apparently ok to use Jack_the_Ripper,_Light-Hearted_Friend and the book it is based on as a basis to list Lewis Carroll as a "suspect." Another editor agrees it is "ludicrous" but avers consensus (back in 2007?) was to keep him in the list. The question is, is a book which was deliberately speculative a "reliable source" by current WP standards? Is the source sufficiently reliable to place Lewis Carroll in the list of suspects in the Jack the Ripper article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The article title in question was shortened from earlier versions about "named as suspects" or "possible suspects". In this instance it's a list of noteworthy people who have been mentioned in multiple reliable sources (our standards there have generally been at least one book primarily dedicated to that person as a suspect or extensive listing in multiple important books is required to be mentioned specifically -- there are about 200+ people who have been named total, most just are not notable). This listing is not saying the person was a *police suspect* or even a *good suspect* but well known in the field of Ripperology as having been named as a suspect, right or wrong, and mentioned as such. The list of reliable sources saying that an author devoted a whole book from a mainstream publisher to claiming Lewis Carroll was a suspect is a mile long, and there was also extensive global news coverage when the book was released. Collect apparently wants the name removed because he finds it personally ludicrous: well, lot's of people do, but it's NOTABLY ludicrous, and that's what the mentions say. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And naming a person as a "suspect" when the accusation is "notably ludicrous" is not a valid list by WP standards. WP is not a collection of lists of ludicrous value. I can find a slew of sources saying that a book was written about the "Priory of Sion" but that does not mean that Sion belongs in a list of real priories. Collect (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article title is not List of ''real'' Jack the Ripper suspects by your definition of real. He was really suspected. So much so a book was written solely about that topic published by a reputable press and gained widespread press coverage. Frankly, any coverage of Ripper suspects that excludes ridiculous ones would give an inaccurate picture of how wild and wooly authors on the topic are. Most experts think Bigfoot is ridiculous, but there's an article on him. We mention the crazy ideas that got widespread attention but don't give them undue weight and represent the expert view. Same thing on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're overstretching. The article begins, "the identity of the killer has been hotly debated, and over one hundred Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed. Though many theories have been advanced, experts find none widely persuasive, and some can hardly be taken seriously at all." It's clearly set out that the aim of the article is to discuss all the varied theories, even those not taken seriously. Other sections clearly discuss fictional works which use historic persons as the culprit. The content of the section on Carroll is just a similar set of bald statements: "The book was written. It contained this. No-one took it seriously." It isn't being used to support any fringe theory or outrageous claims, and it fits in with the other content. If necessary the opening could be made plainer by adding to the opening statement, "...over one hundred Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed in works of both fiction and non-fiction."

talk

) 08:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with everything except that last line. There are actually some 200 or more suspects named just in nonfiction, if you add fiction it shoots up drastically, with suspects like "Dracula," "alien called Redjac that later was on the starship Enterprise" and etc. This article was originally titled "

List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects", which I think is more accurate but others felt was too long and unnecessary. The sorting of how can be considered a legitimate suspect is highly POV and extremely controversial, as I know you are aware but others here may not. I think the splitting of the sections into "police suspects" "other contemporary suspects" and "by later authors" helps sort that end out. DreamGuy (talk

) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with DreamGuy here (I know, i was surprised, too!); though Collect makes an important point, User: DrKiernan hits the nail on the head by pointing out that we include ludicrous statements in articles all the time; so long as they are cited to the self-important jackasses who either have the stones or, conversely, the lack of a solid reasoning ability to make them. I would think that, if Collect is determined to point out that the statement is ludicrous, take the time to point out where other publications by reliable sources point out that it's ludicrous. We aren't citable as evaluative sources, and our

neutral. But don't worry, Collect - everyone posting here has made the same mistake. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?. — R² 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Not seeing other reputable sources agreeing it's reliable, etc. etc. And the information is arguably not notable even if a reliable source could be found. DreamGuy (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably is reliable, but in most cases it may cause BLP issues. It appears to be a site based on public records of political contributions. I have no reason to believe this isn't reliable, but are we going to look up every BLP to see which campaigns they donated to? Didn't we have a guideline on "obscure public information" or did that not go anywhere? So anyway I'd say reliable, but leave it out for BLP reasons. If a secondary source brings up someone's political donations as newsworthy then it may be appropriate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. For whatever reason, it seems best to leave this piece of info out. — R² 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsmeat is used everywhere on wikipedia. It would seem that the fervor around Prince involves the fact that he donated to a Republican. If he donated to a Democrat, no problem. Don't believe me? Hit the search button and look for Newsmeat. There are quite a few articles that link to it so, for now, I'm undoing your edits.

talk

) 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is blatantly inappropriate behavior. Just because

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that does not mean we have to use it on the Prince article. — Please comment R²

02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with that. This is simply a source and additional section, it's not like i'm starting a whole new article. Who's rights am I infringing upon by pointing out his political donation, which is a common addition to an article?

talk

) 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I question the relevance of inserting a reference to a single political contribution into a BLP article, I would note that substantially the same information found on Newsmeat can also be found at the
  Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this be considered a

My friend from the organization has made a draft at

Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if the

The main problem with blogs is they tend to be anonymous or written by people without any particular credentials... but in this case the guy seems to have some experience. He appears to be writing in a blog-ish style though, a bit more speculative than you'd find in a conventional newspaper article... I think you'd be okay if you write, "Journalist James Kanter argues that..." rather than just writing about his arguments as accepted facts, if you follow me. --

Chiliad22 (talk

) 02:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See this edit. I accept that it's a good faith attempt to an attempt to find a reference I requested earlier... but I'm still not sure if it's acceptable. Even if the source is reliable, does it justify that category? --

See the "siting sexuality" section above for requirememnts of a source to demonstrate sexuality. In this case if the info is not in the article with reliable sources where the person him- or herself admits it backing it up, then it should not be a category. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't listen to the podcast (the article is a summary of the podcast) but it sounds like she's wondering if she's facing homophobia, not that she's actually saying she identifies as LGBT. --

Chiliad22 (talk

) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand the skepticism, but check out the podcast starting around the 5:30 mark. She states "I'm already out" twice within 45 seconds.

The sites {http://www.oikotimes.com} and {http://www.esctoday.com} are extensively used for citations on articles about the Eurovision Song Contests, sometimes being the sole source. These sites appear to be blogs / fan sites, containing un-referenced reports, with no indication of reliability, editorial policy or referencing as reliable by other sources. I have judged them as unreliable, would appreciate other comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you already ask this? It just scrolled into the most recent archive, #36. At any rate, it appears the sites do have an editorial staff, the main issue was that some articles were citing those two sources almost exclusively and dozens of times in the same article. I suggested a greater diversity of sources be used. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I did ask this before but yours was the only answer. There is no evidence of an editorial staff, just appeals to volunteers to become editors and requests for donations. Hence my asking again. Could editors please look at the sources and assess their reliability? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I take the above comment about the only answer back. I see that User: Rettetast did answer, commenting that they thought these were not reliable sources here [44]. I missed that when the first thread was archived. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that there is now an RfC on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision#RfC_on_reliable_sources_for_Eurovision_articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Neither UrbanDictionary.com nor its published derivative works are a Reliable Source according to the website owner/book "author's" own remarks in which he clearly states:

"Urban Dictionary doesn’t require definitions to be objective or factual. Lots of definitions are extremely subjective or provably wrong!...It wasn’t heavily researched or fact-checked...There are a lot of joke definitions ...per Aaron Peckham, owner/compiler of Urban Dictionary products discussing his published "Urban Dictionary" book.[45] "

Is the Urban Dictionary a Reliable Source? The Urban Dictionary's primary definition for itself reads:

1. A place formerly used to find out about slang, and now a place that teens with no life use as a burn book to whine about celebrities, their friends, etc., let out their sexual frustrations, show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-(insert religion here) opinions, troll, and babble about things they know nothing about.

Urbandictionary.com isn't a burn book or a webjournal site.

2. An online slang dictionary in which approximately 80% of all words and definitions are sexually related.

"Hey, what in the hell is an Alaskan Firedragon?"

"Dunno, try looking it up at UrbanDictionary.com"

3 Only the coolest semi-fake dictionary ever made... updated by random ppl who usually have a sick mind and quick wit.

Urban Dictionary is a great website if you're bored out of your mind. Or if you just want to see some hilarious material made by ::random ppl who usually have a sick mind and quick wit.

4. The result of millions of teenagers who have too much free time, and have been pre-disposed to the influences of a media run by arrogant megalomaniacs who put more thought into selling impracticle products than making relevent influential television. Thus resulting in the spread of ignorance through the internet comunity via rascism, conformity, mis-information, and the pinnacle of a society ironically corrupted by those who claim to be trying to save the last milligrams of purity and innoscense left in this nuclear prozac nation...

if you found that definition difficult to understand, try using a real dictionary to look up those real words, that people in the real world really use...

21. The largest collection of misleading information I have ever seen on the internet.

"You must have read that in the Urban Dictionary"

It would seem to have no place whatsoever as the basis for any encyclopedic entry. I can see no possible argument for relying upon it to support any serious entry into Wikipedia. There is however a single editor who is pushing it and its derived works of republished compilations as being on equal reliable footing as The Times. Are we to seriously consider anonymous postings on a comedy website as being qualified for citation?99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not at the same level of reliability as The Times. There are a few places where it may be useful, such as articles related to the Urban Dictionary itself or external links in articles on jargon terms. Maybe when used very lightly, for instance to support a statement like "popular definitions vary widely". But that's about it; you wouldn't say the definition of XYZ is W because so-and-so on Urban Dictionary says so. PS. can you condense that question? We've all seen that website before. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the content that was inserted. It say's exactly that. "... you wouldn't say the definition of XYZ is W because so-and-so on Urban Dictionary says so." It has no place being cited as a Reliable Source in support of an article. I accept that the existence of the Urban "dictionary" comedy website can be referred to, but that is an entirely different than than relying upon it's anonymous and amorphous entries.

-

grief porn as "a form of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some form of disaster. It exploits the basic voyeuristic nature of humans who get their rocks off by feeling good by looking at the suffering of others".^[1]

The definition quoted in the Wiki article above currently has 3 "votes" for and 1 against, so I'm not even sure it has even been "elected" the definition yet. Humor, original turnings of a phrase, wit, etc may be found there - Reliable Source citations are not. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. A source is reliable when we can be reasonably sure who wrote it and what their qualifications are. Urban dictionary is anonymous and not edited in any reliable way. The one exception would be the books they've put out, which I believe are edited. But the actual website's definitions are not any better a source than some random Wiki page. --

Chiliad22 (talk

) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

::The books are "edited" in so far as they are compilations of the anonymous website entries. They are merely selections, there are no claims made as to the veracity of the content.99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

::I just looked at the title at Amazon[46], it lists neither editor nor author, it simply credits the owner of the website as "Compiler".99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any contoversy over whether the Urban Dictionary website is a reliable source: It isn't. Archives of this board mae that prett clear as well. There's no need to rehash the same arguments. If you see any article (except perhaps the UD article with noncontroversial info about itself) you should remove it on sight. DreamGuy (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The books might be. My understanding is that in order for something to get in one of the books it needs to have a lot of support. There's no way that the website is in general a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Here is the "author's" own take[47] on his book and the website from which it is derived:

"Urban Dictionary doesn’t require definitions to be objective or factual. Lots of definitions are extremely subjective or provably wrong! But every definition is written by a normal person, and I think that’s where Urban Dictionary’s value comes from" ... "Urban Dictionary doesn’t take itself as seriously as other slang dictionaries. It wasn’t heavily researched or fact-checked. There are a lot of joke definitions — check out the definition for “casual sex” on urbandictionary.com, that defines it as “sex that wears nice trousers and a nice looking polo shirt to work and parties". That’s in the book!"

99.142.2.89 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I myself find it so very refreshing when a brand new user is able to quickly learn to navigate their way around Wikipedia, even though they are just a SPA. No one - I repeat, no one - is suggesting that the quote from UD is a source of remarkable provenance. Despite the mischaracterization of the site as a humor cite, like Funny or Die or some such thing, UD has managed to put some books out. I checked, grief porn is in the published book. We tend to give more weight to published sources like books and other print sources; we do this because, unlike websites, where content is fleeting and without any provenance, we have a static quality for both residing in a published book. Therefore, it >poof!< becomes reliably-sourced. Remove the derisive characterization of the website, and this is the crux of th problem: we cannot cite UD (but can include the reference as an external source), but we can - without any qualms - include a citation from a book. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:::You state above, "I checked, grief porn is in the published book." . The only entry for "grief porn"[48] at the UD has three votes indicating that it is either obscure or new. The entry is clearly dated Feb 12, 2009, as ALL entries are according to the website owner, "Everything is marked with the date it was written,[49]". Your clear and unequivocal assertion of absolute and unimpeachable fact concerning the entry being in the book published prior to that date is false. 99.142.2.89 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold the accusations. How about "What you said seems to me to be wrong. Could you explain?" Keep it

friendly. --Chriswaterguy talk

16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've softened my prose and read your linked policy page with interest; especially the proscription against "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors". 99.142.2.89 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, hi. There's no need to get excited about this. We understand your position, and I think that most of us agree with you. Can you tone down the rhetoric, please, and stop shouting. That's how boldface comes across. You are heard, you are understood, and your opinions are valued. Let's have a nice calm conversation, cool? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, the question for you here is: "How did you check the book, and how can we check it, too?" Can you answer that please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that it's not a

grief porn as "a form of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some form of disaster. It exploits the basic voyeuristic nature of humans who get their rocks off by feeling good by looking at the suffering of others".^[2]

Grief porn is a form of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some form of disaster. It exploits the basic voyeuristic nature of humans who get their rocks off by feeling good by looking at the suffering of others.^[3]

Whether inclusion of such a definition is encyclopedic or not is a different question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unreliable so it's inclusion cannot "clarify" the definition of a word using any encyclopedic standards. Neither of your options is allowed by

WP:Undue also applies (what do we care what some user-generated joke sight thinks?). DreamGuy (talk

) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's reliable for it's own opinions. See

Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. Whether its opinions are significant enough to be worthy of inclusion in an article is outside the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is ongoing, I've added the UD definition as an external source, which dovetails with the linked discussion about UD as a reliable source. I have of course, left out the actual text and citation currently being discussed here. Whether we use the definition and cite it to the book or simply add it as an external link is of little importance; it was only originally added to support previously hard-cited definitions, and was never intended (and is still not, to my reckoning) as anything more than a dovetailing reference agreeing with the better cited examples.

In answer to your question, I contacted a local bookstore and had them verify that the term appeared there. I had tried the library over the weekend, but they don't carry a copy. Frankly, being called a liar steps a little past the 'rhetoric' line and into

incivility territory; that others pointed it out to the SPA is enough. If it recurs, the appropriate reaction will become necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AskMen.com

Resolved

I know questions have been asked her about this site before, but nothing definitive that I can see about using the site regarding actresses' birth dates when no other sources are available. Is this page a reliable source for the actress' birth information? Nightscream (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's owned by News Corporation, and has an editorial staff. I wouldn't get world news from them, or the latest scientific research, but I would expect them to be reliable within their domain, and the age of an actress should fall within this domain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am active editor both on Wikipedia and IMDb. Several years ago, IMDB began a policy of providing reliable sources for changes to an entry's date of birth/place of birth. Surprisingly, Wikipedia wasn't considered reliable (that has changed since then). When entering a person's date of birth/place of birth, editors now have to provide a valid link or a detailed print edition info (such as newspaper, date, page number, etc.).

My question is IMDB a reliable sources for information relating to a film's release? I am have an edit conflict with another editor and this is getting tiring.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. And here's why - For IMDB to be a reliable source (given its current structure as an anonymous forum) it would have to, as you so clearly point out, make and enforce a standard with clear and responsible oversight in which, "editors (would always) have to provide a valid link or a detailed print edition info (such as newspaper, date, page number, etc.)" As the standard for reliability is a suitable supporting citation one is currently able to use the valid links and supporting citations noted at IMDB when they exist, but not the IMDB in and of itself.

::In short, if the IMDB has a supporting reference, follow it and use that citation. If it does not have a supporting cite - then it is not reliable is it? '99.142.2.89 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, that's a good way of going about using information from any questionable or tertiary source (and how many profs will advise students on how to properly use info from WP for their papers, but that's another story). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When providing sources, many gay artists only have articles, briefs, and interviews from online magazine/blog sources. I have provided references for such artists but one editor says that they are not reliable (even after the artists has sat down to do an interview with most of them). Perez Hilton and other internet-base editors publish stories each day. What makes something from a gay-related news/blog site reliable?--XLR8TION (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say interviews in general should be treated as a self-published source. Often there is not much fact checking regarding the claims that the interviewee makes. I've cited them in the past, but generally I use a specific attribution in the text. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Gigs, can you give me an example of how you would source an interview (or blog entry) in an article. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Gigs means that, like in the case of an interview, you'd actually word the text in the article as something like "In a June 2001 interview, (subject) stated that..." and then using a typical footnote ref for the statement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Trust Is All You Need

My and Roux think a TV show can not be used as a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section as that would a form of original research but Trust Is All You Need thinks a TV show can be used as a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section. So is a TV show a reliable source or is it a form of original research? Powergate92Talk 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, I said should not'; I imagine sometimes it is unavoidable. We should rely on secondary sources for plots else we are watching the show and deciding what s important, the very definition of OR. //roux   17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not only me, see the majority of TV show, Film articles, literature articles or other articles that contains a plot section, they do not reference the plot section!. See the majority of the FA and GA articles, they all share on commonality, they don't reference the plot section. See Lost (FA), Stargate (GA), Star Wars (GA), Doctor Who (FA), The Wire (FA) and Carnivàle (FA) among other FA and GA content we have on wikipedia. This is not only a commonality in films and TV shows, but also literature among others. I think we should follow the majority of our best content and the best are FA and FL's, none of them reference plot section because the series is a reference for itself. This is has become common, look through the different FA, FL and GA's and you'll see the majority don't reference the plot section.

Its a good reason why we don't reference a plot section in a film or a tv show, we don't need to use the Cite episode template to say that we got the source for the plot from the episode itself. It goes against what Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy stands for, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

See

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article is the style guidelines for WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section is a link to this discussion. So that is 1 Wikipedia essay, 1 WikiProject style guideline and 1 link to this discussion not three of plenty of other guidelines that agree with you. Powergate92Talk

18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ment this link: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources which states that "motion pictures [...] and television programs" can reference itself. Yes i know they are essays and style guidelines, but its proof, proof that the majority don't include references to plot sections and that the episodes, films, literature works among others can reference itselfm the wikipedia policy even sais it. --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many poorly cited articles on Wikipedia. See

WP:OTHERSTUFF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely; that there are other poorly cited articles is no excuse for you to do so, TIAYN. //roux   18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Trust Is All You Need do not edit others users comments without their permission as you did with my comment in this edit per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, tried to fix my own mistake with my own comment just above your one, sorry..... sorry it won't happen again. --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You may cite a TV episode itself as a primary source in an article, for basic facts about who the characters are, what happens in the plot, etc, though you need at least some secondary sources in the article to establish notability. Most secondary sources, ie articles written by critics, are actually rather poor references for basic plot information, so we need both the secondary and primary sources. Deciding what is important however is not original research. There's a lot of misconceptions about original research floating around on talk pages, but original research simply means that WP should not contain facts that are citable only to Wikipedia. It doesn't have anything to do with how the article is organized, etc, those are editorial decisions. Citing the episode to say "Mr. X did action Y at place Z" in the plot is not original research. If editors go further and add their own speculation on Mr. X's motives that is original research. It looks like another part of the question is about whether inline cites are required. For very general summaries like in our article on "Lost" above I agree we don't need inline cites. If it's for something more specific then we can use a citation template. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia policy sais you can cite a plot summary with the article itself, thats not saying the article is not referenced. The article is the reference. I agree with Squidfryerchef above me, see Gregory House (GA), Cameron Mitchell (GA), Jack O'Neill and James Wilson (GA) among others. These articles uses a combination between webpage references (and books) and episode references. They do this for a reason, not many or very few reliable sources write a detailed biography for a fictional character in a fictional universe, this is were the show comes in, we can reference the characters biography with the episodes themself. --TIAYN (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's a 10,000-foot view like in the article on Lost ( a six-line synopsis of an entire television season, which is expanded in subarticles for each season ), then it makes sense not to do inline references. If it's anything more complicated than that, i.e. keeping track of a character's arc in the Sopranos series, we should either say, this happened in episode XYZ or use the citation template. Just keep in mind

WP:PLOTS to avoid excessive detail. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done some research and this is what I've come up with so far. Per

WP:RS isn't required unless someone challenges the material. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just see this wikipedia policy its states: "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." --TIAYN (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Primary sources are allowed but articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. I am also still waiting for TIAYN to explain precisely how refusing to use reliable secondary sources improves Wikipedia. //roux   21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When have i said that we should refuse using secondary sources? I use them all the time, just not in plot section, see Stargate Atlantis, i've been working on that page for a while. At the reference section you'll see that i have nothing against secondary sources. I just don't think we should include them in plot sections. --TIAYN (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have yet to explain is why not. Many, many people have explained to you why we should. You are maintaining the opposite, and have yet to say anything relevant on why we should not be using secondary sources for the plot summary. While it may be true that one doesn't have to, you are saying we must not, and you must therefore explain exactly why. Which you have not done. You are also not explaining how on earth not including secondary sources improves the encyclopedia. Please do so. My experience of discussions like this is that when people refuse to actually explain why they want something, it's simply because

they like it that way and have no real reasons. I would like to believe you are the exception to this, so please provide the explanations that have been requested of you. //roux  

21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying must not include secondary sources but must not include sources for plot sections if it does not go through the plot in fully detail, an example of a fully detailed plot synoposis is this, but since the wikipedia community does not want and support these kind this is not the problem. A basic detail of a plot are these for example, see Lost_(TV_series)#Season synopses, Stargate SG-1#Series overview and Heroes (TV series)#Synopsis. These synopsis/plots goes through basic events of the series, without ever going in with fully detailed of what happen in each scene. As said by an above user "Most secondary sources, i.e. articles written by critics (and journalists (my com.), are actually rather poor references for basic plot information, so we need both the secondary and primary sources." If we don't go into dept of what happens in each individual episode or include un-notable plot happenings we don't need to add secondary sources.

For a general summary (as seen on the links to the articles i gave you) we don't need need inline cites. If we go further to dept we should use citation templates and secondary sources. We can't always use secondary sources, for an easy reason to. Not all shows or films get major secondary publishing behind their back. Take a look at the Stargate franchise, a big hit but not very popular with the media (big newspapers and magazines).

We don't have to must not, but we don't need to add inline citations/references if we give a general plot summary of the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why no secondary sources is better. I suspect you can't, because there is no good reason. //roux   23:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have

WP:RS for the plot summary, then by all means, use them. If not, they're not required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that is not what he is saying. He is saying we should not use them. There is absolutely no good reason for that, see

WP:OR and should therefore be avoided at all costs. //roux  

21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're preaching to the choir on this one. If it were up to me, everything would require a

WP:RS in a situation where they don't have to. In any case, I believe that the original question has been answered. You should take this back to the article's talk page or you can try Wikipedia Dispute Resolution. Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed and valuable for plot summaries, descriptions of characters, and so on. Writing based on your own viewing of the media is not original research or synthesis, as long as it does not stray from what a reasonable person's objective interpretation of the source would be. To put it another way, there's nothing especially reliable about textual sources as compared to other forms of media. Nevertheless, an article on fiction that only uses primary sources is in danger of failing to demonstrate its subject's relevance in the real world, which is what the writing about fiction guideline is all about. Dcoetzee 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has made this point (don't have the energy today to scale the walls of text ;) ), but it is my understanding that plot summaries are excluded from citation. In place of that citability, we tend to opt for a consensus view of the plot - what the plot actually is to the largest group of contributors. this excludes the esoteric information being

unduly foisted on the article from nutjobinexperienced or socially awkward contributors. Such is to be considered concise and free of bloat. What am I missing in this argument? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters you shouldn't be referring to other editors as nutjobs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem with using the work itself as a reference for a descriptive plot summary. While the work is a first-party or primary source, it is still a reliable source for the events that happen within the work. What one cannot do is include analysis, interpretations, etc. into the summary. This has been settled policy for some time, though it does occasionally become a minor point of contention. You can reference previous discussions at

Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive30#Fiction in Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32#How does "no original research" fit with plot summaries?, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 38#Original research in plot summaries, and Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44#Constructing a fictional character's biography from only primary source - OR/SYN or not?. If an editor thinks that a particular plot summary is not descriptive, then they should either rewrite it, bring it to the attention of another editor, or discuss what points that may be interpretive or analysis on the talk page. However, whole sell deletion should only be used as a last resort when the summary is entirely analytical or interpretive. --Farix (Talk

) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course a television show can be the source for its own plot and basic character information. Primary sources are not forbidden when used to describe itself! They are used for films, television series, books, anime/manga, comics, etc. This has been long standing consensus across these topical areas for a long time, and is reflected in our many featured articles and featured episode lists (all episode summaries in which are "cited" to the episodes themselves), as well as featured chapter, character, and novel lists. As Farix notes, adding analysis, interpretations, etc is what would be OR, not pure plot summary as anyone can refer to the original work to check the summary. Simply summarizing the plot itself is not OR anymore than what we do with ALL reliable sources, which is summarize the salient points in articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary work is fine as long as it is limited to the facts and not analysis. FE, a martial arts film doesn't need a secondary soruce to state that that there's fighting in it, who does it, who wins and loses, etc. It does need a secondary source for describing a character as the strongest, fastest, etc. unless you can quote a phrase from the film itself where a character, narrator or narrative mechanism (such as being crowned "Strongest martial artist") directly says this.陣内_Jinnai 04:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I trust that a book is a sufficient source for a book article, a movie is a sufficient source and a television show is a sufficient source for a television show. (Changing this will also have little to no effect on the amount of factual errors in Wikipedia.) –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those questions which leads me to seriously wonder about the health of Wikipedia. An editor should be discouraged from directly using a primary source to write a summary of it? No matter how this issue is expressed, it still comes over as a rule which is so silly that not only should it be

1. Is the plot summary non-controversial? If so, insisting on a source is being as disruptive as insisting that a source be provided for such non-controversial statements like "Barak Obama is president of the United States" or "France is located in Europe." People who insist on sources for statements like these usually find themselves in trouble for disruption for making an
   unnecessary point
   .
2. Can the plot summary be verified easily enough? Someone above mentioned
   verify
   if a summary of the plot of a given episode is accurate. On the other hand, some episodes of television series (for example, television shows from the 1950s may no longer exist) are hard to obtain in order to verify directly if the plot summary is accurate, so a secondary source should be used.
3. Is the plot summary truly a summary of the plot? I suspect this is what the real disagreement is about. We Wikipedians have a tendency to provide too much detail about certain topics, & I wouldn't be surprised if some television shows with 30-minute runtimes have articles which exceed several tens of thousands of words. The point of a plot summary is to provide a brief overview of the television episode, an aide-mémoire to a reader who has seen the show. So a few sentences or a paragraph is all that is needed, & that much doesn't need a citation; but if the plot summary has grown much longer, then maybe the account needs to be sourced. (And maybe this will fight the tendency to write excessively long summaries.)

Well, now that I've been rude to all of you, I'm going to bed. Either I applied the clue-by-four properly here -- or I'll log into tomorrow to find myself blocked from editting. -- llywrch (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

THis has been discussed before, both here and with the FILM community. The consensus has generally been that so long as the information being cited to the episode is objective facts (e.g., Buffy and Angel break up and Angel moves to Los Angeles), then there is no probably citing the episode as the source. TV shows are published sources just like anything else. It's no different then citing a video documentary. Now, it is not ok to cite an episode for some subjective interpretation (e.g., In Gilligan's Island, Ginger is shown to be very shallow and self-centered.). Subjective interpretation of characters must be sourced to either reliable third-parties, or in the least to the creators/writers/actors that work on these fictional characters. The same is said for just writing a plot summary of a TV episode (or a film's plot). So long as you are only listing the objective facts (e.g., Jason kills all of the teenagers when he returns to Crystal Lake), and not subjective information (e.g., Jason was furious with Trish and Tommy), then viewing the episode/film is a reliable enough source. You are not necessarily going to get a third-party source actually describing enough of the plot to write a comprehensive (but still terse) summary of the events of the episode or film. There have been some, but you are not guaranteed one for all of them. So, as has been the consensus in the past, so long as it's objective facts it is perfectly fine to use the source as the reference.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. I understand and have for months grudgingly accepted that real sourcing isn't required for plot summaries and information about characters. The point that everyone is missing is that what TIAYN is saying is that we must not use proper sources for them, which is a far cry from not required. Can someone explain exactly how that improves the reliability of this project? //roux   16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I think you're too close to this issue to see that you are getting yourself lost in needless complications of policy/guidelines. The original episode is a proper source for a plot summary, unless the episode itself is not available -- say, most of the first season of The Avengers -- in which case, another source needs to be provided. However, as Bignole pointed out, this summary is limited to a recounting of what happens, not an explanation of why things happen. (Although if the reasons are obvious enough to be noncontroversial, as in the case of Hamlet seeking to avenge his father, I wouldn't insist on a citation.) As TIAYN, from what he has written above he's not saying "must not use" (see his comment at 22:14, 22 June 2009), but that adding tags asking for a source -- & insisting that they be to secondary sources -- is likely to be disruptive. If you think that adding the information helps the project, then do it; but don't demand that other people do it by adding the tags. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Too close...? I stay the hell away from anything involving movies or TV shows for the most part, due to intense ownership by fans who e.g. refuse to accept that secondary sources are good. But the thing is.. how is an episode of e.g. Pokemon available to someone with a crap internet connection in e.g. Tashkent? There is a breathtaking display of systemic bias here. Furthermore, you say that something like The Avengers is now unavailable.. so what happens as other TV shows become unavailable even to the media-saturated West? Sources will be required. So why not put them in now? I flatly disagree with your notion that adding cn/secondary sources tags to such articles is disruptive; they serve the dual purpose of prodding editors and readers to at least attempt to find such sources, as well as pointing out to readers that the material contained therein may not be completely reflective of the show, may reflect undue weight on particular plot points, etc. See, the problem is this: to accurately and neautrally describe the plot of your average TV show or movie would require a dry sports-style play-by-play. But we're summarising here, which means that someone is deciding what is and is not important in the plot. Sure, for the most part that's close enough for jazz, but not infrequently do people blow up plot points involving their favourite characters (for example) while eliding arguably more important points. This is obviously unacceptable from the point of view of

WP:OR. //roux  

18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Most scholarly journals are much harder to get than TV shows. Also, even when using secondary sources, you're still summmarizing. Summarizing secondary sources is just as frought with danger as summarizing primary sources. Anyways, you're line of thinking has come up numerous times at the

WP:FICT talk page over the years, if you want to read multi-page discussions on the issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roux. Powergate92Talk 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're free to lobby to have

be bold and change them right now. Let us know how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really seeing why

people like it that way. //roux  

19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of

WP:V would have be rewritten. For starters, it says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." You would need to change it to "All material must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The sections on Questionable sources, Self-published sources (online and paper) and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would probably need to be rewritten or ripped from the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of an issue that people do not apply

common sense, especially for feature articles requiring that statements like "A rubber ball has no corners." to be verified because someone, somewhere could challenge it.陣内_Jinnai

00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:No original research says "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" so if TV shows are reliable sources for there own plot summarys and characters sections then users should not say the show is the source, they should cite the show as the source. Powergate92Talk 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's generally assumed that a plot summary will always be referenced to the original work, so the need the cite the original work is purely a style issue instead of

WP:RS. If, however, a plot summary did not come for a source other than the original work, then that source should be cited. As for Roux's question as to why one should use the original source to write a summary over a third-party source. For starters, the third-party source may introduce errors or inaccuracies that get passed on to Wikipedia. When it comes to summarizing material, it is always best to go with the source that is closes to the original as possible, if not the original source itself. --Farix (Talk

) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to see a upgrading of our standards to provide for more exact quotation in this respect. It is important to know where in a work a plot element is described on discussed. I don't think it has to be the exact frame, or get ever instance, but there should be enough information that someone can find it in the source with reasonable effort. I'm not suggesting this as a requirement, but a standard to work towards. DGG (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's beyond our requirements at this point, but I think one of the templates allows us to specify the time into an episode that an event happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It does, but requiring it would not work for interactive works like video games.陣内_Jinnai 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisegeek.com has come up previously here, but there was no real discussion about its reliability as a source. I see that it is cited in quite a few articles: [50]. My particular attention to it came up in relation to the Hot stain article, but I am interested in comment on wisegeek in general. Gigs (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

wisegeek.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The website appears to be professionally written with editorial oversight[51], but the website appears to be an encyclopedia (tertiary source), which may limit its use as a reliable source. I've come across it before as a supplemental link, but I don't think it could be used to support controversial info or an entire article. Flowanda | Talk 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I ran across it recently and decided to remove it as unreliable. It doesn't strike me as being particularly authoritative. It has oversight, but is that editorial control reliable for encyclopedic coverage of the topics covered? I'm not seeing any reason to think it is. The abot page doesn't seem to argue for any topic matter expertise; just looks like random people who happen to write. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It has oversight, and I would say reliable source. However I agree with Flowanda in that it's a tertiary source and we shouldn't base an antire article on it. Ideally it would be used, along with many other sources, to fill in any "missing pieces" in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is http://Webhosting.info a reliable enough source so that I can say it reports that

Well, no, as that list is for registrars, not web hosting companies. That's not number of domains hosted with a website, that's number of names bought through them. Hosting and registration are separate, though a lot of them can do both. I don't know whether it is reliable for name registrations info, but if you're only interested in the hosting end of it then it's moot anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, unless I'm looking at the wrong thing... If you have a web host specific one can you give a direct link? DreamGuy (talk)

I recently encountered a problem with a group of books published in Delhi, India under the imprint ISHA books. It seems they are another circular reference source like

The problem cropped up when a copyright violation was reported for the article

This isn't the only book by ISHA books which is a Wikipedia copy. The book by Om Gupta, Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, ISHA books was published in June 2006. A review of a few entries shows it was copied from Wikipedia in the Spring of 2006.

For example: the article

The problem is that these books are being used more and more as sources in articles, and the WP articles can be falsely reported as copyright violations of these books. Is there a place in Wikipedia for creating a list of circular reference sources which should not be used? If there isn't, there should be. I've been looking around and have not found one yet. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate list of circular references, they should all just be here, so anyone searching archives to see if the sources are valid only have one place to search instead of going multiple places. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The very problem is that these discussions get buried in the archived pages and are soon forgotten. Take ICON Group International, for example. That issue was raised here only a couple of months ago, yet a quick search reveals citations to ICON have crept back into articles -- including this Featured List with BLP issues. It seems editors who edit featured articles aren't aware that these sources are invalid -- probably because there is no centralized area to check. It would be much better to build a list so that editors can keep track of them. It shouldn't be that hard to begin a page with a list of known unreliable sources. Circular references are difficult to determine once they have taken root in WP articles and as more books are being written and sold of copied Wikipedia articles, this problem is only increasing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize, but, honestly, anywhere we'd put it would get buried in archives soon enough. The problems with circular references are the same problems with unreliable sources: taking root, increasing, etc. The number of bad sources out there could fill an ocean. If it's all in one place at least there's a reasonable expectation someone trying to look it up could find it. The more spread out everything is the less likelihood anyone will know all the places to look... or bother to take the time to try. We should find a way to get people used to using the search for the archives more regularly before adding any new sources. Maybe add that to some welcome guide, or some template when we warn people, or something. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Great catch! A couple of points:

• Google Books lists the publisher of Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and Freedom Fighters of India as "Gyan Publishing House". Is this just another name for ISHA, or are they re-printers ?
• Are there any other problematic titles by this publisher besides the two ?
• I think it is most useful to let the related wikiproject know about such wikipedia sourced books and publishers, since many project members who are most likely to come across such references are unlikely to have RSN watchlisted. (
  WT:INB
  ).

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several other books from Gyan Publishing House used as references on wikipedia. I looked at one at random: Prison Management by M.B. Manaworker; I haven't checked if it too is copied from wikipedia, or if it factually incorrect; but the writing itself is horrible with broken and ungrammatical sentences like, "Now the global forces are towards the abolition of prisons.", "Chapter 1 contains the institution of prison and imprisonment is universally found in all the sovereign states and confined up to modern state system".
I wonder if it is a self-publishing business ? Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the Gyan imprint. I have started to look at the other ISHA book titles. Off hand, I found another by Om Gupta titled Media Society and Culture was published in January 2006 and is copied from Wikipedia in Fall 2005. At this point, I would be wary of any titles from that imprint -- but I am not sure whether or not many of the titles are legitimate books. I have yet to find the website for ISHA books to determine if they are a vanity press. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A practical way of preserving this information in accessible form is to write an article on the publisher. But we might want to do a checklist in WP space not just of WP mirrors, but of WP print reproductions DGG (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the checklist idea is preferable. (For one, I haven't been able to dig up any information about ISHA books which would allow for an article. And, secondly, after reviewing more of their titles, I believe their WP copied books might be only a few isolated instances.) A checklist as a subpage of RS could be started with the titles and publishers we currently know, expanded over time and would provide a centralized resource. It could be linked as a "see also" from

WP:RS. It could also instruct editors on performing a generalized search of WP archives for any discussions of about titles and publishers, but I would hope there would be less need of that as these books became listed. And as Abecedare mentioned, it could also instruct editors to notify appropriate projects when a new questionable source was found. — CactusWriter | ^needles

07:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've searched inside many more of the titles by Gyan and ISHA. Gyan books appears to be a well-established publishing house with reputable authors. Although I haven't found a website for ISHA, I haven't found any more books which are copies from WP -- and that includes some other titles by Om Gupta. I no longer think this is a case like

ICON Group International where all the titles are suspect but rather these books will have to be treated on an individual basis. — CactusWriter | ^needles

07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on DoS music reviewing site as a reliable source? I'm not 100% sure how it works, but I think that literally anyone can post there, making it not very reliable. In particular, do you think it's a valid source for a quote on the article about Jon Courtney, which references a dubious DoS editor named "Septic Clit", who has a history of vitriolic and pointlessly agressive reviews, and no credibility as far as I can tell. If anyone agrees with me that this quote should be deleted, please can you reverse the recent edit to Jon Courtney's page that keeps it in. Thanks!Thedarkfourth (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think DiS has as much credibility as many of the other sources used on the page, eg Myspace, Progsheet, Disorder and, in fact other DiS references. I believe the problem is that you disagree with the reviewer in this case and that it adds balance to the somewhat biased views that you have appropriated for this artist. The nature of music reviews is to sometimes shock, and this should not be mistaken for vitriol. Best wishes Rightphone (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • anyone else?Thedarkfourth (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like a reliable source. If others aren't reliable either they should all be removed. Cherry picking sources for POV should not be a tactic, no should accusations of same be used as a tactic. If something is unreliable it all goes. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been putting work into Wisconsin Highway 119 and possibly brig it to GAN in the near future. However I am curious if Google Street view can be considered reliable enough to prove a sign exists in a certain spot. For instance This image shows that Interstate 894 is also signed at the roads origin. So I have mentioned within Wisconsin Highway 119 that I-890 is also signed at that particular exit and cited google maps as a source. Would this be acceptable. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just put I-894 in the main column, as

Chicago? Exit lists in general are a sort of "gray area" where we're not actually claiming that signs have the exact wording shown. --NE2

01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm interesting, I like that proposal in fact I will go do your recommendation now. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion as to whether the Mercator site, in general, or the Working Papers 21 document, in particular, are "reliable" sources? The Working Papers 21 document has been used as the source for the quote:

on Cornish people#Negative portrayals of the Cornish. I've been unable locate any other reliable source (the quote also appears on Cornish forums). May I also have your opinion regarding the two citations given for the following quote on the same article please?

The references are from Independence Cymru and from HighBeam Research Inc. I'm guessing that HighBeam Research Inc is "reliable", in itself. The question here really, is: can we use "pay" sites as references, as general readers/editors would be unable to check the references? Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can use generally available "pay sites", just like we allow generally available books, even if they are not free. Free online sources are great if available, but not a requirement. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help with verification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is also that pay sites are not automatically ruled out. The reference as such is to The Times, and most people in the UK at least will have access to archives or back issues via their local library. Indeed, I can verify that he indeed write that, but on the other hand, the quote seems to have been taken out of context, and if you read the whole column, it easy to see he didn't mean a word of it, the first 5 paras of the column are apparently entirely anti-Cornish, but they are followed by "Salubrious, isn't it? But then, you see, I want to be a proper writer one day. And you can't unless you occasionally tempt people to wonder whether you are a loony racist." and as you read on through the article it becomes clear that he was tryign to make apoint about various (possibly) racist comments made a short while before by Jeffrey Archer. The WDP article appears to be absolutely serious though. David Underdown (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

HighBeam is in any case not a source, just an electronic service that aggregates the content of various newspapers and magazines and makes them available for a fee. In many cases, the same material may be available without a fee from other sources (as it is for much of The Times). In a great many other cases, it is available from one or another of the multiple competing aggregators that most public and academic libraries subscribe to--the only way of knowing what may be available through them is to try, or ask a librarian who knows the local availability. HighBeam more than the others has managed to get itself prominent on the Googles, but it is almost never the only source. And of course essentially all of the content of such aggregators is available in the original paper also. As David U shows, the key problem in using the snippets that some of these services make available free, is that the snippet may be out of context. DGG (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to each of you for taking the time and trouble to respond. @ Stephan Schulz: A good point, and well made. I'll check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. @ David Underdown: I am very pleased to hear that the Giles Coren quote is out of context. I was surprised to see that he had written such things, which was why I wanted to read the whole piece myself. I couldn't find it, so came here. May I ask how you accessed the whole piece? Do you use a pay site? Thanks for checking the WDP piece too. @ DGG: Thanks for info on HiBeam. @ you all: Do you consider Mercator to be a "reliable" source generally, or does it always depend on context? Daicaregos (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to my job I have free access to The Times archives online back to the very earliest editions, via my local libary membership I also have free online access to NewsUK which is one of the other aggregation services DGG refers to which gave me access to the WDP article-and potentially many other national and regional papers across the UK back to some point in the 90s, the exact date varies from paper to paper (even if I didn't have it via work, if I actually went into one of the local libraries I'd have access to the same Times archvie material). Check your lcoal council website for the onlie resources offered by your local library, I believe there's some sort of national deal which means virtually everyone in teh UK can have access to the online editions of

Grove Art and various other OUP publications and assorted other things. Once you have a library card, it's usually just a matter of following the links from your library service's website and entering your library card number at the relevant login prompt. It's a great boon when writing wiki articles. David Underdown (talk

) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys---- I have re-edited the Coren comment and I do include the fact that it was meant as a parody, however it does not change the fact that it DID cause offence, he did pick on traditional stereotypes, and conversely defines such stereotypes as being racist. Coren is well-known for being controversial so it is up to the reader to decide whether it was meant or not and draw their own conclusions. As for the Mercator site, well it is an EU supported network set up following a European Commission project with centres in various parts of Europe... again I don't think it is a dubious source in itself, in fact I have found it very useful for discussion of minority languages. Thanks for going into the subject and it's always useful to evaluate the sources. Brythonek (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice David Underdown, I will look into that. Any thoughts on Mercator folks? Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Judyth Vary Baker was taken to AfD by myself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker. The subject of the article claims to have been Lee Harvey Oswald's lover and to have been involved in clandestine cancer research in an anti-Castro plot. An issue is finding reliable sources, and an editor has found a website that critically examines her claims:[52]. It is written by John McAdams, an Association Professor of American Politics at Marquette University.[53] As this subject is within his area of expertise, does this website count as a reliable source? Fences&Windows 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The website/author looks reliable: academic, cited as an expert by other sources, etc. Would be reliable as far a giving his opinions and for non-controversial facts. Controversial alleged facts might have to be labeled and sourced for other (non-

WP:FRINGE views). And as a single source it wouldn't be enough by itself to keep an article up for deletion on notability grounds. DreamGuy (talk

) 16:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some clarification needed on whether (and if so under what circumstances) can twitter and facebook be used as primary sources for a bio entry. e.g. regarding Iran's presidential conflict, Mirhosein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard have limited access to the media, and have been releasing statements to their supporters (it is said) via facebook/twiter.

Can the info appearing there be used in articles?--Zereshk (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, twitter and facebook are not considered reliable, however Mousavi and Rahnavard would probably qualify for the "expert" exemtion. It would have to be clearly established that Mousavi or Rahnavard authored the message... and I would probably limit use to SPS (attributed) statements about themselves (ie we should not use their comments about other candidates or general conditions in Iran). Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Is there a way to really be sure that it is indeed them who is using the twitter/facebook account ? For example, has one or more reliable mainstream media source (BBC, CNN, NYT ...) connected them to the account as a fact ? If so they may be narrowly used as

WP:DUE in mind. Abecedare (talk

) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How about if we use the word "attributed" in the texts, like CNN has here? Otherwise, I dont know of a way to be sure the statements are really coming from him, but the media has surely commented on the facebook/twitter events: [54] and last paragraph here. There seem to be direct links available as well e.g.[55].--Zereshk (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article says that the Facebook account is "created for Mir Hossein Mousavi". My guess is that nobody is really sure that this is indeed an account controlled by him personally. I think it would be best not to use the facebook or twitter posts directly, even as a SPS. On the other hand using secondary sources like CNN etc, that quote posts on these sites should be okay as long as we attribute the statements properly and carefully. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bloomberg says the account was created for somebody, that's good enough. The only difference between "created for" versus "controlled by" would be which adjectives we use when attributing the quote. I would say go ahead and use the quote if you have a permalink for it; I'm a little more leery of Facebook because of its closed nature. Good practice would be, after quoting Bloomberg to establish the blog as relevant, to cite statements both to a secondary source and to the blog so our readers can see both. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion Talk:Michael Jackson#News "broke the internet", Wikipedia has entered reliable sources to say that news about Jackson's death almost broke the internet. I'm a believer in going to the absolute best authority of a reliable source, which in this case would be this link and this one, both Wikimedia technical boards. Tips? Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS, not good for the claim, and arguably (but that's a different issue for elsewhere) not really notable. The CNN article is a RS for heavy load and crashes on some popular services. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute on the article haplogroup E1b1b regarding certain comments made by Ellen Levy Coffman in a recent publication. Ellen Levy Coffman is an attorney specializing in family law. In her personal capacity or just as hobby, she is a member of Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JOGG), which is a

Despite the dismissal of TMZ as a supposedly unreliable source, seems to me like they had this story right on the money. They were among the first, maybe the first, to break the story, and everyone picked up on it, and it turned out to be true. Was this a case of the blind squirrel finding the occasional acorn? Or should they be re-evaluated as to their worthiness as a source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A singular event is not something that can earn a site approval as a reliable source. The question here is whether TMZ is viewed to be accurate and reliable. Sure, they got this one right, however if they report many rumours that turn out to be false, then they would have to be considered unreliable for our purposes. Resolute 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ seems pretty reliable to me. When they report rumors they generally make it pretty clear that it's just a rumor. For example when they supposedly saw 2Pac in a club the article about it said something along the lines of "we believe we saw 2Pac". They also pretty much always have pictures to support their claims. Even with the 2Pac thing they had pictures of a man that did look very similar to 2Pac. You make it sound as if this is the first time they've had reliable information. A few somewhat recent things I can think of that they reported correctly include the ShamWow guy beating up a hooker and Chris Brown beating up Rihanna.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course they get things right, and not infrequently. There could be circumstances in which we could use them as a source. But in general they are a gossip site and TV show, and are not committed to high-quality journalism, rather to sensational scoops that may or may not have been fact checked. Unfortunately there are a lot of newspapers and television networks which are not committed to high-quality journalism either, but that's another topic. In general I do not think TMZ should be considered a reliable source, certainly for something as critical as the supposed death of a living person. I was not at all surprised that they knew what was going on with MJ before everyone else and I figured they were probably right in what they were reporting, but I would never source a claim of someone's death to them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about TMZ one way or another, but it would be interesting to see if someone has done any study to see how accurate their reporting is compared with the "reliable" sources. Being a gossip site does not mean they're getting it wrong. It doesn't mean they're getting it right, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Even if they have a reputation for accuracy in juicy celebrity gossip,

WP:SOURCE tells us that "Questionable sources . . . include websites and publications expressing views . . . which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." When push comes to shove, I think it's far better to use a reliable news source instead; in the case of Michael Jackson's death, for instance, many editors were of the opinion that the announcement by CNN was the moment of reliable verification. Exploding Boy (talk

) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If a source is proven to be reliable when reporting facts, and assuming they make it clear when something is a fact vs. a rumor, they are by definition a "reliable" source. It would be interesting to see if TMZ just happened to get this one right, or if they have a good track record where facts are concerned. As the MJ story started to make the rounds, TMZ was the first thing that came up on Google. Then a number of standard reliable sources started parroting the TMZ story, with the caveat "reportedly". When the exaggerated rumors about Cronkite were circulating last weekend (and I have no idea what TMZ had to say about that) I was reminded ironically of the careful way he covered the JFK assassination. There were all kinds of bits and pieces and rumors and facts coming in, and he hedged on all of them - until he got the "apparently official" word - when it became real, and only then did he almost lose it on the air. As a seasoned reporter, he knew how to separate fact from rumor. Presumably, rumors connected with up-to-the-moment news stories belong more in wikinews (which, ironically, still said "reportedly" for awhile even after it was confirmed here) and wikipedia articles should be more restrictive, to confirmed or official facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• To outline it from a more pragmatic point of view:

• If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ both in the quality of authorship and in the lack of lurid sensationalism and ethically-murky-at-best disregard for the privacy of human beings in a madcap drive to tickle the fantasy of the most wretched and lowest of the wretched lowest common denominator.
• If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is either completely non-notable (List of restaurants Celle McBrity ate at in March 2008), or embarrassingly tangential to the scope of a notable individual's career (Michael Jordan's favorite flavor of tea and his weekly NFL picks).
• In the extremely far-fetched hypothetical scenario where TMZ is truly the only outlet for a notable concept or useful addition (i.e., imagine it's the only site which listed Model Von Modelstein's height, weight, and true birthdate),
  Ignore All Rules
  remains a possibility.
• Disallowing TMZ is not only a good choice from both a journalistic and a journalistic ethics perspective, but also had the side-benefit of discouraging the addition of the sort of minutae that would only be cited by TMZ - it's a lot more elegant a process to remove User:Gnarly Newbie's tea-flavor edit on grounds that TMZ is not a Reliable Source™ than it is to bicker with Mr. Gnarly Newbie about why favorite flavors of tea have no place in an encyclopedia article about a basketball player. It also provides a gentle point in the right direction for all editors - rather than lecturing about what is and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia until we're blue in the User:, newbies can potentially figure out, individually and introspectively, what is and is not encyclopedic on the basis of what is and what is not sourcable. In general, "why"s are much better learned on one's own than directly taught by another - as I'm sure anybody who's spent time in the sometimes-infuriating company of a two-year-old can surely understand!

• Ergo, we are a lot better off - for multiple reasons - considering TMZ "guilty until
  tl;dr version of the above: The TMZ business is ethically bankrupt, the quality of journalism sucks, and 99.9% of TMZ-sourced and only-TMZ-sourceable information is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Easier to have the 99.9% fall under a "default ____" blanket, and spend our time evaluating the remaining 0.1%, than it is to deal with the alternative. Badger Drink (talk
  ) 07:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that using the claim that TMZ is not reliable, as a way of weeding out minutia (hey, maybe I want to know where Celle McBrity has lunch, even though I don't know who Celle McBrity is), is rather dishonest. Practical, I understand. But not very honest or ethical - more like the "lazy way" of handling the fact that redlinks and IP's and even regular users might think something trivial is something important. What color pajamas MJ is wearing qualifies as trivial. But a story that he's been rushed to a hospital following cardiac arrest is most assuredly not trivial. Ah, but what if he's revived and goes home and everything's fine? Does the story go back to being trivial? I'm not sure. What say you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite like Badger Drink's reasoning (and their username, incidentally). I think that inherent in the consideration of whether a source is reliable is whether it's encyclopedic. Juicy celebrity gossip sites by their very nature aren't encyclopedic. Also by their very nature juicy celebrity gossip sites rely on rumours and personal opinion. A good test is to ask oneself: would this source be considered appropriate for a paper submitted for credit in a university course or in an article in a scholarly journal? TMZ as a source about itself probably would. But as a source about the death of a public figure? A known, reliable news source like CNN, the New York Times, the BBC or similar would be much more appropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So-called "reliable sources" are also filled with stuff that's non-encyclopedic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...like the weather reports and horoscopes. But that's not their primary stock in trade. Celebrity gossip is by its nature unencyclopedic; it just happened that the gossip TMZ was reporting yesterday was notable, because it regarded the sudden death of a very famous person. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What are saying? That horoscopes are not reliable? Next thing, you'll be telling me there's no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a smart Blonde. (How's that for an oldie?) However, you've hit upon the inherent flaw in the concept of the so-called "reliable source" - basically attacking the nature of the source rather than the specific fact. Maybe that's just not practical. Maybe the next time they come out with so-and-so rushed to the hospital and apparently at death's door, it will turn out to be only a severe hangnail. It seems like the lazy way - but I recognize that it could be a practical necessity, or there would be an even greater amount of time spent debating reliability of specific facts. I don't inherently agree with that approach, but I understand it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from me to crush anyone's fondly cherished delusions :) Anyway, that's the nature of scholarly writing: sources are evaluated partly on what they are. Even now online sources in general are widely considered a little unscholarly, and manuscripts that rely on them too heavily may be criticized. It's still considered better to get the information from an academic work. An online academic journal will probably be considered appropriate, more so if it's peer reviewed, and the online edition of a respected newspaper or news source will probably be considered appropriate too. An academic journal (say, the Journal of Developmental Psychology) will always trump a lay magazine like Psychology Today. Information about celebrities is by its nature less likely to be found in scholarly sources, but truly notable facts about them can be found in slightly more journalistically respectable places than celebrity gossip sites. Despite the unencyclopedic minutia some users insist on inserting into every article, Wikipedia is supposed to be a scholarly endeavour. Exploding Boy (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the organisation Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology a reliable source for this edit and this edit? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• About us
• Article cited.

Please note that problems with this editor's contributions are also being discussed at the NOR noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was an established position on using this as a source, for facts or the opinions of the writers. Guest9999 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the mentions of it on this board.[57] It sounds like it isn't considered reliable, although that may depend on what it's being used for, and who the writer is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Guest9999 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Over on the

Please read the discussion we've been having. Also look at his youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/insider201283

He is a promoter of multilevel marketing and is doing his utmost to bias the article and add pro-mlm propaganda. He has twisted the truth regarding the NAM article in order to discredit it. It is a very reputable source. Second to which, the aspects of the article that I have quoted arent even related to the aspects of the article that he is defaming.

I'm trying my utmost to keep the ACN Inc wikipedia article impartial. --TheEditor22 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not the one adding anything, and I haven't twisted anything about the NAM article. I posted to RS/N to encourage others, hopefully with a NPOV, to read it, check out the facts, and make an impartial judgement. Why would I do that if I was trying to "twist the truth"? You however have continued with a number of falsehoods on the talk page, including, bizarrely, continuing to maintain FTC vs Amway was about "motivational products", and persisting in spreading lies about me personally despite my categorically telling you it was false. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All I ask is that you all read into the user Insider201283. Do your own research and you'll come to the same conclusions that I have. He is NOT an impartial editor of the ACN article. --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, so that's why you don't consider the FTC vs Amway to be a good source about FTC vs Amway ... because I suggested you read it! Clearly NAM is a much better source than ... the source. Now it all makes sense .... :/ --

Insider201283 (talk

) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read it, and I expect everybody else to as well. What are you trying to prove here? I didnt even mention the FTC vs Amway bit of the article in wikipedia. The part that I referenced was a documented conversation with a former ACN. That in and of itself is a very credible source, particulary seeing as it's in an article by the reputable New America Media. Stop mentioned the FTC Vs Amway part because not only is it accurate, but it has nothing to do with what i cited from the article. --TheEditor22 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

--TheEditor22 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

he FTC vs Amway part is just one very obvious example that shows the lack of fact checking on the part of the journalist and yourself. It's not the only one. If there are so many errors we know of, how can one consider it to be a "reliable source", particularly when even then it is just for one opinion. How about we say something like - in an article riddled with factual errors, NAM reported that a former ACN agent (whom NAM incorrectly called an employee) claimed that "the real money is made in recruiting". --

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already told you that "employed" in the article was not used in the context of an employee. My time can be employed, but that does not necessarily make me an employee. Stop using wordplay...--TheEditor22 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain which other words in the article were used differently than normal usage? Doesn't this issue alone make the source somewhat unreliable, as we have to guess what the author means? Could you also please still explain how FTC v Amway was about motivational materials, which the author - and you - have asserted numerous times. What word or words are actually meant to be interpreted as "motivational materials", since they're never actual mentioned. "soap" perhaps? :/--

Insider201283 (talk

) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're paid to promote ACN and AMWAY.... anybody looking through your history will notice that. You're a discrace to the wikipedia community. This is not a Multileval marketing brochure, and you are trying so hard to promote these companies that it just blows my mind. You're a communist... --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone who'se employed to promote private companies is a "communist"?? Is this debate actually intelligable to anyone other than you two? Paul B (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty damn funny. Well, it would be except it's not true on either count - I'm neither paid to promote ACN or Amway, nor am I communist. TheEditor22, I've asked you to stop making such false accusations here, if you continue to do so I'll have to take more formal action. Paul - the simple issue is the article in question has a large number of factual errors, easily confirmed through other sources. I think that makes it clearly unreliable as a source for anything. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I'm getting really frustrated with Insider. I think you'd have to see all the chat history, but, basicaly he's really trying to control the ACN.inc article. Doing his utmost to prevent any negative information being presented in the article. He will come up with any excuse to avoid negative information, however shows no concern over pro-acn information that is not sourced correctly. Some help would be greatly appreciated! --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ahhh, the irony. I read this straight I've just been putting in "fact" tags requesting better citations for the non-controversial stuff, and added a better reference and more info on some of the "negative" stuff. What I'm "trying" to do, TheEditor22, is have a well written well sourced article. You appear to be trying to squeeze in anything "negative" you can find, sourcing be damned, and falsely accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a paid editor. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 18:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You do appear to live in the British Virgin Islands, Insider. http://www.youtube.com/user/insider201283 I could be wrong but, your wikipedia page says that you're an Australian living in Europe. I totally love the Amway proganda material you have on your website by the way!!--TheEditor22 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me to quote some random unknown woman in a news article who says "it's a fantastic company". I quoted the notable people, and that inluded one of the ACN lawyers. You should read up on wikipedia notability rules. --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And you also cited some random essentially unknown people in from the NAM article. I personally don't think either of those sources should be considered. I'm endeavouring to try and get some consensus with you based on your approach to the article. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article was drafted & posted by Editor PeterADBrown after consultation with, & varification & approval by, Margaret Marshall. Confirmation of her award of Hon MusD (St.Andrews University) is here: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/Title,34847,en.html

The article has been cleaned up and unsourced information removed. Sections deriving from unnamed sources have been edited - these would need to have explicit references to Reliable Sources (such as books) to be included.Martinlc (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The

This is my first post on the RS Noticeboard, so feedback on applicability, presentation, style, &c. are appreciated on my talk page. Thanks—C45207 | Talk 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute at

I believe that Will Beback frames the question fairly above. I am an editor who has advocated inclusion of an LRC article as a verifiable source demonstrating that Palmer's activities regarding Middle East policy have been criticized by other notable individuals who are notable, in part anyway, for commentary on such topics. LRC's original articles (not to be confused with the blog postings at the LewRockwell.com blog) are almost always opinion-editorial articles. For this reason, I wouldn't argue that LRC would be broadly useful as a reliable source for the assertion of controversial facts. This is not the sort of usage that is at issue at the Tom G. Palmer article. As I said at that article's talk page, My understanding of the process for publication is that it involves selection by Rockwell (or his occasional replacements at LRC's helm, like Thomas DiLorenzo), substantive copyediting (presumably by the copyeditors listed here), layout, proofing, and publication.... Given the fact that LewRockwell.com is not a one-man band with sporadically published editorials by Lew Rockwell, but rather a notable libertarian news and commentary site with a regular publication schedule, hundreds of contributors, and editorial review process, it isn't obvious to me that this is what that section of WP:V is written to avoid. The quoted text from the Rockwell article was selected to simply demonstrate that Palmer's positions on Iraqi policy have been notably criticized by other libertarians, not to suggest that Rockwell's criticism was sound or unsound. My use of the source is intended to support the assertion that such critiques exist. I would tend to agree with the comments by User:Carolmooredc here: I just put together a listing of source and issue discussion archives from this noticeboard which I will announce shortly. However, I didn't notice a LewRockwell.Com discussion and since that site is often used (including by me) or debated on talk pages, I thought I'd summarize what I consider its reliability to be. Correct me where and if wrong: Reliable source for reprints of articles from noncontroversial reliable sources; Articles they publish written by academics, experts, ex-government officials/researchers/agents and others usually considered reliable sources with good fact checking are OK for opinions and, depending on the issue, facts in their area of expertise, including on WP:BLP; Opinion pieces by less well known individuals usually considered reliable sources for opinions about their own activities or those of organizations they represent.... I hope that these points are useful in the continuing RSN discussion. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use either Web site as a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of its authors. I haven't studied

WP:BIO enough to offer an opinion on this part of your question. BTW, a very quick glance at the sourcing seems to indicate that the article based primarily on primary sources. Articles are supposed to be based primarily on third-party, reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 23:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI. There is another discussion of Lew Rockwell.com here. Obviously it depends on who says it and what they say. An academic making a serious criticism would seem WP:RS. A pundit with a snide comment would not. A pundit with a serious criticism would be the hard one to decide on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that the dispute in question has not been covered by any reliable sources that are independent of the disputants (i.e. a publication not affiliated with lewrockwell.com, antiwar.com, or Palmer's blog). It seems to me that this makes it extremely difficult to write about the dispute in a manner that's consistent with NPOV--depending on where your sympathies lie (full disclosure: my sympathies lie with Palmer) you'll have a different perspective on which parts of the dispute are worth focusing on. It seems to me that the whole dispute should be left out of the article unless and until a neutral third party has written about it. Binarybits (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a query regarding a certain source that is being used to cite a video game character's death in-article. This is the source in question. Keep in mind that it's being used not to describe gameplay in said video game, but to confirm a character's death, after a consensus has already been made about said character's death. Thanks. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? Per

WP:RS. What about this article leads you to question whether this source is unreliable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, it's a video game guide. The prose can be... Difficult. I'm not questioning Gamespot's credibility as a whole, just this guide. For one thing, there is no author given. For another, the proposed text that indicates a character's death seems misinterpreted: "Once Wesker is down, get ready to pull both triggers during the cutscene to finish him off once and for all." To me, it seems to indicate finishing off the boss once and for all, but not the actual killing and eliminating of the character from the story altogether. Generally, I would just rather stick to news posts, headlines, etc, to confirm a character's actual death, rather than a writer writing what he sees. I guess I don't understand how an online video game strategy guide is a reliable source. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts here... --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not a reliable source since you cannot

verify it's from a staff member. I brought this issue up on WP:VG's sources talk page to move the source to the more appropriately labeled "situational sources" per its description of use.陣内_Jinnai

01:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says it's by André Segers, a Gamespot editor. 208.103.75.16 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I tried looking at any relevant pages and can't find his name anywhere.陣内_Jinnai 02:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6205799/index.html 208.103.75.16 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually

WP:V doesn't have to do with verifying who the author of an article is, it's the policy that all information in WP has to be traceable to a cited source. V is the parent policy of the RS guideline. V says information has to be cited to a source; RS debates whether it is a good source. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee's got a point that the author of the article IS listed (trying to be sneaky or what, Daymeeee?), but I still wonder about the practicality of citing a video game strategy guide as a source. The prose is absolutely atrocious is some cases, and that makes it easy to misinterpret. It also shows bias. It says, "Resident Evil 4 is considered by many to be one of the best games ever made." Should we cite that as well? Or do we cherry pick what information is reliable? I was always under the impression that either a source is reliable or it isn't, not certain things from it are or aren't. I just think that it's obvious that these weren't written to be cited :P Also, Squidfryerchef, would you mind explaining how what you just said is relevant? The question is of the reliability of a source to verify the death of an in-game character. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky? What the hell are you talking about? He (nor you) could find the author so I went and pointed it out. I'll refrain from helping in the future. 208.103.75.16 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't exactly a relevant response. I was referring to your use of your IP, rather than your account, though. Thank you for helping us find the author, though, I do appreciate it :) --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So then this is indeed reliable? I don't believe a definitive answer was given. Everyone just stated their opinion and left :\ --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Guy, that was at Jinnai. His "verify" was a wikilink to the WP:V policy. While in some situations it can be important to verify that something was written by a particular staff member, for instance in a blog section where staff and public comments are mixed, V is basically the policy on citing your facts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This in support of "Mays resided in Florida in a $1.8 million home which was built in 2005." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source. We don't know if the "Billy Mays" of our article is the "MAYS WILLIAM D" recorded as the owner. [Though I now see it's pretty certainly him.] We don't know how the prices are estimated (in my jurisdiction they use an arcane formula that assesses values unrelated to "market price"). The value of real estate has changed substantially in the past year, so values may be out of date. The source contains many pieces of information, so it's difficult to decide which are noteworthy, or which would present a skewed picture. Etc. If this is used it should be carefully attributed and summarized. Something like, "Mays' home was purchased vacant for $254,500 and appraised at $1,803,943 in 2009."

But should it be used? I'd say it shouldn't, if the price is found alone in a primary source. Thousands of "facts" can be found in primary sources, but most of them aren't notable. Secondary sources provide an important filter. If the value of his home hasn't come up in secondary sources then it should be left out. If this is all we have then leave it out. If there are secondary sources then we should given no more than an appropriate weight. FYI, a $1 million house isn't anything special, and even $2million houses are common in Florida nowadays, especially near big cities.   Will Beback  talk  07:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not notable unless reported by third parties.Martinlc (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's not Wikipedia's place to be unearthing government paperwork about people to reference their encyclopedia articles. That's the job of a journalist, a historian, or some other professional doing original research, who knows how to process the results. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be investigative in nature, they should be summaries of what secondary sources have reported. --

Chiliad22 (talk

) 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)