Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 39

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Is Russia Today, more importantly this article from Russia Today, a valid source:

http://www.russiatoday.com/About_Us/Blogs/Untimely_Thoughts/Saakashvili_s_lipstick_artist.html

The author is Peter LaVelle, here is the LaVelle's biography: Peter Lavelle is host of In Context, a television program of the Russia-based, English language satellite channel Russia Today TV. Lavelle, from California and now based in Moscow, is the network's key political commentator.

In Context is broadcast on Russia Today every Sunday, and provides political analysis on both domestic issues and issues pertinent to Russia and its geopolitical interests.

Before becoming a television commentator, Peter Lavelle wrote and was published extensively. His has worked for or contributed to Asia Times Online, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, National Public Radio (NPR), United Press International, In the National Interest, and Current History, to mention only the most notable. Lavelle is also the author of "Untimely Thoughts", an electronic newsletter.

Lavelle did his doctoral studies in European economic history from the University of California, Davis (1992-1995). He has been living in Eastern Europe and Russia for over 25 years.

So is it a valid source? I think it is, Grandmaster thinks otherwise, but Grandmaster also though that this was a valid source: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this source is intended for inclusion into BLP article about Svante Cornell, who criticized Russian policy in Georgia. Peter Lavelle works for the Russian government (Russia Today is state owned), and his views on the subject are far from neutrality. You can find the following statements in his article about Cornell: Abkhazia and South Ossetia are finally free of the ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi. [1] I don't think this is a neutral source. While the views of Cornell, like any other person, can be a subject to criticism, I believe the criticism should come from independent sources. In this case both Ames and Lavelle seem to have very close connections with the Russian government. Grandmaster 04:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way is "ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi" not accurate? Seems an accurate enough description to me. Georgia is a country where one of its presidents, Gamsakhurdia, was a dictatorial paranoid, inventing "traitors" everywhere, who eventually committed suicide, and who is on record (long before any fighting started) as saying that the native population of South Ossetia were just trash who should be pushed into Russia, and where the current president, Saakashvili, is becoming a dictatorial paranoid, inventing "traitors" everywhere, and who tried to put Gamsakhurdia's "trash pushing" plan into action. But "neutral" does not mean never being critical where criticism is deserved, and being critical alone does not mean a lack neutrality. Both the sources you are objecting to are saying that it is actually Cornell who is the partisan author with connections to organisations wishing to distort the truth. Meowy 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... RT as a whole is a reliable source under our rules... but the specific web page being cited seems to be an opinion blog from one of it's columnists. So, anything we take from it should be phrased as being Lavelle's opinion and attributed to Lavelle. The argument that Lavelle is not neutral is irrelevant... sources do not need to be neutral. Criticism by its nature isn't neutral, after all. What does need to be neutral is the way we write about what non-neutral sources have to say. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LaVelle got his own article on Wikipedia, we can just link his name to that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lavelle. Also, Valid criticism is valid, irrespective of where it goes. Saying "don't criticise my fave journalist who messed up" is not a counterargument. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An editorial by Michael Lewis, director of policy analysis for

- 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy hopping POV-fork. We have an article called the "anti-Israel lobby in the United States"? Time for an AFD and SALT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but do you have an opinion on the suitability of the source that is used more than any other (17 times currently) in that article? nableezy - 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

MEQ is a peer-reviewed academic quarterly journal. As far as reliable sources go, it is about as good as it gets on Wikipedia. It is fine to attribute the opinions to Lewis rather than stating them as fact, but the source itself is reliable.

) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, MEQ specifically marks this as an opinion piece, and MEQ being as good as it gets is, well, laughable. nableezy - 21:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Laugh away, but peer-reviewed academic journals are as good it gets. feel free to attribute opinions, but there's no question of source reliability here.

talk

) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also a problem with the claim of "peer reviewed", MEQ claims to have instituted peer review in their Winter 2009 issue, this appeared in the Nov 1997 issue when even they did not claim to be a peer reviewed journal. So if that is your argument (that this appeared in a peer reviewed academic journal) it fails as fallacious. nableezy - 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, MEQ instituted peer-review in '09, they did not "claim to institute peer review". It is this type of snide, derogatory comments that make it seem like you are here pushing some sort of ideological agenda, rather than an effort to improve the encyclopedia. Second, as has been explained, when we evaluate sources, we look at their editorial policy and reputation - and in that respect, when they instituted editorial review is not all that relevant. they had a solid reputation in 1997, and continue to have that today, reinforced by peer-review.

talk

) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

derogatory? No, just not taking their word as bond. And your argument this entire time is that it was published in a peer reviewed academic journal, when that is shown to be false you just brush it off and say it is not all that relevant anymore. That type of attitude makes it seem like you are here pushing some sort of ideological agenda, rather than an effort to improve the encyclopedia. nableezy - 22:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear they are considering peer review. But no, it has never "had a solid reputation"; in 1997 as today most academics recognize it as an outlet for politically motivated pseudo-scholarship whose primary purpose is to launch attacks on academics who Daniel Pipes and friends consider insufficiently pro-Israel. I think the Salon article "Mau-Mauing the Middle East" is quite relevant on this question:

Pipes has a Ph.D. from Harvard and is the author of 11 books, including the recent "Militant Islam Reaches America." Yet the professors he attacks say he's an outsider in the field. "The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set [Pipes] up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director," says Juan Cole, a Campus Watch target and professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan. "They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job. As for Pipes himself, let's just say that he's not a full professor at a major university." Indeed, aside from Pipes, the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising.

Here's the article. It's great to hear they will be peer-reviewing things now but if they want to be taken seriously they will need to start focusing more on scholarship and less on character assassination. Their association with Pipes and Campus Watch is pretty strong reason for skepticism. csloat (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For The Beatles: Rock Band, the official website features a section you can look at if you have pre-ordered the game, which gives you a simple passcode (no username) to get in, no other means of registration. The current offering there is a good interview with the developers on music selection and the like that certainly would fall under normal reliable sourcing, but this little curtain it is behind - not a well-locked down one, mind you, I could share you my code and you'd be able to access it no problem - makes me question if we can use the source. Now, in the next couple of days, I expect normal video game press to drop snippets from that into their articles. I have no idea what the site's nature will be after the game's release (in a few months), if that pre-release section becomes a general news section or what.

Is it appropriate to use that pre-order club part of the site as sourcing? --MASEM (t) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's OK per

WP:V. We certainly allow much more difficult and expensive scholarly sources to be used. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vlog as source when writing bio about vlogger

There's a discussion at

) 05:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can say she's an art student, and that she's a violinist. Sounds like

WP:OR to say she's a student violinist. Did she say she's studying violin? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen a webisode where she describes her curriculum. If the current construction implies she is a violin student, and cannot be reasonably taken as meaning she is a violinist who is also a student, then the argument devolves to whether the information belongs in the opening sentence. I think I'll move it to the second sentence, call her "an art student and violinist" and call it good. Thanks very much. --

Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs}

) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is The Nation a reliable source?

Grandmaster doesn't seem to think so, I do, here's the article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames

Please comment. Bear in mind that Grandmaster though this was a valid source: http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/pp/08/0808Georgia-PP2.pdf HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not so much about The Nation, as much as it is about Mark Ames, who published an article there attacking the Swedish analyst Svante Cornell. Ames is quite a controversial person, who publishes a tabloid in Moscow, [2] and known for statements such as "The Economist is the world’s sleaziest magazine", etc. Note that the article about Cornell is a BLP article. Grandmaster 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's controversial, you might just attribute it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is the opinion of Mark Ames notable enough for quoting in a BLP article? It is more like yellow press, than serious criticism. Grandmaster 04:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If his opinions are published by The Nation then they probably are. This is more of editorial decision, as opposed to a RS/Board one. If other RSs frequently say he's baloney, then you may not want to use him at all. If other RSs use him as a source and let him write stuff, then he's probably a very reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If we check the article about Mark Ames, it seems that other than The Nation, he only published in not so notable journals. Also, it seems that Ames is a journalist who tries to make himself a name on controversies, attacking various individuals and entities in the West. He is permanently based in Moscow, and seems to be interested in epatage and scandals. Would we quote his opinion about The Economist in the article about that magazine? I'm kind of unsure if quoting such a person is the right thing to do. I think a criticism of a scholar and political analyst must come from a respected source to be notable. Grandmaster 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine source in general. If there's a concern about bias, or about the opinion-driven nature of the piece, then solve it with inline attribution (e.g. "The journalist Mark Ames wrote in The Nation that...") MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I also see that Ames has recently been discussed here: [3], but eventually his opinion was not included in the article about The Economist. Grandmaster 05:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have already told you, Grandmaster, the question is not whether or not Ames is a reliable source; the question is whether or not Ames' article in The Nation is a reliable source. Your argument assumes that Ames writes with equal quality for The Nation and The eXile. That assumption is bullshit. Vlad Kalashnikov wrote for The eXile, I doubt he would be invited to write for The Nation. The eXile and The Nation have different standards as to what's acceptable. When I read The eXile, I know that I'm reading intelligent, vulgar, loosely-researched opinion, that will likely include insults. When I read The Nation, I'm reading intelligent, well-researched opinion. Those aren't the same standards, Grandmaster. In addition, The Nation paid for Ames to travel to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. And I'm perfectly ok with saying something like "Mark Ames, who was covering the South Ossetian War for The Nation stated that..." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As for notoriety, here's Ames giving an interview to that one tiny station, in the middle of nowhere, I think it's called MSNBC: http://exiledonline.com/mark-ames-on-msnbc-talking-about-obamas-visit-to-russia-and-americas-oligarchy/ HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Grandmaster, thank you for that Economist link. In terms of The Economist, you may find this article refreshing: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/media/15econmag.html Back to the topic, this wasn't an opinion piece for The Nation. It was Ames' analysis of what happened in South Ossetia and around the World, because Ames was covering this war for The Nation; he was The Nation's chief correspondent, for South Ossetia. It's not just him rambling off for the eXile about Hookers and Blow. It's about actual journalistic analysis, based on primary and secondary sources, where the research was done to a superb point, by an intelligent journalist, and as proof of this, you will not find a single error in the article. Shall I post the errors I found in Svante Cornell's articles such as "Russia shut[ting] out the international community"? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The following source is used in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Second arbitration resolutions greatly emphasized on using only reliable material and removing any unreliable negative sources from the article.

• Article In Question: From Tehelka:"Sathya Sai Central Trust: grab as grab can." - Author:M. Seetha Shailaj (29 November 2000)
• I searched in google for the original article published in Tehelka but couldn't find it. I couldn't find it even in Tehelka website. In one of the negative attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba (SaiGuru.net) had a copy of the article from Tehelka. Usually negative attack websites are full of POV views. That's the only place I could find the following article.
• This article does seems negative and totally biased. Here's the copy of the article: http://www.saiguru.net/english/media/001129grab.htm. Even the picture used in this article seems to be an image of mockery on Sathya Sai Baba. Is this an appropriate source for the Sathya Sai Baba article?.

Your response will be truly appreciated. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While tehelka may generally be a reliable source, this article is particularly weak in providing support for the 'money' stats it supports in the article. First, it starts with 'according to an unofficial source' which means that the facts have not been independently checked by Tehelka. Second, the original article is missing and we must now rely on the reliability of the site hosting the copy of the article. This may work as a second, supporting source but probably not as the only or primary source for the finances of this organization. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would go even further, since this is in regard to a biography of a living person, covered by the much higher standards at

WP:BLP. Tales about living people attributed to "anonymous sources" are mentioned explicitly in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources, along with "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." That particular article, with no authorship attributed, reads more like a tabloid than a reliable source. Priyanath ^talk

04:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

History references

I want to write about the history of a now defunct council. (The physical history of the building etc, not the political aspect). My main source of reference would be a book published by this council - does this make it 'self-published' and therefore unreliable?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User Flayer have cited this [4] source to provide evidence for the 90 km range of the Arrow 2 missile. However, this source has not been dated and have no relevance for the Arrow 3 missile. During my discussion with him, Flayer told me that the sources I provided to indicate a range of more than 1000 km range [5][6][7] for the existing Arrow missile are not valuable or reliable as the source he provided and hence he deleted my edit on the Arrow 2 box (and it doesnt matter whether the box is of Arrow 1or 2 or 3, as long as the article is about the all Arrow "family" the box title can be changed-the issues are what source is more reliable and if my sources can be accounted)-so please tell me what is your opinion. --Gilisa (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gilisia. At least Reuters and Al Jazeera are usually reliable. In this case, however, you and Al Jazeera made the same mistake. Look at the original Reuter's story (on Haaretz or AlertNet). The test will not test Arrow at a range of 1000km, but against a target with a range of 1000 km. Quote: "The test will allow Israel to measure its advanced Arrow system against a target with a range of more than 620 miles (1,000 km)". In Al Jazeera this turned into "The test site will allow Israel to measure its Arrow interceptor missile system against a target at a range of more than 1,000km" - that is a subtle difference in wording, but as a result is plain wrong. From a plausibility point of view, Arrow-3 is not remotely ready for testing, and the range of Arrow-2 is much more limited. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stephan. None of the sources I provided specifically indicated that the missile to be test is an Arrow 3, I have read it here [8]but this source is both in Hebrew and amateur. I allready was referred to a possible misunderstanding I had, however, it doesn't seem to be the case from few reasons: 1.) previously the Arrow 2 system was tested against targets that simulated the ballistic course of missiles with a range significantly greater than 1000 km ("Black Ankor" reportedly a satellite interceptor with higher than 60 km flying altitude)[9], so there is nothing that can be new in this future test. 2.) Few monthes ago, Israeli retired general

Yitzhak Ben Yisrael-deeply involved with the Israeli weaponery industry, was quoted saying that "Arrow missile has the ability to intercept ballistic missile over Iran" -there is no sense in such statment ufor a missile with a range of less than ~1000 km. However, on the other hand it seems that such a range is too far reaching and for now I cant use these sources to support a 1000 km range. Indeed, it sounds almost impossible to increase the range of a missile 11 fold without drastically change its basic design. We will have to wait until the test results published --Gilisa (talk

) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Sparrow (אנקור שחור - black ankor) isn't a satellite interceptor with higher than 60 km flying altitude, but a target missile [10], debka reader. Flayer (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference you provide here does not exclude a possible role as satellite interceptor for the black Ankor. Your reference is from the manufacturer itself and the ability of black ankor to serve as a satellite interceptor was implied by foreign sources. And anyway, this discussion has no relevance here.--Gilisa (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This BLP article appears to be using a lot of self-published or blog like sources, and may have been constructed as an "advertisement" for services as a stealthy attempt to be a BLP. Curious how I should handle this as it is BLP and not well sources, but also has NPV problems. Should this be article for deletion?

Absolutely AFD material... "a security researcher who has been active on internet mailing lists since 1998" isn't what I call notable... but more to the point, even if it were a notable achievement, you need independant third party reliable sources that discuss the subject to establish that notability. The article has none. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to contribute material to an existing short biographical article on a deceased relative

) 08:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an interesting person is not enough to get a Wikipedia article: one must also be notable. If the only source of biographical info is private, then the person wouldn't be notable, at least by Wikipedia's standards. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... winning the VC is notable. In fact, there is already an article on this fellow (I have edited Erwfaethlon's link above to make that clear). The problem is the lack of published info to expand the article. Essentially, Wikipedia is the wrong place to introduce previously unpublished material. But don't let that discourage you, Erwfaethlon. You just need to find a venue that is more appropriate. The article says he was involved in the Indian Mutiny... and if so there are a ton of Military History magazines that cover the period. Perhaps you could submit a story using your Bio information to one of them. (And if they do publish it, then someone can use that magazine article to expand the article in Wikipedia!). Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dream Guy, there already exist basic articles on all Victoria Cross holders, there are plenty of published sources that give basi details, covering at least the how, where, when and why of the award, and usually something of their wider military service. The original question is whether it is at all possible to use the source described in Wikipedia. Although primary sources are not necessarily entirely ruled out, the main problem does appear to be verfiability, by its nature there are unlikely to be many copies, and those that exist won't be readily publicly accessible, so I don't think it's presently suitable for use here. Blue Boar suggestion is a good one. David Underdown (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was taking the editor at his/her word that the only source of info was in private hands. That was the point I was addressing. If you say there are sources that are not private that show notability, great. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeking an opinion regarding Cumberland House Publishing in general, and Baskerville, S (2007). Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family. Cumberland House Publishing.

. From what I can tell they aren't vanity press.

Baskerville isn't on their authors page [13], but I don't know the implications of this.

12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CHP looks like a legit publishing house to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How would it compare in reliability to say, a university press, ABC-CLIO, Greenwood or other publishers recognized as scholarly?

_complex

14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a relevant question... looking at the publishing house can help with reliability issues, but only so far. For example, examining the publisher can give us an indication that something is self-published, or Fringe (if the publisher is known for being a vanity press, or if it specializes in a particular Fringe topic)... but beyond that, looking at the publisher does not really tell us much about reliability. Very scholarly work can come out of a non-scholarly press (and scholarly presses can publish crap). What we really need to look at is the actual source (ie the work being cited), and the reputation of the author in relation to the subject.

I suppose you could look at the reputation of the publisher as a tie breaker when choosing between two equally reliable sources that essentially say the same thing... but otherwise comparing one house to another isn't really relevant. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In a section

) 05:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you evaluate whether you want to continue this fight. See Talk:Natalie Tran. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply more aggressive language on your part, SchuminWeb. I want to hear from the person I first approached regarding this. And I will be asking the people above you what they think of your conduct. Perhaps you will wish to evaluate if you want to keep being a bully. --

Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs}

) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Preston. My problem is the following: You claim "She is explicit in her vlog about being a violinist and attending art school". I have asked you to point me to the sources where this is said (the videos you linked do not contain it), and you haven't responded to this argument. The admin telling you it was OK didn't watch the videos, but just relied on the sentence of you I just quoted. Show me the source! Rror (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did choose the wrong word, "explicit." That does seem to imply she says "I am a violinist" or equivalent words. Instead she talks generally about playing the violin in a future video. I didn't include a link to the video where she says she attends arts college but another user -- perhaps yourself -- changed the statement to saying she attends such-and-such university, with a cite of the supporting article. Regarding whether she's a violinist, I think playing the violin and demonstrating advanced skill with it, which no one can argue otherwise, establishes that she plays the violin. I have now changed the sentence to say she is an amateur violinist, which I believe should satisfy the on substantive objection raised to her being called a plain violinist: that it inaccurately causes people to think she is a professional violinist. I think the suggestion that I merely say she plays the violin in one of her videos is needlessly soulless and insufficient for describing her demonstrated facility with the instrument. Saying only that she plays the violin in one webisode sounds like mere trivia that wouldn't belong in an article that, otherwise, mentions only notable items. And it also implies she just grabbed up a violin as a prop during the video. But she doesn't just scratch a bow across the strings, and acknowledging that she is an amateur violinist is a non-POV way of communicating that she is familiar with the instrument, rather than a bulkier, trivial and POV-sounding mention that "in one webisode she plays the violin and does it really well."

The two other objections were non-applicable: that we don't know whether violin-playing is central to her self-identity, and that she is not famous for playing the violin.

I'm re-watching her videos to see where she discussed taking violin lessons, in case someone says they think her demonstration was CGI. I acknowledge that, although I considered her demonstration clear and explicit documentation, she was not explicit in saying she is a violinist, so on my part that was a poor choice of words. However, now that I acknowledge the technical accuracy of your objection, I wonder if you can accept whether the source supports the revised statement that she is an amateur violinist (emphasis added to aid other readers in seeing the nutshell issue, not for shouting at anyone). I think it puts it in proper perspective and is supported by her vlog, and is not a matter of interpretation. However, I am of course willing to be schooled regarding this by those who specialize in this area and haven't already clouded the issue with frivolous objections. --

Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs}

) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with you personally (why should I, you're just some dude on the Internet) and you seem to feel strongly about that, so please don't take this the wrong way. You think that a simple mention of her playing is "is needlessly soulless and insufficient for describing her demonstrated facility with the instrument" - I'm sorry to tell you but an encyclopedia is not the place for your or any other editor's personal feelings, regardless of how well meaning they are. Statements should be bone dry, without any emotion. I can understand that you want to share your positive feelings about her playing and that music is evoking emotion, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Rror (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I just made a similar point on a discussion page for another article, where someone was arguing for using pretty words that were hard to understand. I agree with your basic sentiment, because we aren't supposed to speculate or use deduction, nor are we supposed to use POV statements. I simply believe the facility she demonstrates is sufficient to justify saying she's a violinist -- yes, an amateur violinist -- and I also think, as I tried to explain, that the bone-dry but also overly detailed description is misleading. It sounds like a piece of trivia that doesn't fit with the rest of the article, like we're not describing a skill she has, but just describing one skit out of her many others. I think once again this is just you saying you don't think the source is sufficient to clearly establish she is a "violinist"; or in other words, you're saying that we can't conclude from the video that she has noteworthy familiarity and facility with the instrument. Am I wrong? --

Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs}

) 03:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

emercedesbenz.com used in a number of M-B articles

• emercedesbenz.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 above site is used as a reference in a number of Mercedes-Benz related articles. It is a blog-format site publishing reviews and news articles about M-B and its products. Articles on the site do feature very prominent advertising - both google adwords and large banners at the side and bottom. However, I contend that as a news and opinion aggregator it is of interest to M-B fans, but is not a reliable source of reference for Wikipedia articles. One thing that makes me think these links have been added for the purpose of generating traffic to the site rather than by well meaning editors is looking (for example) at the edit history of Ashleyrude (talk · contribs) whose only contributions have been to add this link to Wikipedia articles.

I am going to address the question of whether this site is a spam link that should be blacklisted separately so that's not what I am raising here. I would simply like people's opinion on whether emercedesbenz.com is a reliable source or not. I believe that it is not. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page meta title says it all eMercedesBenz - The Unofficial Mercedes-Benz Weblog. Definitely not RS, but as always there may be exceptions. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if we had a stance on the use of this site. Is it considered to be a blog network or does the "expert status" of the individuals take preference? Guest9999 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is more of a blog network Unomi (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the discussion from the last time this came up.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not even close to reliable. It's doubtful any person on examiner.com has an legitimate "expert status". They're just bloggers selected based upon applying for a certain topic in a certain city. No actual expertise at all is required to be demonstrated to get a position there, just a desire to blog and drive traffic for advertising dollars. There's also no oversight to speak of. The site is no better than some random personal blog picked at random. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there any progress in getting this blacklisted? Was someone working on that? What do we have to do to make that happen? DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cross posted at the Spam talk page[15]], but there was no response, and I still don't know what that means. There's been another 136 links added (which I didn't check very closely this time), but the website is clearly being used frequently as a reliable source and the articles are clearly user-generated articles by non-experts and little to no editorial oversight. I don't know the solution, but 1,200 links is soon going to be double that. Flowanda | Talk 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we need to demonstrate that it's actually being spammed instead of just being unreliable in order to get the spam people to take notice. Considering there are a lot more potential people that could be spamming (every blogger there could list their own articles) it migh be hard to track down, but I bet there are people systematically linking to all their stuff. I've got a lot of cleaning up after chronic problem edits going on already right now, but maybe I'll try to tackle this soon. Silly red tape. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider asking for an XLinkBot, which reverts blog-type links often added by new users, instead of a full blacklist. Blacklisting should only be used as a last resort. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, let's hold on for just a moment. I think that the original link to the RS noticeboard seems to be rife with errors of cherry-picked references. People getting paid to write makes them unreliable? Really? So, we can exclude anyone who writes for a living, like speech writers, newspaper reporters, etc? I imagine the wiki will get a lot more sparse from culling every article of references written by people doing so for a paycheck. As Examiner has editorial oversight, I am unclear as to the real issue here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, in its current form, examiner.com doesn't seem to have editorial oversight anymore. San Francisco and Washington, which have print versions of the Examiner newspaper may be different, but other cities covered don't, and they seem to be nothing more than hosting sites. oknazevad (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize Arcayne also showed up here (instead of just below where he was already chastised for his wikistalking) to make false accusations such as "rife with errors of cherry-picked references"?!? What a joke. Examiner does NOT have editorial oversight, as mentioned several times, and the authors are not subject matter experts on the topics they write about. The sites fails

WP:RS rules pretty much every way any site could, as agreed by an extremely strong consensus (see also the section below). One editor pretending otherwise as an opportunity to make personal attacks won't change that. DreamGuy (talk

) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• the Washington Examiner is a daily newspaper paper. True, it takes a right-wing political stand, so does the Wall Street Journal, and the St Petersburg Times takes a famously left-wing editorial stand. I see no difference between the print edition of the Washington Examiner and any other newspapers with an editorial stand except that it is, of course, it smaller and newer than many. Historicist (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ not http://www.examiner.com/dc. nableezy - 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I know this is confusing but http://www.washingtonexaminer.com is the web site of a real, honest-to-gosh, print newspaper with real journalists. I am listening right now to one of their correspondents being interviewed on NRR. They are right-of-center, but they are a real newspaper and a Wikipedia reliable source.Historicist (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, but this isnt about washingtonexaminer.com it is about examiner.com. nableezy - 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for a movie budget for Star Trek:First Contact which I found here as being $46 million, my edit was reverted with the reason that "better sources than The numbers say $45" (although no source was provided). So I guess the question is simple enough. Do you think that www.the-numbers.com is a reliable source, or an unreliable source, for movie budgets? Thanks for your time. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a reliable source. But I think it is quite possible that there are be better (more reliable) sources. However, to change the article and state the lower number, we would need a citation to one of those better sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some feedback on which sources are considered "notable" in this article. How many notable sources does an article need to pass?

User:Edilworth/Grace Welch

Thanks edilworth 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The newspapers show just as links at the moment are fine, the blogs are not. It isn't so much numbers as quality. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

An ongoing discussion in many articles regarding Honours and Awards is to identify exactly what medals/ribbons an individual was awarded. See for the latest example of this the most recent Australian award of the Victoria Cross, Talk:Mark Donaldson#Citation requests for honours and awards section. The basic question is - does the visual sighting (and subsequent photograph) of a display in a reputable museum like the Australian War Memorial count as a reputable source. In this case, the photograph in question is File:Donaldson VC medals AWM March09.jpg. PalawanOz (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to verify that the medals shown in the photo do indeed come from the Australian War Memorial... or that the medals shown were awarded to Donaldson? We can assume good faith, but that may not be enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the original photo and have just I've uploaded a different view of the medals taken on the same day at File:Donaldson medals AWM March09 2.JPG. Donaldson's name can be seen on the certificate at the upper-left of the photo and his signature is clearly shown on the program for the investiture ceremony on 16 January 2009 at the bottom right. The sign on the right side of the photo talks about the Victoria Cross for Australia - as Donaldson is the first and only person to have received this medal it provides further confirmation that these are indeed his medals. The AWM's website has material on Donaldson loaning his VC and the AWM displaying it with all his medals at: [16], The act of loaning the medal was also widely reported in the media, eg: [17] and [18] As this is the only Victoria Cross for Australia and the AWM website states that they planned to display it with all his other medals, I think that this should be enough to establish that these medals are indeed his. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't need to use the photo of the medals as a source... between the documents in the display at the museum (primary sources) and the Museum web page (a secondary source) you have written sources. Use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found a source listing his medals, and added that as a source. Case closed! Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

about sleep disorders.

My view point, this article is an advertisement for a film with no independant coverage, people oppose the articles deletion bc they think it is a good film and it is a servece to "the world community" and "highly thought of" but i think it needs RS still. Are these sources reliable sources? Thx RetroS1mone talk 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems that several independant sources have been found... so I assume the RS issue has been resolved. Never mind... I see that the other sources have their own issues. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Jim Brooks from Archive of American Television on Youtube. As video interviews I don't doubt that these are reliable. However my question is how should I source to it? As far as I can tell the interview is only kept on their offical Youtube channel. Is that acceptable? Thanks. Gran² 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we know who posted the video to Youtube? Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As said, it was posted on the organisations own channel. Gran² 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... the question with most youtube videos is two fold... 1) is the posting a copyrite vio? and 2) do we have any guarentee that the video has not be edited or altered from original? However, since this comes to youtube from a known and trusted source (the Archive) and not some random member of the public, we can call it reliable (It is unlikely that they to posted copy vios or edited the video). Ideally you should cite the original production information (original program Title, production company, original air date, etc.) and then note the use of the Archive of American Television's copy as a courtecy link. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the interview (and all of the 600 others) were recorded by the archive and they uploaded them to the internet. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences site links to this official blogspot site which hosts the links to the interview on Youtube. I'll use cite interview, but as it is the companies chosen source for the interview (and I don't think they've 'aired' as such, anywhere else) I'll link it to Youtube. Thanks, Gran² 21:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is a advertisement or schedule in a newspaper, in print before the film premiere RS for when a film premiere happened? My opinion, there should have a review or article after the event to say when it happened. The problem is at

05:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How reliable are the publications of the American Society for Testing and Materials with respect data for this article about Gypsum Board? Does Wikipedia agree that this ASTM is a legitimate source for information about this topic?--Teda13 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is reliable... at least I don't see anything that would make me call it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly reliable with respect to data etc. on Gypsum Board. Collect (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be from a debate on the Drywall talk page about whether gypsum board means the same thing. Anyway, Google News Archive shows plenty of articles written for the layman that lead with "Gypsum board is commonly called drywall or plasterboard" or similar. Just search for the terms together. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ASTM reliable source?--Teda13 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the

) 07:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Football sources reliability check

The following sources are currently being used as references in an article. They information within them is not very large, as most of them are relatively short in their information. Could anybody here please examine them and give their opinion on whether they are reliable or not. I think if you could add a simple "Y" after each source that is found to be reliable is good enough to satisfy the issue.

• http://www.ecuadorexplorer.com/html/pride_match.html

appears to be a blog-type post, so not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.eloratings.net/

should be able to use Fifa.com for these type of stats. I can't determine whether this is authoritative. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/callao/Callao_Peru.htm

I don't think about.com is considered RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/listeconmebol.html

Looks like a personal website. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://journalperu.com/?p=859

Again blog-type. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/matt20020826.html

Another personal web site. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.futbolplanet.de/asia/friendly_tournaments/kirin_cup_2005.htm

Hmmmm, no indications of reliability. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.worldfootballers.com/player.php/nolberto--solano-186.html

Again no indication of reliability.Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your help. I've been here before a couple of times before and the contributors here did an excellent job. So congratulations on your efficiency.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at WP:WikiProject Football. I don't think any of these are RS, but there is such a profusion of football stats sites. WP:WikiProject Football/Links#Multi-national gives an overview of RS which should help. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jezhotwells.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The

article has seen a bit of edit warring over the past few days between several users and one anon who has now been blocked twice in three days. The issue has been about whether to include information about a previous marriage. Prior to the two blocks, there was no attempt to source the information. On their talk page, they've now linked to this newsletter as a source. They've also stated that the information will be added to the article again as soon as their block has expired. Searching a bit on google using the name found in the caption of one of that newsletters pictures, I came upon a profile for her on CNBCfix and through CNBCfix, this page.
Would any of these be considered reliable sources? If the information can be sourced, I have no interest in the content dispute that may continue over whether or not this information is then relevant to the article. I'm just not finding many potential sources, and to me, they don't look that strong. --Onorem♠Dil 12:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Not directly related to the question, but here's another article from CNBCfix a few months ago about the censorship happening at the Becky Quick page. --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with much of Onerom's commentary. But the paucity of sources shouldn't diminish the reliability of the ones available, in particular photographic evidence. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

note that the above comment is the anon in question, jumping ips. Syrthiss (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This website is being used to reference the alleged British involvement in the War of the Pacific. Especifically, this article is being used:

http://peruheroico.com/inicio/plinio-esquinarila-bellido/86-plinio-esquinarila-bellido/175-inglaterra-uso-a-chile-contra-el-peru.html

I examined the website before I even posted the information up, in order to meet Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Check out their main page:

http://www.peruheroico.com/inicio/

It looks highly reliable to me, and quite professional too. They have about 12 people for the staff, and have a series of photos, documents, and a series of other things from Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean sources. Moreover, the website has parts currently under construction that allegedly will involve many other information of significant importance for the matter.

However, the reliability of the website is being challenged as "extremist" POV.

Nonetheless, in the article regarding the British involvement, the website provides the names of historians and newspapers, and their opinions on the matter.

Also, the whole idea that Great Britain was involved in the War of the Pacific is quite important to mention. I'm sure there are "more" reliable sources out there, but is there any reason to completely throw this one out "to the trash"?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m the editor challenging the reliability AND neutrality of that "source". It seems Marshall conveniently forgot to mention two minor details: 1) the name of the website is “Peru Heroico” which translates as Heroic Peru and 2) It’s being used as a source in the

article which involved Peru and Chile. Marshall has recently added opinion from Heroic Peru as fact, with the intention (I believe) of showing that Peru fought against the almighty British empire as well as Chile.
Very heroic, indeed. Likeminas (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgot to mention anything "conveniently." Why don't you assume

WP:GF? The name of this section is "Peruheroico.com," moreover, what does the title of the website have to do with anything? It would be like saying that "Yahoo.com" should not be taken seriously because its title say the people there are a bunch of "yahoos." I also mentioned and wikilinked the War of the Pacific article. So I really don't know what you're trying to come up with here Likeminas.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk

) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I added information from the article regarding Great Britain into the section speficially meant for the actions of Great Britain, and nowhere else in the article:

WP:GF.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk

) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You ask; what does the title of the website have to do with anything?

Simple. A nationalistic website used in a War article from one of the parties invloved called Heroic doesn't quite scream reliable, much less Neutral.

And yes, you’re right I don’t want that information to be included. But not because I don’t agree or like it, but rather because it comes from a shady source.

You claim you’re sure there are more reliable sources out there corroborating Heroic Peru’s information. How about getting some, so that we don’t have to go through this kind basic disputes?

Likeminas (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

People can name a website whatever name they want to name it. That has nothing to do with reliability. If you're going to judge a website's reliableness by its title, then you seriously need to rework your thoughts. Some more information, the article in question is written by Plinio Esquinarila, a Peruvian historian and journalist.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that agree with the idea expressed in Peruheroico.com of British aid and involvement to Chile during the War of the Pacific:

1. http://www.boliviaweb.com/mar/capitulo5.htm (Bolivian source)
2. http://www.educabolivia.bo/Portal.Base/Web/VerContenido.aspx?GUID=35cb3ac9-05dd-4dd0-9164-428b1f659c4f&ID=139273 (Bolivian source)
3. http://www.escolar.com/article-php-sid=244.html (Nationality unknown)
4. http://www.granvalparaiso.cl/v2/2009/03/21/los-ingleses-de-america/ (Chilean source)
5. http://www.archivochile.com/Gobiernos/varios_otros_gob/GOBotros0006.pdf (Chilean source)
6. http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20090323_006675/nota_244_782485.htm (Peruvian source)
7. http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426 (Argentinean source)

Should I bring up any more?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. It would be great if you could use something in English (for the English Wikipedia you know). Did you try using Google books?

Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to look for things, look them up yourself. I have already done my job by providing further references that support the idea presented in Peruheroico.com. However, google books was a good idea, so here are some I found (Also certifying the idea that the British aided Chile in the War of the Pacific):

• Historia secreta de la guerra del Pacífico By Edgar Oblitas Fernández: [19]
• La política británica en la Guerra del Pacífico By Enrique Amayo: [20]

On the other hand, I have found no official source that denies the information. Would you care to provide anything that refutes the information I have provided as non-reliable?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Was I disputing the source or the information?

Please update the links on the article. Tonight I will be reviewing them for accuracy. Thanks.

Likeminas (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own work. I'm not your student, and you're by no means my teacher. If you want to update the page with the new articles, feel free to do so. I'll update it when I have the time to do so and if I have the notion to do so.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to finish the War of the Pacific. The site peruheroico.com defines itself in every footer of a page as "PATRONATO PARA LA DIFUSION PATRIOTICA" (Institut for patriotic difusion) and consideres the 1879-1883 war as a preámbulo a las prácticas, en el siglo siguiente, de las tropas nazis en Europa (transl.: "preambel to the practice, in next century, of the nazi troops"). Is that the neutrality and reliability needed for Wikipedia?

The ultra nacionalistic and revanchist site ist visited to 80.2% by people who think the war is still going on! Cree Ud. que ha terminado la guerra iniciada por Chile en 1879?*. Websites oriented to such readership shouldn't be used as reliable sources.

(*Transl.: Do you think that it is over the war initiated by Chile in 1879?)

--Keysanger (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reference you provide for your statement is that of the poll. Also, as I said above, the information being used is solely for the British involvement in the War of the Pacific. Nothing else from the website is being used.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Direct Market News a RS? It's one of a large number of marginal-seeming (to outright rubbish) sources that have been added to

) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be reliable, based on their about page. It looks like some of their stuff is news, and some is editorials by direct marketing people. The latter should be used only for their opinion. I would be careful about using either if it involves a

WP:BLP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 17:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

galge.com a RS?

Is Galge (NSFW), which is owned by the Japanese company Vector Inc, reliable? Vector describes themselves as "the largest software download site in Japan. The products include PCs and peripherals as well as software download.[21].陣内_Jinnai 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How and where is it being used as a citation? What context? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifically I want to use some of the information for

visual novel task force and wanted to know if it could be reliable and ifso, anything that wasn't being used as a major retailer and a major news outlet for Bishojou games.陣内_Jinnai

20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Japanese, but it sounds like it would be reliable like Amazon.com is reliable. Basically for existence of a game, the game's publisher, and maybe when it was released. Are you trying to use it for very basic facts, or for reviews, or what? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some actual feature articles as well. The site also appears to list news as well.陣内_Jinnai 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you know Japanese, and the rest of us don't, you'll probably have to decide for yourself. Look to the Japanese google news (or whatever), their listing of employees, and whatnot, to decide if other reliable sources use their articles, and whether they have an editorial staff that will week out junk if a writer submits it. If you come to a conclusion, you should post it here in case it ever comes up again. If you can't find anything like I've mentioned, then they are probably not reliable beyond very basic facts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is at least one news source that reviewsed them [22] ,Kadokawa Shoten. Considering they are a subsidary of Vector and would that be enough?陣内_Jinnai 06:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a second (or more) opinion on *http://www.rapbasement.com . I'm involved in an article where a user is relying heavily on it as a source and I don't believe it qualifies as a

) 04:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear reliable. This is from their About page: The RapBasement.com Network was established in 1999 with a group of fan sites coming together to create one of the largest, most trafficked, fan networks in the world. Creators, David Murray and Jason Wagner, went on to create RapBasement.com in 2002, expanding to become a leading authority in the Rap & Hip Hop lifestyle. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That's one of the things that put it over the threshold for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this webpage a reliable source? The article is published by a company called Frog Design, which seems to be a reputable company. However, I know the pdf is missing author information.

) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• What are you trying to make it a reference for? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This character, Gonzalo Bulnes, and especifically this book regarding the War of the Pacific: [23].

I really would like some sort of RS check for this as it seems to be completely biased and seems to hold POV pro-Chile. It is being used as reference in articles such as

article. Bulnes is by no means a third-party source and, to make matters worse, his books do not have a bibliography and do not explain where he got the information he claims to be facts in his books. In other words, for all anybody could know, the man could be making up everything he is writing in his book.

I would agree if this character is referenced from a third-party source, but a direct usage of him seems to be clearly POV; and also breaks

) 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes's work is considered "The classic narrative of the War of the Pacific" by the "The Cambridge history of Latin America" of Leslie Bethell, and that is a academic book and her statement is done within a academic context, within a comparison of the study sources. --Keysanger (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Even you declare Gonzalo Bulnes to be a biased author. Here is a direct quote from you, " His interpretations of the facts are Chile-biased, yes." The proof: [24]. Gonzalo Bulnes, a biased author, is not a reliable source.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a historian. Do you know of any historian that isn't?

Likeminas (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. What kind of response is that? So you're basically also agreeing that Gonzalo Bulnes is a biased, Pro-Chilean POV source. And yet, you justify that with, "do you know of any historian that isn't?" Seriously. Thus far it's three people, Me, Keysanger, and Likeminas, that say that Gonzalo Bulnes is a biased, pro-Chilean POV author. As such, I ask once more, is he a reliable source?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Bulnes is a historian and as most people he has a POV. Nonetheless, having a POV does not make him unreliable.

Do we consider

NYT

reports as unreliable because of their editorial stance?

Gonzalo Bulnes is one of the few dispassionate accounts of the war. His book, Guerra del Pacifico (War of the Pacific), having more than 100,000 pages organized over three volumes, is by far the most complete and cited work of the war.

Needless is to say that several other plublications such as books, journals and encyclopedias use it as well. [25] [26][27][28][29]

Likeminas (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They use him because he serves as a primary source. We're supposed to be using third-party sources in order to avoid

WP:OR from taking place. Also, I repeat myself once again: Biased sources are not reliable sources. The editorial stance of the BBC, NYT, and The Economist (like any other article from a newspaper) should be carefully used only as a method of recording the information that they and other sources support (Which achieves NPOV).--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk

) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's wikipolicy on primary sources:

Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk

) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

fpif.org

I'd appreciate some comments on whether www.fpif.org (Foreign Policy In Focus) should/could be regarded as a reliable source. This partly pertains to a discussion on Talk:Anti-Americanism#Edit Warring, but it would be useful to know in the long-term. --WebHamster 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a (liberal-leaning) think tank, and its publications should be reliable sources for (at least some of) its members' views. Whether these are views are

noteworthy enough

to include in an article will depend on the author of the publication, the subject area, whether these views have been quoted by third-party sources etc. Additionally, some FPIF reports may be reliable sources for facts or "attributed facts" - depending upon the particular circumstances.

In short, it is difficult to give a definitive answer here without knowing what particular publication of FPIF you want to cite and what statement it is intended to support. Can you summarize the basic dispute at Talk:Anti-Americanism#Edit Warring ina couple of sentences ? Abecedare (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We use a book by Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future (W. W. Norton, 2006) as a source to label Asif Ali Zardari as a Shia muslim (plus some less reliable sources, including HuffPo). Is that a reliable source, or does Nasr have pro-Shia biases that make him unreliable? Inline attribution is not an option since the info is in Zardari's infobox. Discussion is at Talk:Asif Ali Zardari#NPOV issues. Huon (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nasr is a widely recognized scholar and W. W. Norton & Company is a reputable publisher. I also find the claim to be fairly unexceptional, since about 30% of Pakistani Muslims are Shia, as was the family of Zadari's wife, Benazir Bhutto. Is there any RS that disagrees? If we need to mention the personal organized superstition of each politician, in particular in an infobox, is a different question beyond the scope of this noticeboard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Would http://www.mapsouthpacific.com/resources/index.html be considered a reliable source for the article Lifou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I can't find any information about who runs the site, etc....thoughts?

No, its just a site aggregating links to other sites. What are you trying to reference. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This site {http://www.province-iles.nc/} looks to be fairly official, you could use babelfish to translate, perhaps. There may be something at the main French government sites or in French newspapers. Sadly the French Wikipedia doesn't have any references. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The index page you linked to would definitely not be reliable ... perhaps you meant to link to one of the other pages at mapsoutpacific.com? Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow forgot to sign the first time around. The URL I was actually planning to use was http://www.mapsouthpacific.com/new_caledonia/lifou-map.html. Would that work better? Thanks for the good advice! Fleetflame 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is essentially a tourist guide to the island. While I don't think it is unreliable, it isn't the best of sources. Suggest you look for better. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help! Fleetflame 01:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is

) 20:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why it wouldn't be. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Should it be considered reliable, keep in mind, though, that use of it as a source may be a violation of
  WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I bring that up as the article for the book seems ever the top promotional, essentially claiming it's the best thing since Jesus, etc. This suggests editors not being particularly objective in their assessment of its relative value as a source. DreamGuy (talk
  ) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't hold a reviewers words against the book or author. It appears to be more of a compilation of roles and some minor analysis. It really depends on what the editor is trying to use it as a source for. What COI are you talking about?Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The COI of the person who made the Wikipedia article about the book and also made articles about the author, etc. with extremely promotional, peacock style language. The book is not all that significant in the grand scheme of things and should not be used in excess to its relative worth as a source. DreamGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The poster made it clear that he wanted to use the actual book, not the wiki article. So the style of the article is not relevent to the question. Further, he hasn't said to what extent he wants to use the book or what he wants to reference from it, so there is some significant assumption on your part. Have you read the book? I looked it up on Amazon and saw the following: " . . . a sociologically sound study of strong women in film and TV . . ." -- The New Haven Advocate, April 6, 2006. Well the New Haven Advocate seems to have thought well of it. "[an] enthusiastically recommended addition to personal, film school, and community library Film Studies reference collections and supplemental reading lists." -- Reviewer's Bookwatch, a publication of Midwest Book Review, April 2006. I guess that reputable source seemed to think it was ok too. ". . . written with unpretentious academic authority." -- Arizona Daily Star, May 5, 2006. So did the Arizona Daily Star. Maybe the book isn't the lightweight piece of fluff you seem to believe. On what basis do you call it "not all that significant"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To some Albanian related articles this author (Ruches, Pyrrhus J. (1965). Albania's captives. Chicago: Argonaut) has been put as a source. There are many problems with his work related to WW2 in Albania, since his claims are contradicted by well known mainstream sources English, German, Italian, here a short list of his discrepancies [30]

A classical example is Borova massacre case here [31] This is a very well known fact of German reprisals in Albania. While all authors English, German, Italian, maintain that was made by German as a reprisal for a Albanian partisan attack in July 1943, Ruches claims that Ballist and MAVI fought each other on October 1943(?!) and after the battle Balli forces burned the village(?!)

The same happened at History of the Jews in Albania article. Although Ruches claims are contradicted by others see sources here [32] they only keep inserting his reference, neglecting what mainstream sources say. No jews expelled from Albania au contrair they found shelter in Albania and the only accepted case of Jew deportation all sources agree is that of 400 jews from Kosova region.

Another biased version of the story is that of Corfu incident, regarding the murder of Italian General Tellini. Again Ruches maintain that was done by Albanians while mainstream sources have a different version here [33]

At the end we have a very POV author ((see Pettifer note 12 here a hihgly pro greek author) [34]) which tell stories none confirms, moreover the well known mainstream editors and scholars contradicts as explained above. Aigest (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no access to the book itself, but if the following blurb text quoted for it somewhere is authentic, then it seems indeed to be a work of nationalist polemics, not the kind of work we should use as a source without at least heavy precautions: "This is the first complete and definitive account in the English language of a tragic and unknown story – the blunt and cruel delivery by means of diplomacy of a proud people [i.e. the Albanian Greeks] to the raping, looting and massacring bands of barbaric and uncivilized Albanian chieftains" Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've think we may have heard this one before. Anyway, there is a continuing discussion regarding which sources can be counted as being unreliable SPS regarding the group known as the

) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Much contention around these sources: (1) Fortt and (2) Daniel. Please do a find on the Talk page for each of these, and I apologize in advance for the ..uh .. noise level, a good portion of which was caused by me.

I 'think' all editors would like to use the TTT web site. (find 'TTT') I hope that is a fair statement, maybe not.

Finally, there is a large body of polemical work against the movement (my characterization). These often consist of single chapters in anti-cult books, especially prior to PC days. Any advice, guidelines or cautions in how to use these books concerning beliefs and practices of the group would be beneficial.

Note, the group has no published doctrine of its own.

All editors agree at least to the following RS - Melton Encyclopedia of American Religion article on 'Two by Twos', Parker 'Secret Sect'. The latter is listed by Melton.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that the Secret Sect book is apparently (I haven't seen it myself) a recounting of former members of the group of their lives with the group. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A very interesting account about this seminal work on the TTT web site here. [36]209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the introduction, which briefly mentions the authors' experience, the Secret Sect book is straight history. Perhaps the title was confused with one of the other books out there which deal with member experiences (not indexed, so I personally didn't feel motivated to hunt through those).

Secret Sect/Parker and Parker is mentioned in several of the relatively few unquestionable reliable sources which give references. Fortt and Daniel are mentioned in fewer, but still some. The same may be said for Rule, Woster, Paul, Irvine, Enroth, Roberts, Mann, Nervig. The Dair Rioga reference is RS (published by a government history project), as is Johnson (Sex, Lies, and Sanctity is an official publication of the Association for the Sociology of Religion). Wilson and Barker are/were respected academic authorities on new religious movements at Oxford. As for older newspaper articles, they are mostly cited with backups (a few, non-controversial exceptions), and portions of several of the same articles are referenced by other authors. • Astynax ^talk 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no RS references to Daniel or Fortt, although this has been stated several times by Astynax. Wilson and Barker may be respected authorities but they wrote exactly one sentence about the group, and that was quoted from Parker and Parker. :) [37] page 299. Roberts is the niece of Edward Cooney and self-published a book about him. I've not seen references to Woster. Paul is a source for Melton, 5th ed, so is RS on that basis. Irvine is the founder/originator of the group; his letters have been published on the web. Enroth is published by Zondervan, now out of print, and available on-line, but his book

Churches_that_Abuse has only a few pages on the group, and frankly is absurd. Mann is another omnibus cult/ new movement book as is Nervig. Hope this saves some checking for everyone. Summary - This list parses into two sections. (1) Omnibus cult books from legitimate publishers with typically brief references to the 2x2s, tending to be older works but not all. (2) More lengthy treatments which tend to be self-published on-line or in print. These include Woster, Lewis, Kropp, Daniel and Fortt. Parker and Parker were self-published but because of its seminal status is widely quoted and referenced. As far as I'm concerned question marks exist around: Woster, Lewis, Kropp, Daniel and Fortt. Of these, Kropp is well known, high profile, and has a pretty good rep for fact checking and sourcing although she is anti- the group. She also runs the TTT web site.64.7.157.40 (talk

) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally not sure about your repeated allegations of SPS—i.e., that Roberts, Woster, Lewis, Danie, Fortt, or even Parker and Parker are self-published. But regardless, they are referenced elsewhere. I haven't been keeping a list of books which reference those books, but from what I have in front of me...

• Secret Sect (at least), contains references from Roberts, and her book contains text of the material cited in Parker and Parker.
• Woster is referenced in Sex, Lies, and Sanctity.
• Daniel is ref'd in All in Good Faith
• Fortt is also ref'd in All in Good Faith, an Italian encyclopedia entry I've printed but have yet to translate, plus one or two other books I've encountered (which I would have to go back to the library to find again).
• Lewis is unimpeachably RS.

I'll now keep an eye out and note others in print sources as I have time. As for web resources, Fortt, Woster and Daniel are listed as sources on the religioustolerance.org article on this church. Fortt is listed in the bibliography for the Univ. of Virginia's New Religious Movements article on the group (site currently being updated).

Wilson and Barker have written more than just a sentence on this group, nor is the passage a quote from Parker and Parker (that I can find—just a reference for further info). Both have written elsewhere on the church, and I have a copy of another of their papers coming, which I've yet to go through.

I was referring to the only book you provided as a source in the CC article, and a link is provided above, so anyone can check. You can also get to the index and look up 'Cooneyites', as the group are known in the UK. I'm not sure why this matters.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Irvine you included from the references is the editor of Heresies Exposed—a book which has gone through over 30 printings—not the "founder/originator of the group."

Sorry about that. That is often a point of confusion. I thought your reference to Irvine was to his letters, which have been published on the TTT site.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kropp's is the only non-print source/website in the list, which you accept as reliable and which also lists the print titles raised here. • Astynax ^talk 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kropp's web site (TTT) provides a comprehensive listing of every book and article available; that doesn't mean she has gone to any of Lewis, Fortt, Daniel's publications to source material. I doubt very much she has, as she works directly with primary materials and some earlier works. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Secret Sect (at least), contains references from Roberts, "

Something doesn't seem right with that;

Parker, Doug and Helen. 1982. The Secret Sect
Roberts, Patricia. 1990. The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney 1867–1960

JesseLackman (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dair Rioga Local History Group; All in Good Faith; Leinster Leader, Naas, Co. Kildare; 2005; See: Chapter 70 - The Church With No Name, p.322; About the history in County Meath, Ireland

Since this local history book is not easy to get, could you tell us what information this local history group sourced from Daniel and Fortt.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To someone looking in, this must be a lot of detail, and maybe confusing. Your effort in looking deeply into this issue would be very much appreciated, as this question of 'reliable sources' has been lingering over the article for a long time. Personally, I feel closure would help greatly no matter what the resolution is. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. One point I would like to add is that, at least in my opinion, James R. Lewis, along with J. Gordon Melton and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, is among the most widely respected academic sources on new religious movements out there, and I have to question why anyone would challenge his credibility as a source. Anyway, the sources in question, to summarize, seem to be the following, in no particular order. I also think that it might be best if any sources which anyone specifically wants to be addressed be added to the list below.

• Daniel, Kevin N. 1993. Reinventing the Truth: Historical Claims of One of the World's Largest Nameless Sects. Bend, Oregon: Research and Information Services, Inc.
  ISBN 978-0-9639419-0-9
• Fortt, Lloyd. 1994. A Search for the Truth: The Workers' Words Exposed. Bend, Oregon: Research and Information Services, Inc.
  ISBN 978-0-9639419-2-3
• Parker, Doug and Helen. 1982. The Secret Sect. Sydney, Australia: Macarthur Press Pty. Ltd.
  ISBN 0-9593398-0-9
  .
• Woster, Carol. 1988. The No-Name Fellowship. Belfast: Great Joy Publications.
• Irvine, Wm. C. (editor). 1929. Heresies Exposed. Tenth edition. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers (reprint by Kessinger Publishing).
  ISBN 978-0-7661426-9-5. John Carter (talk
  ) 14:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

and I have to question why anyone would challenge his credibility as a source
I didn't. My comments about 'Lewis' are with respect to the self-published book, The Church without a Name by Kathleen Lewis. Here [38]. Sorry about the confusion. Perhaps we should all stick to full names, what with 2 Lewis's and 2 Irvine's.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Responding to the responses above...

• Regarding Wilson and Barker: whether the reference in the article is to one sentence or fifty, there is no question that both authors are RS.
• Regarding how Dair Rioga used any of the sources it lists: I have no idea, and short of interviewing the authors, I can't imagine how that could be determined. But the question did make me re-check the sources listed at the end of the chapter and also listed are the Roberts book cited in the
  CC article, and the Kropp
  website. It seems unreasonable to ask Wiki editors to know or have to determine how sources mentioned in books being cited were used by their authors. I don't know where else that is expected, or how it could even be done, short of making a trip and interviewing those authors.
• Regarding Roberts and Secret Sect: she was quoted before her book came out. Her book contains actual texts which were summarized or quoted in part by Parker and Parker.

The Church without a Name is cited nowhere in the article—nor do the references contain any citations by other authors named Lewis or Irvine—so I'm not sure how anyone here was confused. The number of books and articles I've come across dealing with this subject and which have been published in the last 10-15 years makes a very thin stack. The majority of even unquestioned RS materials do not list references. But the point is that such do exist. The little list above is hardly the result of an exhaustive search, just what I happen to have. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wilson and Barker: whether the reference in the article is to one sentence or fifty, there is no question that both authors are RS.

I thought it somehow relevant, since you introduced them, and wanted an examination, but you are correct. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding how Dair Rioga used any of the sources it lists: I have no idea, and short of interviewing the authors, I can't imagine how that could be determined. But the question did make me re-check the sources listed at the end of the chapter and also listed are the Roberts book cited in the

CC article, and the Kropp

website. It seems unreasonable to ask Wiki editors to know or have to determine how sources mentioned in books being cited were used by their authors. I don't know where else that is expected, or how it could even be done, short of making a trip and interviewing those authors.

I was hoping for footnotes or notes that typically show where the author has obtained the material and what they obtained. Since the case for these authors being RS is based on their being cited by respected authorities I would think any light shed on how and where their work is used would work to your advantage.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Church without a Name is cited nowhere in the article—nor do the references contain any citations by other authors named Lewis or Irvine—so I'm not sure how anyone here was confused.

I suppose I was confused when you said Lewis, because she has written a substantial book length work and many people 'are' familiar with it. Sorry.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again regarding Dair Rioga: Their footnotes are only used to expand upon items in the text, with a source list at the end of each chapter. They do not source each statement. Please avoid interspersing your comments into original posts, which makes it very difficult to determine who wrote what. Waiting until some fresh eyes come in to comment before needlessly lengthening this thread. • Astynax ^talk 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it best in this particular case as these are distinct points, but would you mind sticking your sig back on your comments that I orphaned. I don't think I can do it. Again, sorry about that. 209.162.236.197 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WE REALLY NEED HELP, FRIENDS!

The editors of

) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a looooong running dispute and some sort of clarification, any sort of clarification really, would probably be welcomed by all sides. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When you read through the archives and consider the reasons for the "looooong running dispute" it seems to me the roots are in editors and sources with clear conflicts of interest (COI) re objectivity. By conflict of interest I mean sources and editors that are former members, are current members, or have personal connections with current or former members. This might be easier to see for someone who has studied the dispute/debate across the various places on interent it shows up, I've done that for the past couple years. I just posted some thoughts, observations, and suggestions about this on the CC talk section "Care with newspaper articles".[39]

For what it's worth, JesseLackman (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

-->> My comments were moved to the "Conflict of interest?" section here -->> [40]JesseLackman (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am finding this site used as a source for a lot of BLPs recently, but can find no meaningful information about the site itself. Any opinions on its reliability would be appreciated. -

) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any kind of editorial review on these pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw it being used on a page recently and thought it looked unreliable myself. This was also discussed briefly previously. The company behind it, Advameg.com or Advameg, Inc., also runs a number of other similar sites like referenceforbusiness.com that look equally unreliable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And citydata.org which has lots of critics. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This single user Wiki is being added as a source to multiple articles. That's not legit, is it?

) 04:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. That's vandalism, or spam, or an overeager fan of an alternate wiki, or something. I think someone has a bot that revert all their edits, if it's too many to do by hand. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I've brought it up at WikiProject Spam as well, maybe they are the ones that have that bot?

talk

) 05:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I notice that a lot the links are from it being used as an image source. They may be, in which case that part may require human-style work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This might be useful SF007 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the review in question. Is this reliable? For starters, it gets a fact wrong: it says this is the fourth album, but it is in fact the third. On top of that, it's less than a paragraph in length. However, given the circumstance I don't think these facts stack up. The page in question where I want to place this review currently only has four reviews, counting this one; much below the standard number of reviews. Further, I don't think it's significant that it gets the fact wrong, as long as they were indeed listening to this album instead of the band's fourth. However, the review indicating specific songs from the album indicates it was listening to the right album, so how is it relevant that they thought it was the fourth? It isn't relevant to the content we want to use.

In closing, I really could see replacing this review with something else given the opportunity, but the opportunity isn't available. Without this review, the page in question only has three professional reviews; not enough for me to be willing to forgo this one. I also know that the Rolling Stone is generally a reliable source, but that this review specifically is questionable. So my inquiry is, given the circumstance above, is this a reliable source? Not the Rolling Stone generally, but this specific review. The Guy ^(edits) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"The page in question where I want to place this review currently only has four reviews, counting this one; much below the standard number of reviews." What? Why would you need a bunch of reviews? Four sounds like too many for most cases to me. If it's iffy, toss it. There's no source quota that forces us to use bad sources just to use more sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

I agree in principle: nothing forces people to add iffy reviews to achieve a count, and this review doesn't say anything unique and meaty enough to cause me to argue differently in this case. The norm for reviews in the infobox is ten, however, and that's a figure that I support. If we go much below that, people start to cherry-pick reviews to support their own notion of what the "right" review for the album is. At ten, it's easier to make sure there's a reasonably balanced cross-section spanning positive and negative reviews in reasonable proportion to the actual percentages of positive and negative reviews.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ten Thousand Fists is the fourth album, but only the third studio album. The reviewer doesn't say fourth studio album. Music as a Weapon II was released before Fists. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten reviews? Ten?!? That's a ridiculous number. Wikipedia editors are suppose4d to pick the most bnotable and relevant reviews, not include wayu more than necessary as a feeble way to avoid editors making bad decisions -- now we just have a lot of bad decisions piled together. We're not a web directory in general, nor a review directory. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite off topic, as we're currently discussing the reliability of a source. But, yes, ten. I find that's a good number to balance the positive and negative reviews unless it's overly simple, like absolutely neutral, or overwhelmingly positive/negative. Further, I fail to find where it says to select the most relevant and notable reviews, just that reviews should generally be notable; not necessarily that we should limit the number due to that. Now, back to the topic: Is this source reliable? If you would like, we can discuss its placement a different day. Right now that's not the focus. The Guy ^(edits) 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I wasn't by any means saying there was a clearly defined standard (I do agree 10 is a good number, though), just that if we had more reviews, a bigger wealth of them, I would be definitely tempted to throw this out. However, I don't believe 3 is good enough. I also do believe this review is reliable, and therefore shouldn't be thrown out, even if I don't like it at all. I wasn't at all implying we should put in bad sources to comply with a number, then, only saying I would be willing to get rid of a good source if we had more good sources. Therefore, because of a dispute, I brought the review here for quality evaluation. I think it's questionable, but not unreliable. The Rolling Stone is generally a reliable publication. The Guy ^(edits) 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also the thing Jezhotwells brought up: this is TECHNICALLY Disturbed's fourth album, and we have no idea if Rolling Stone was referring to studio albums or just albums in general. The Guy ^(edits) 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to take into account their history when deciding this as well, out of four album reviews, only one is without mistakes. Their review of the first album is not a review in any sense, but a generic article on the state of "nu-metal" with almost no mention of Disturbed, then this one failed to fact check and was shoddily thrown together for inclusion in their miniature review section of the magazine. The latest review decided to offer an incorrect opinion on the meaning of a song that was easily the most widely discussed part of interviews relating to the album and the source of controversy, which shows a distinct lack of fact checking and reliability as well as knowledge of the industry.

What makes it even more difficult is they are not peer reviewed, so whatever abhorrent mistakes they make can only be cited by individuals, this creates a permanent paradox in which reliability/notability is heavily overvalued by editors, other editors show distinct contradictions in the content, and the first simply point to their reliability/notability. There is no system in place to challenge those two traits that are so heavily overvalued when selecting musical reviews, because the only system in place to do that does not function in this sphere of critical journalism. Taking the entire thing in the context of right versus wrong, IGN is technically more reliable than the Rolling Stone in this instance, because they have two out of three reviews with fact checking and are well over a paragraph in length.

Basically, there are three instances where the Rolling Stone fails the reliability test, and overvaluing "notability" is not appropriate, the IGN review is suitable and professional while being notable enough for inclusion, meeting the four review norm. I will say, as a side note, I doubt they are referring to their live/behind the scenes DVD, as it is not a live CD or a compilation and therefore falls outside their area of expertise, I Feel it was a blatant mistake indicative of their notorious "speed reviewing", I attribute the terseness of the "review" to this as well. Revrant (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to throw in a few notes here. First, show me where it says they do not peer review. In all reality, this could be used to build a case against the source, as reliability is mostly based on the fact-checking and editorial process. Second, notability is not to be overvalued, but it's also not to be undervalued. Notability determines the weight of the sources we use. It determines which sources' opinions are "worth more" than others (for lack of a better term). In this case, Rolling Stone is a giant of a magazine publication, definitely more notable, and therefore carries more weight. However, as you implied, notability =/= reliability and an unreliable source should be left out regardless of weight. However, if both are reliable, the more notable one should arguably be given the spot. Thirdly, just because the Rolling Stone's review of The Sickness should basically be sub-titled "History of nu metal", that doesn't discredit it technically as a source. It's not unreliable because of that factor. Lastly, just because you assume they weren't referring to Music as a Weapon II doesn't give us any sort of incentive to say that they weren't. In fact, they are technically correct: Ten Thousand Fists is the fourth album if you count Music as a Weapon II. Considering they're technically correct, we can't just assume they didn't involve the live compilation album just to discredit the source. In essence, the source is actually solid. It sounds to me that you're trying to discredit the Rolling Stone publication itself as a source, in which case, this might not be the place for that. The Guy ^(edits) 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't, none of the musical review sphere has a peer review system in place, http://www.acquirecontent.com/titles/rolling-stone and there's what you asked for. I didn't imply it at all, I explicitly stated it, it is true in all circumstances, and unfortunately this type of incident is a ruling factor in the Wikipedia editorial process because of there being nothing to challenge reliability, leading to nonsense edit warring and arguing in perpetuity until one editor yields without consensus or amicable understanding.

Yes, it does discredit it as a source for a review, because it should be titled "A Brief History in Nu Metal with James Lipton: and mention of recent bands", and that I'm not being hyperbolic is enough to discredit it entirely as a review, because it shows zero reliability. Now if you want to argue it's reliability as a source for the Nu metal article, I'd have no argument to make against it, because it would fit in there. I see, the other DVD, that is also not an album, but a live DVD, and their history shows they do not include that rhetoric in reviews of studio albums.

It isn't a live compilation album, it's a live compilation DVD of the artists that performed there, going even further, it is not Disturbed's live compilation DVD, it is a tour live compilation DVD, which is why I thought they were referring to M.O.L. because it is disqualified as "theirs" to begin with. It sounds to me like you're carrying on with weasel words, and that isn't the place for it either, and that's the common ground, there is no place for either of such challenges on Wikipedia as I cannot, nor can anyone else, challenge the reliability and notability of the Rolling Stone. Revrant (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I would use that link to build a case against the publication itself. I honestly don't care for Rolling Stone myself, but they have been deemed more notable than a lot of other publications out there, hence if the specific sources are reliable we have to give them due weight. I was also was using implied incorrectly, however, I know you know what I meant so there was no need to correct me. As for the content of the Rolling Stone review of The Sickness discrediting it as a review source, I frankly disagree. Not personally, but from an editor point-of-view. As far as I see, it gets no facts wrong, it has a scoring complex, and it does mention the album among the rubble of other information debris. That hardly makes it unreliable according to Wikipedia standards, no matter how abysmal it may be to you personally. That's just the system. As for Music as a Weapon II, it's a live album and DVD. That is, it was released as a CD, yet also a CD/DVD. CD/DVD I would like to note, too, that the album is widely credited to Disturbed, as they helmed and starred the tour, as well as the album being published and printed by the record label they are signed to. As for Rolling Stone not reviewing live compilation releases, that surely does not discredit the potential, and it doesn't mean that they solely won't mention them, either. Savvy? The Guy ^(edits) 21:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no system to do that, Wikipedia has no place to attribute that article to in which their status could be challenged. You overvalue notability, we had this debate when you joined and were obsessing over notability, it's quite clear in the policy that notability is simply a factor, not the only variable, in deciding a source's validity. I'm sure everyone else would agree a massive article that makes bare mention of the subject it's 'supposed' to be about is a valid critique on that subject, and if you couldn't detect my sarcasm, now you know, just because you personally go by notability over all other factors does not mean Wikipedia does.

This is getting pedantic and obsessive, the Rolling Stone doesn't mention them, you need only review any of their critiques of any album after the first by any artist to see their rhetoric makes no mention of live compilation DVDs, albums, or the like, in determining the number of albums released, it was quite clearly another of their notorious mistakes, obsessing over a "live" or "DVD" release does not add validity to their argument, indeed, it only hurts it, because if you were to include it, you would also include M.O.L., therefore regardless of if they included one, they failed to mention the other, and it was a clear mistake in both circumstances. Revrant (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a place to build a case against sources themselves. This is one of them,

WP:RS: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Again, is IGN (International Gaming Network) or Rolling Stone more reliable when it comes to music (assuming both sources are good)? I agree that this is getting rather pedantic, but I disagree; it's not getting obsessive. You seem obsessed with disregarding me as obsessive (see what I did therrre?). In any case, the source is correct, even if it didn't intend to be correct: Ten Thousand Fists is technically Disturbed's fourth album if you count MAAWII. I believe I've already said that, but it's only true; the source is correct, even if it didn't mean to be. M.O.L. wouldn't count, as that was released as a documentary DVD, not a live album. M.O.L. wasn't an album at all, just a DVD. Therefore, it wouldn't be counted as a Disturbed album, just a Disturbed release, whereas many sites (which I could link here, if you want) refer to MAAWII as a Disturbed album. The album even charted. So, bottom line, even if the source didn't mean to be correct, it is correct. The Guy ^(edits

) 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean there was no place period, obviously I'm on this board right now and I understand its purpose, I meant taking into context the paradoxical nature of "it's reliable because it's known" means this board is useless for determining its reliability, a massive factor for determining this through the course of policy is peer review or outside perspective, of which there is none, only original research.

I'm sorry, but both analogies were heavily flawed, a more apt analogy would be the Rolling Stone versus

Allmusic

, Allmusic is considerably less notable, but of a greater quality and reliability, it delves into the subject matter in depth and eschews one-paragraph reviews for fact checking and editor responsibility. Generally speaking, notability would be an important factor, if down the line one or the other had to be chosen, but to you the only one, and that is not the policy. When confronted with an excellent professional review from IGN's editor in chief of the Music channel, versus a snide one paragraph review with a blatant mistake from the Rolling Stone, it is of my opinion that notability need not be considered and the answer obvious.

I'm tired of this obsessive nonsense, I will not reply to this aspect further, you are extensively qualifying a flawed stance with what "is" and "isn't" allowed in order to be correct. I'm glad you feel you can explicitly state what is and is not an album under your own definitions, but original research is simply not allowed. They don't refer to it in that way, that's more weasel wording, simply because a generic discography listing doesn't go in depth does not mean they are classified equally, I need only google M.O.L. and find it listed in duality as an album, so your pedantic argument is becoming rather insufferable by forcing all of these qualifiers to support a stilted argument, and I reiterate, I will not indulge it further.

So, bottom line, the source is wrong both ways, and there is a more reliable source to fill the void when the two are compared.Revrant (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then I appear to have misinterpreted you, again, sorry. I am as eager as anybody to de-throne the Rolling Stone, trust me when I say that. However, you have two definitions of reliability, generally: yours, and Wikipedia's. As an example, somebody recently used Steve Kmak's personal MySpace to cite info concerning the recent events of his life. Now, I personally know that's Kmak's MySpace, it's definitely solid enough to prove it on a personal level, but it certainly just doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing, despite that fact that any person with a shred of sense would tell you it's impossible for somebody to fake that MySpace. That's a prime example of personal reliability versus Wikipedia reliability. I am of the belief that editors often use shaky sources (by Wikipedia's standards) simply because it's enough for them to believe in personally, yet skip other sources that would be considered reliable to Wikipedia because it has something missing, or even wrong. That's probably, as you said, the number one issue here: Wikipedia reliability, and personal reliability, and editors mixing the two up. The only thing that I see generally trumps the concept of notable reliability is numbers: if a large number of sources has the same information, it could definitely be used against a notable source with misinformation. It's definitely a flawed system that even fails to enforce itself on many occasions. That said, it's still the system. As you said, the more notable source would have to definitely be cited over the less notable source if both are considered reliable. On the same token, though, the flawed part is that if both sources have similar-but-different information, the notable source is generally viewed as more reliable.

As for my one analogy (it was only one), it's only flawed because I placed the "celebrity" (notable source) and the "vaguely known person" (non-notable source) in a "movie premiere" (article). Really, though, a movie premiere is a special events and we're talking about everyday articles here. Oh well, the analogy wasn't meant by any means to be convincing, it was just me rambling. As for your analogy of the Rolling Stone versus

Allmusic

, I agree personally. Again, personally. That doesn't necessarily mean that because Allmusic and the Rolling Stone have differing information that we could use Allmusic to disprove the Rolling Stone. Generally speaking, I don't understand what you're trying to say by, "but to you the only one, and that is not the policy." Please explain that a little better. Ah, the one snag in your logic: "it is of my opinion." Your opinion doesn't matter in that situation; there are policies to deal with such a decision. If you really want to sound more credible in your thinking, first take out the phrases "excellent professional", "from IGN's editor in chief of the Music channel", "snide one paragraph", "with a blatant mistake", and "it is of my opinion that notability need not be considered". Obviously the "excellent professional" is purely your opinion, and I could just as well say the review is flawed. As for "from IGN's editor-in-chief", it doesn't really matter, again, who the author is; just the publication, and the fact-checking process. And again, "snide" is your opinion, with "one paragraph" being of little significance in determining reliability. "With a blatant mistake" could in fact be a mistake, again, but I've told you that even if it is, it's a true mistake. "It is of my opinion that notability need not be considered"; do I even need to explain this? That leaves us with, "When confronted with a review from IGN, versus a review from the Rolling Stone, the answer obvious." Just as you told somebody on the Disturbed talk page, you would do well to keep your personal opinion out of a debate, as the above is all that you said in that sentence that's credible, without personal bias. Generally speaking, I see very few Featured Articles with vague reviews, if any. Most have reviews only from notable sources and publications, despite very good, very professional reviews being present elsewhere. These are Featured articles; the golden standard of Wikipedia. Therefore, if we're speaking on Wikipedia's terms, I could be embellishing notability, but you're certainly also downplaying it. I admire you, though, because you would rather have quality. I do admire that, and I admire you for fighting to make quality reviews present instead of exclusively notable ones, but again, I see very few Featured Articles that go by anything but notability (of course only if the sources are reliable) in regards to reviews.

As for M.O.L. and MAAWII, wow, what? If you need sources to confirm M.O.L. as a DVD, here: [41] [42] [43] [44]. Then you can also have some sources to determine that MAAWII is, in fact, an album, not a DVD documentary, and can therefore be put into Disturbed's discography, not their filmography with M.O.L.: [45] [46] [47] [48]. But whatever. I'm dropping this for now. I will accept not including the Rolling Stone review for now, but I assure you I will pick this back up later. I just can't be further bothered with it immediately. Good day to you, Revrant. The Guy ^(edits) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding the same to be true of you, indeed Wikipedia's policy supports parts of both of our arguments. Yes I saw that occur, however, that's another bad example; reliable sources pertaining to MySpace shows that all you would need is confirmation to include that source, but scrutiny is necessary. You have intrinsically linked notable and reliable, they are not the same, you've even coined a phrase binding them together, I assert yet again, they are not the same, and notability is not intrinsically linked to reliability, or to be put above verifiability, indeed it isn't truly equal, as I personally feel it is a consideration, according to Wikipedia policy notability is not typically used to dictate the content of an article, or its sources, thus you are wrong, and to a lesser degree so am I, if only because I lack your zeal in regard to notability.

I meant explicitly notability, at least in my opinion, is not a major factor, but merely a variable, granted, Wikipedia shares neither of our views, but that is my opinion. Yes by your technical pedantic cherry picking it is indeed correct, but using that same technical cherry picking I can quite clearly show it is wrong, going by the intended meaning, the article is wrong, simply. Mocking the artist in the space of a paragraph, while I may consider it snide, I agree that is subjective, for the Rolling Stone mocking the subject is the norm. You work constantly with your personal opinion, most editors do, your golden standard of notability above all else is a personal opinion that has no policy to back it, my view that a source be of excellent quality is a personal opinion that has no policy to back it.

You are deeply mistaken on the subject of notability, most seem to be, I'm being very generous towards notability, unlike Wikipedia I do feel it has a "notable" amount of merit, as ethereal as it is, and I work within those guidelines. I agree, notability is lorded over content, but it should not be, and Featured Articles are prime examples, Disturbed is an article lacking notable sources but filled generously with information, lacking the proper grammar and structure necessary to other propel it forward, yet other articles of lesser length and quality are FA due to the notability of their sources. The issue is largely human of course, with administrative users everything is entirely subjective, when these users abuse an article, much as the nomination not long ago, simply because it doesn't have enough "known" or "notable" sources, it damages the credibility of Wikipedia. They qualify it as both, indeed both of them, one is categorized as a DVD, one as a combo, and both are described similarly, so I think the point stands, to include one and not the other is a mistake, to include one when intending to include studio albums is a mistake. Revrant (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to a degree Wikipedia supports both of our arguments; of course not every aspect, however. Also, yes I realize that I would just need confirmation; but we had none, so it couldn't be included. Top that with

WP:SELFPUB

#5: "the article can not rely primarily on these sources", and the only source the article would have had was that one. So I suppose you're right that it certainly doesn't pertain to the issue at hand, but in retrospect little of what I say does, as I tend to rant. I would like to assert again, that I do not intrinsically link notability and reliability, by Wikipedia's standards. That is, I would like to think I don't. As I said before, if a source is notable, that doesn't make it reliable. On the flip side, if it's reliable, that doesn't mean it's notable. Both ideals factor in significantly when contributing content. But yes, this is abundantly clear: me and you both view the policies quite differently, and I'm sure we both view each others application of policies quite differently as well, i.e. you think I intrinsically link notability with reliability, but I don't see it. I also don't see myself as a big notability nut, I do however see that I am making myself out to be. I apologize; I really do not consider notability this heavily when I make any number of edits, usually unless a dispute directly involves notability (such as this one). However, none of this is here nor there. As for my coined phrase, though, do you mean "notable reliability?" I would only apply that term in cases where two sources say the same thing and you have to pick the more notable one. Reliability has nothing to do with that, really; as both sources are reliable anyways.

I'm just going to skip right to the end of the second paragraph and say that I do not say, "notability above all else." If you would consider my contribution list, I rarely actually put my own words into action, just admittedly whip them out to my advantage. This facade of a stance is not something I actually support as strongly as I make myself out to support. It's very odd as well, as you would think I would be doing it because I like the content, but in truth, I agree that the Rolling Stone reviews are generally snide and mistake-ridden. I would rather not include them. That, and I generally take whatever source I can get; I don't go out of my way for the most notable; my contribution list as my witness.

Again, we are agreeable in practice that notability should not necessarily be lorded over content. There is no policy to say it should. I disagree that the Disturbed article has a generous amount of content, though; it really should be picked through and edited for grammar and scope. For example, for some reason we list B-side tracks in that article, in-paragraph. I don't know how that ties in to a biography of the band, and so I can see, even if the present content was sourced and refined, how the scope would fail standards. Bottom line, there seem to be a lot of generally accepted practices that have become unwritten rules here. Anyways, as I had said, I just want to drop this now. The Guy ^(edits) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone is an established magazine and careers can get made based on a good review from them. Is the primary objection to the inclusion really because they gave the album a low rating or is there a valid belief that they weren't reviewing this particular album? And why can't both be included? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't implied or stated anywhere that the objection was a low rating. The main objection is that they say it's the band's fourth album, which is incorrect. It is evident they're reviewing the correct album regardless, as they cite specific songs. Still, the one wrong fact qualifies it as unreliable. The Guy ^(edits) 03:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The NY Times has published mistakes from time to time, even fabricated articles, but we still accept them as a RS. If it is clear they are reviewing that album, then using it shouldn't be an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• No one has objected to the rating, the rating was never called into question and had you read the arguments you would know that as well. The NY Times is peer reviewed, and they not only correct themselves when they are wrong, they apologize and own up to said mistakes, that is a definitive reliability difference, the Rolling Stone does not correct their mistakes and indeed refuses to even admit to them. Revrant (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you are aware of some history with Rolling Stone that I'm not. I do know that it is a pretty well established publication and I think that most editors would consider it a reliable source. BTW, I don't think the NYT actually considers itself to be "peer reviewed". They just know that their peers will jump on any mistakes they make (just as they would do to their peers) and similarly, Rolling Stone would get jumped on by other magazines. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Considering I'm an avid music listener, that may be the case. Many editors do, unfortunately most of these editors do not use reliability as a reason, they use notability and popularity, the NYT is peer reviewed, the Rolling Stone isn't, that was my meaning, and no one jumps on the Rolling Stone's mistakes, though they appear consistently. Revrant (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To the

this quotation with the the motivation that the original paper constituted an unreliable source.

My question is, in the article

) 22:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A 2003 paper by the Society for Adolescent Medicine concluded "that corporal punishment in schools is an ineffective, dangerous, and unacceptable method of discipline" and recommends "that it be banned and urge that nonviolent methods of classroom control be utilized".<ref>Greydanus DE, Pratt HD, Richard Spates C, Blake-Dreher AE, Greydanus-Gearhart MA, Patel DR (May 2003). "Corporal punishment in schools: position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine" (PDF). J Adolesc Health. 32 (5): 385–93.

PMID 12729988

.</ref>

This is also being discussed at

WP:NORN#School corporal punishment... I would suggest that people read that thread before replying here. Blueboar (talk

) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From the SAM webpage here.

For over 20 years, the pre-eminent authoritative peer-reviewed journal in the field of adolescent health. This is the official journal of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Valuable information for' an interdisciplinary readership of researchers and clinicians. Cited in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Current Contents, Science Citation Index and all other major indices.

If this is true and we do not have any reason to doubt it. I fail to see how is this not a reliable source per

WP:RS. I would be very interested to hear counter-arguments.--LexCorp (talk

) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The main counter-argument is that the Society for Adolescent Medicine's "Ad Hoc Committee on Corporal Punishment" don't know what they are talking about. They say "Corporal punishment ... includes a wide variety of methods such as hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking, pinching, shaking, shoving, choking, use of various objects (wooden paddles, belts, stick, pins or others), painful body postures (as placing in closed spaces), use of electric shock, use of excessive exercise drills, or prevention of urine or stool elimination". This is absolutely grotesque! The fact is that corporal punishment in U.S. schools (and the S.A.M. is a U.S. organisation and it is clear from the context that the universe of discourse here is meant to be the United States) includes hardly any of those things, as you can see from any of the vast amount of coverage of the issue more or less anywhere you care to look, starting perhaps with the various rules and regulations that US states and their school districts themselves lay down about what is allowed.[52] Anyone familiar with U.S. education would know that any teacher or school administrator who did most of those things would be immediately out on their ear, if not actually prosecuted in a court of law, whether or not they are in a school district where corporal punishment is allowed. Alarics (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the Society for Adolescent Medicine's "Ad Hoc Committee on Corporal Punishment" don't know what they are talking about You need to substantiate this statement with a source. Your opinion could be very well be true but for such a contentious statement you really need to substantiate with another source. Maybe you are over-interpreting too much as to their position. I read the paper as to say that all those methods can be constructed as to be CP not that all of them must be present concurrently in order to be CP. Or that anyone that uses CP must necessarily employ every single one of the methods. But that is neither here nor there because both my impressions and yours about the paper when put into the article become

WP:SYN.--LexCorp (talk

) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to call this unreliable. I certainly don't think we can call it unreliable simply because it includes things that some other source doesn't. People disagree on how to define things all the time. The solution is to discuss those differences and attribute the various views to the people who hold them. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be true, if there were a genuine difference of view among the people involved as to what constitutes corporal punishment in American schools. Then of course we could and should "discuss those differences and attribute the various views to the people who hold them". But if you look at all the school handbooks and school board regulations cited and the various press articles in such reliable sources as the New York Times and many others, referenced in the article, not a single one of them is talking about choking the students or kicking them or giving them electric shocks. They are all talking about two or three licks on the butt with an official paddle, carried out with a witness in a recognised procedure and properly recorded as required in the regulations. That's what corporal punishment in American schools actually is. Some people approve of it and others don't, and that is the debate we are trying to reflect in the article. Can you find me a single example where U.S. school students are being choked or kicked or electrocuted as punishment? If that were so, believe me, we'd be hearing all about it and nobody would be trying to claim that it was defensible as "corporal punishment".

It's not just a question of the SAM position paper "including things that some other source doesn't". It's completely detached from reality. For that reason, I have substituted in the article a different representative of the same point of view but without the absurdly tendentious definition. Alarics (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden of proof. The onus is not on us to verify the findings or definitions of a paper. And there are several examples of teachers in the US choking and shocking students with impunity in the name of punishment, for example. Gabbe (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The electric shock case doesn't relate to an ordinary school but to an institution for the severely disturbed and disabled, and it seems as though it is more in the way of a medical treatment; in the report, they are not claiming it is corporal punishment -- which anyway is already banned in Massachusetts, so how is that relevant to the S.A.M. calling for corporal punishment to be banned? As for the choking case in Georgia, the court found it was "inappropriate" and "untraditional", which tends to support my case that this is not what people mean when they talk about corporal punishment in school. And the teacher in the case was suspended and has now resigned (so it was not "with impunity" as you claim), which supports what I said earlier, that on the rare occasions such things do happen they are not acceptable to the authorities because they are not regarded as corporal punishment in the terms in which c.p. is permitted (which in Georgia it is, but not this). The school district's attorney "disagreed with Claxton [lawyer for the student's mother] that the appellate opinion makes choking a permissible form of corporal punishment. 'I don't think that's what they are saying at all,' he said of the panel. 'They are saying that not every confrontation between a student and a teacher rises to the level of a constitutional claim.'" And if you look at most school handbooks or school district policies in places where there is paddling, they usually draw a distinction between "corporal punishment" as a formal premeditated penalty which is an understood part of the disciplinary procedures laid down, on one hand, and "use of force" on the other hand, e.g. to quell a disturbance or restrain an out-of-control student, and this choking incident in Georgia plainly falls into the latter category. Indeed, school districts in places where c.p. is NOT allowed often spell out that the ban on c.p. does not preclude the "use of force" in the case of that kind of emergency, which reinforces my contention that that kind of thing is not what they mean when they talk about corporal punishment. Alarics (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to get some easy cases on RSN sometimes. The paper is clearly reliable with reputable authors, reputable publishers, and being a recent review and statement on the subject by a reputable professional organization. It has even been discussed approvingly by other scholarly sources on the subject, e.g. Rami Benbenishty; Ron Asṭor (2005). School violence in context: culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. Oxford University Press.. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No pun intended, but I'm shocked, especially by the second source above on students wearing shock devices. Is this the 21st century? But this goes beyond the scope here. The SAM article is a peer-reviewed article in a widely cited and indexed medical journal. It is a reliable source for the claims it makes. Discussion of how these claims apply to the article should be taken to the article talk page, or possibly to

WP:NPOVN if you cannot reach agreement. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you're confusing different things here. Sure the authors are reputable in their field, they are professors of pediatrics or psychology. And I have no doubt they read all the literature which led them perfectly reasonably to their conclusions. I am not querying their conclusion here; you would expect such a body so be opposed to corporal punishment, anyway, because people like that always are. What I am saying is that they clearly know nothing about what actually happens in present-day U.S. schools in the name of corporal punishment, so their starting definition is completely wrong. The paper is, of course, a "reliable source" as to what the S.A.M. thinks; it just isn't a "reliable source" as to the practical facts on the ground, where school corporal punishment is concerned, because that's not their field.

I don't understand why people are making such heavy weather over this. I have replaced the paragraph in question in the School corporal punishment article with a different paragraph citing a different a better source for the same point of view (i.e. that corporal punishment in schools should be banned), viz. the American Academy of Pediatrics. Surely that ought to be an end of the matter. Alarics (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alarics, you seem to be attempting to substitute your own views on the subject ("What I am saying is that they clearly know nothing about ..., so their starting definition is completely wrong.") for those of a reliable scholarly source. That goes against wikipedia's core content policies, and you are unlikely to find much support for such a strategy. I am glad that you have added AAP's position to the article. That is certainly a notable organization, but I fail to see why it is being used to replace rather than complement this even more recent source. Abecedare (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we are beginning to go round in circles here. I wish people would read what I wrote further up this page. I am certainly not "attempting to substitute my own views". My views don't come into it one way or the other. It is a question of the overwhelming consensus as to what constitutes corporal punishment in present-day schools. I am simply saying that, while the S.A.M. journal is obviously a "reliable scholarly source", it happens to have got it wrong on that particular question in that particular paper - not about its opinions and recommendations, which are not at issue, but as to the facts on the ground, which can be verified by reference to many other sources cited in the article, as I have already said.

Not every assertion in every issue of every scholarly peer-reviewed journal is necessarily absolutely correct. As User:Nemonoman wrote yesterday over at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fine_tuning_reliable_source_defintion,

I have been an editor for AAAS (Science Magazine), for Duke University Press, especially for its (at that time) 7 scholarly journals, and for the college textbook division of Science Research Associates, among other jobs. I've also had two books about India published by St Martins. So I've seen several different editorial and review processes at work in multiple environments. The processes are NOT fail-safe. Often the processes are not even that careful. Believe me -- if you saw how the sausage was made (as I have), you'd make sure it was well-cooked before you ate it.

I just find it very troubling that if, as a result of our article, somebody with no knowledge of corporal punishment in U.S. schools goes to that S.A.M. paper to find out more on the subject, they will come away thinking, good heavens, in American schools the punishments include electrocution and punching and kicking and choking. And they will have been utterly misled. Alarics (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again this may very well be true but it is not up to us the editors to identify those errors. Other reliable sources must make the criticisms. On an aside note when I read the paper I don't draw the same conclusions as you do. It seems to me you are overprotecting the average reader. The article should just present the information and it is the reader who should interpret it. As far as

WP:SYN.--LexCorp (talk

) 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a triumph of blind WP dogma over common sense. Alarics (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree with you in this particular example. I do agree with you in that Wikipedia Policy is far from perfect. Wikipedia in general is distancing itself more a more from its stated aim to be a free encyclopedia (this is my personal view mind you). I left Wikipedia for years because of this reason. Now I just try to distance myself from viewing Wikipedia as a perfect encyclopedia. That way I save myself a lot of grief. You should do the same. You have done an excellent job with that set of articles. But no article in Wikipedia is stable for long. My advice to you is to let it be and find other reliable sources with different views. Any person really interested in the subject will no doubt consult Wikipedia and if they see some conflicting views then the hope is that they will dig, independently of Wikipedia, more deeply about the subject.--LexCorp (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Conflicting views" are not the problem here. We expect those. It is incorrect facts that I am concerned about. Alarics (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As a non-American, I can say that when I read the quote under discussion, or even the source itself, I don't even remotely assume it means those "extra" definitions are common in American schools. I suggest the simplest solution to the dispute is include the quote, and also a sentence saying something like "SAM's definition of corporal punishment includes ...". That way the casual reader knows the paper goes further than the more commonly used definitions. Personally I think the definitions they use only matters if they make it stricter than commonly used (eg not considering spanking as CP) or considerably broader (eg sit in the corner). So ... let the reader know the use a different definition, and the reader can decide what to make of it. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We really have come full circle now, because I did indeed originally add a comment to that effect. It was when I was told that I wasn't allowed to do that, because it constituted "original research" or "synthesis", that I moved to delete the reference altogether. Alarics (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you phrase it. Simply state what the paper says, don't make any judgements or claims about it, such as actively comparing it with other definitions. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if we had a stance on the use of this website. This website edit serbian biologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caladont (talk • contribs)

It looks like a Wiki, and as such is explicitly not a reliable source in the

WP:SPS exception, as articles will have mixed authorship. It also is not in English, making it hard to evaluate for me and many others. Is there anything in there that cannot be reliable sourced from more accessible sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bionet skola only uses the wiki, but does not work like Wikipedia. All rights reserved. Each text has one author and his first and last name written below the text. --Caladont (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Do they explicitly state any editorial policy such as peer review or credentials checking? Are articles in general well referenced? If not, then I would defer opinion to editors that can read the page.--LexCorp (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)--LexCorp (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator checks each text. At the end of each text is a list of relevant references. A large number of texts is referenced in the Serbian Wikipedia. --Caladont (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to say. The question may hinge as to who can edit those articles and how do the page owners satisfied themselves that the editors are biologists with the relevant expertise. I would err on the side of caution and say that it is not really a

WP:RS. Funnily hypocritical if you consider how Wikipedia works.--LexCorp (talk

) 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Immigration Equality (organization) is a group that specifically address LGBT and HIV/AIDS people's immigration issues to the US - the article is about the organization. Another editor wishes to insert:

“

John Vinson, president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, is critical of the effort to lift the HIV travel ban. He explains, "It seems rather odd to let people in with a health problem like that. Why bring on a problem on yourself when you don’t have to?”

”

And uses

• Newman, Alex (2009-07-20). "US May Lift Entry Ban on HIV Patients". The New American Magazine. Retrieved 2009-07-22.

as the source. Some neutral opinions on is The New American a reliable source and is this the right article for this statement would be appreciated. All help appreciated.

19:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The New American is the propaganda arm of the John Birch Society. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear then, do you think it should be considered a reliable source? I have a funny feeling we should be unambiguous if this user or others are utilizing this as a source elsewhere.

-- Banjeboi

20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as reliable for anything other than reporting the opinions of the John Birch Society. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So, the source can be used if it is identified as the opinion of the John Birch Society, or whomever is speaking. Lionelt (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In general a person, or in this case, an organization, is considered an expert on themselves. So if they wrote "the John Birch Society believes foo" we could look at if that is notable enough to be included and cite as "according to their publication The New American, the John Birch Society believes foo". In the case brought here there seems no reason to use this source at all and the John Birch Society is simply giving their take against people with AIDS who they see as disease carrying homosexuals. There are likely much more neutral and credible sources to cite for any information about this organization. FWIW, Immigration Equality, from everything I've read is a rather dry, boring and wonkish group of lawyers working in immigration reform which itself is rather dry, boring and wonkish.

-- Banjeboi

22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're putting words in the mouth of the neutral party. I do agree, however, there are always better sources. I think together we can find one that presents a critical view which you would prefer to TNA. Lionelt (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi's summation is accurate. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, American Immigration Control Foundation, of which John Vinson is the chairman, is funded in part by the Pioneer Fund, which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group. I hardly think his position on immigration policy is relevant, despite his organization. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC is a very reliable source for the opinions of the SPLC. ( hint ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe what's being debated here is whether the John Birch Society's newspaper can be used as a secondary source. I believe it can; we do allow publications of political advocacy groups even as secondary sources. And the quote is clearly attributed to an organization with an obvious conservative stance on the issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But that person has no bearing on the discussion. He's not a doctor, why should his opinion matter? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we don't use Stormfront or the Communist Party of America's opinions into articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple, the user is trying to insert criticism about the concept of the legislation on the article of one group that is working to pass the legislation. John Birch Society is not an authority on any of it and criticism of the legislation itself should likely be taken to that article. They seem to be desperately trying to find muck against Immigration Equality (organization) ever since the prod/delete failed. If any such notable muck or controversies existed I would be more than happy to include them as it would strengthen their notability, there just doesn't seem to be anything. I'm afraid the

-- Banjeboi

00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, I find it very ironic that you're using one politicized source, along with what's probably a minor funding link, to show why AICF isn't relevant to the article, while at the same time saying that another source can't be used because it's too politicized. Both are political watchdog groups: the SPLC against racial/domestic extremism, and the JBS against socialism. Both have strong opinions. But that's no reason why we can't quote their publications in articles.

There's no need for the person quoted to be a doctor either; this is not a self-published work by an individual expert, and this is a political question and not a medical one. There's also no need for the JBS to be an authority on the matter; no more than there would be for the Washington Post to be an authority on the matter. These are secondary sources with editorial boards, not selfpubs by experts.

Now there is a legitimate question as to whether the AICF opinion is relevant in an article about I.E. Is the AICF actually criticizing IE, or is it criticizing the idea of allowing HIV-positive persons to immigrate? If the latter, the criticism may be better placed in an article about the immigration law. If we don't have an article on that law and/or if it's a primary mission of IE to change it, it could go in the article on IE. But if IE is more interested in, say, allowing domestic partners to immigrate the way spouses are now, and the HIV question is a peripheral issue, then the AICF quote wouldn't belong. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary mission of IE to remove barriers to allow HIV persons to immigrate. Thus the inclusion. Lionelt (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But one could probably find criticism of letting the HIV ban expire from places more mainstream than the AICF. It is still a chronic disease that's going to cost money, often public money to treat. Not so unusual to be concerned about. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We're still straying away from a couple of key points. Is the John Birch Society in any an authority on immigration issues to render an opinion on this legislation - not really, certainly not more than any highly polarized group, and they really weren't commenting on this legislation as much as the concept. Which brings us to the more pressing concern, this is an article about a non-profit group, John Birch Society wasn't commenting on the group or their work at all, just that they disagreed in principle. I welcome any reliably sourced criticism about the group itself but have yet to see any. Pundit opinions on the legislation should go to articles that discuss the concept if they are deemed notable enough for those articles.

-- Banjeboi

02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We're mixing up the political leanings of the JBS's New American newspaper with the viewpoints of the AICF. The newspaper is being used as a secondary source, and we don't normally expect newspaper publishers to be authorities on the subjects they write about; we only expect them to gather news (the opposite is true when citing self-published experts). The news article is not particularly biased; it quotes Ted Kennedy, IE, Human Rights Campaign, and two prominent doctors in favor of letting the ban expire, it quotes FAIR and AICF in favor of extending the ban, it quotes the CDC for an estimate of what the medical care would cost, and it offers its own opinion about it being an unfunded obligation. But it is legitimate to question whether the news article should be cited in the article about IE. We must have an article or section about the ban itself, perhaps the news article should be used there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying we should use Stormfront or Freerepublic, as they're secondary sources, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, Stormfront is a white supremacist site, and Free Republic is just a blog. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. What's your point? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not secondary sources. Secondary sources have editorial boards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And the editorial board of the New American has a specific agenda. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The editorial boards of many secondary sources have political leanings. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Vinson quote has been reported in another, more reliable, mainstream source, MSNBC.[53]:
  • “It seems rather odd to let people in with a health problem like that,” said John Vinson, president of the American Immigration Control Foundation based in Monterey, Va. “With HIV and the way it’s spread, people have desires and they’ll act on those desires and spread it to other people. Why bring on a problem on yourself when you don’t have to?”
• That also addresses the matter of whether it's a notable viewpoint.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a better source but disagree that asserts the quote is notable on its own. That is a debate for when it's needed I guess. What you may note from the source is that the quote nor the rest of that article talks about this group at all. It supports a POV about the subject but not the activities of this group which again suggests a
    -- Banjeboi
    01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing a review for

) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As the instructor overseeing the course, I am torn. One one hand, it is a SPS. On the other hand, the subject has few reliable sources, and none of those seem to address the issues with a level of detail that are described on that website... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have a feeling that it doesn't meet our RS guideline, unless specific writers are acknowledged experts, which is unlikely due to the obscurity of the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, never knew such a thing existed. Why do they call them -re-born dolls, anyway? I was half-expecting they were store-bought dolls modified to be more realistic, like the "kitbash" phenomenon with sci-fi models. I did notice that one particular paragraph seemed to use the dollhouse site a lot. But because this is part of a school project I'd be wary of being too particular about academic standards in a non-academic topic. I'm assuming the people behind dollhouse know quite a bit about how the dolls are made; a PhD and published papers on the subject shouldn't really be necessary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully a quick question, is a scanned article from a local newspaper placed on a non-independent website considered to be a reliable source for controversial material? ttonyb1 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to cite the newspaper, and not a possibly copyright violating website. Be careful the website hasn't modified their scan in some way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Per our rules on copyright infringement we absolutely cannot link to a site with a scanned newspaper article unless we for some reason have a good faith sensible reason to think there is no violation -- such as a news article so old it's obviously public domain. If it's controversial material I'd say no way to even citing the paper without the link without being able to check the original for accuracy in some way. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As said above, we need to be careful that the scan itself was not a fraud. For example, one of Michael Moore's films showed what appeared to be a newspaper headline with a story, and that was supposed to confirm the point he was making. But the headline was not a headline. He had reworked the image. The "story" itself turned out to be nothing more than a letter to the editor.

But we do need to be clear here. It's okay to cite the newspaper without the link. You just need to be sure you're not being fooled.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I believe we are all on the same page. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the for dummies series of books be considered a reliable source? thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not for controversial

WP:BLP information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Would Bob Marley Magazine be considered a reliable enough source to make edits such as this? The same information is also being used at User:Jewish Marley and User Talk:Jewish Marley. The talk page may actually be a copyvio as it contains a large portion of the interview. ponyo (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fansite / web magazine to me [54]. The talk page quotation for the interview may not be copyvio, I leave that to others to decide. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

i have been trying to create a page for a band called o'shea and it keeps getting deleted. i have modeled the page after several pages that already exist on wikipedia and still it seems to be deleted. i have provided reliable sources and they are extremely notable in many ways. i need someone to help me desperately. now they are saying that its been deleted because its been deleted before which i cant seem to understand! please help!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Batesbe (talk • contribs)

Does the band meet

WP:BAND? It seems the speedy deletion has nothing to do with the reliable sources.--LexCorp (talk

) 00:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

External wikis

External wikis [tend not to be/are pretty much never] reliable sources, right? In particular, I'm looking at this one. Someone added it as a source, and although the information isn't bad, I don't know if it can be kept. Thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still a wiki. I think it could be a good external link, but not a source.

I'd suggest keeping the material it is sourcing, but marking it as unreferenced, and then putting a note into the article's talk page.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's pretty much what I figured. Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind most wikis don't meet our rules on

external links either, and I'd suspect this particular one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk

) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

A dispute is developing at Talk:World War II casualties#Werner Gruhl over the choice of sources to be used for the civilian casualtites due to wartime famine in Indonesia, India and French Indochina.

User:23prootie has used the following source:

Werner Gruhl, author of Imperial Japan's World War Two 1931-1945, who is former chief of NASA's Cost and Economic Analysis Branch with a lifetime interest in the study of the First and Second World Wars. He is an active member of the UN Association.[55]

I believe that we should use this source:

John W. Dower has impeccable academic credentials as a scholar on the WW2 in the Far East.[56]

Werner Gruhl is a not a recognized scholar in the field. I believe we should only post Werner Gruhl's figures in the footnotes as a note showing other opinions on the subject.

I need your guidance in this matter, please advise as to the use of sources--Woogie10w

I have to agree with Woogie10w, who has an excellent record as a fair minded and even handed editor.

While Gruhl is a respectable scholar, he does not have the unparalleled stature of Dower and IMO should be used only as supporting material.

All of us have biases, but 23prootie has a track record in pushing a Filipino nationalist/"Third Worldist" agenda, in a non-NPOV fashion, and he has been blocked from editing at least twice, because of this agenda. Grant | Talk 10:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Newcastle United website might be taken as a reliable source for things NUFC. The BBC might also be taken (pace accusations of political bias in some quarters) as a reliable source for something as trivial as a football strip. So how about these two reports about the new, and somewhat controversial, yellow-striped NUFC away strip:

• Crowds down for NUFC away strip: only three people were waiting outside the shop at St James' Park as the latest away strip went on sale. BBC

• Yellow Fever Hits Toon: A queue of eager Geordies stretched along Strawberry Place... NUFC

You pays your money, and you takes your choice! It just goes to show that accurate citation depends on actually reading the source cited, and that the sources we cite aren't necessarily NPOV. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. What's the question? Irbisgreif (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No question, just a comment that, as I said, what may possibly be thought of a priori as a "reliable source" sometimes isn't. Sorry if I've confused you. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is http://www.gateworld.net/ a reliable source? I think gateworld.net is not a reliable source as it is a fansite. Gateworld.net is being used as a source in the Stargate, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe articles. Powergate92Talk 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Its come up before here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Define "fansite". Gateworld may have been started by a fan but it's definitely grown beyond what you'd normally consider a fansite. They have a relationship with the studio, they interview cast, theyve been spoken well of by the media, they've even been cited in a Nature article. The only issue is that they are specialized to one particular TV show; if there was no Stargate there would be no Gateworld. So I wouldn't use it to settle questions of notability but it should be fine for cast interviews. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The editors of Nature allow it for facts about Stargate. Why should our standards be more restrictive than Nature's? At any rate, they have a staff[57], and obviously something like a cast interview is going to be written by staff. If they have a forum section where fans can write what they wish, that's a different story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One cite by one journal hardly establishes a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The longer answer is that I think it would be acceptable source for interviews. As Peregrine Fisher points out, this has come up before.[58] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This source on education, has a general Background section, and is a report commissioned on Steiner school education in England. Can a citation from the background section be used to uphold a generic statement in an article? For example, the 1.2 Background section states "Education in Steiner schools is based on Rudolf Steiner's educational philosophy". Can this be used as a reference to support the statement in

) 21:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument that it is not part of the report results and the scope of the report is a strange one. Background information is as legit as the rest of the report. Why would the author felt it necessary to include it if this is not so. It even appears in the executive summary and the paragraph is referred to (although it may be the quotation that is been referred)

Woods, P. A. and Woods, G. J. (2002) Policy on School Diversity: Taking an Existential Turn in the Pursuit of Valued Learning?, British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2):254-278.

I haven't read the whole thing but the sense I get from 2.2 Background on Steiner Education is that it is a general statement for all the schools including those in the UK. The following section is 2.3 Steiner Schools in England which presumably will cross over from the more generic section to the particular one for England thus implying that the preceding section was generic in nature after all. Is this interpretation

WP:SYN as well. As the statement doesn't explicitly state that it is not generic why would we assume otherwise. To conclude, I think the reference supports the edit and the arguments against it are without merit. It would be interesting if possible to follow the reference and see if a better support is established by it.--LexCorp (talk

) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you haven't already, could you take a look at the article in question and see if in your opinion the reference is appropriate for the statements? I doubt if the report researched Steiner education outside of England, and it is for that reason that I asked the question. --

HighKing (talk

) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dry Ice

four sources

Please check these sources for reliability--

talk

) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.airgas.com/content/details.aspx?id=7000000000103
2. http://www.personal.psu.edu/dsg11/labmanual/DNA_manipulations/Comp_bact_by_RF1_RF2.htm
3. http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
4. http://www.continentalcarbonic.com/dryice/

1. Fails. The information on this page is intended as promotional and should definitely not be relied on.
2. Fails. These are lab notes, not published research.
3. Pass (Depending on context - it may be "dumbed down" and therefore not 100% scientifically accurate) The information is presented as facts by a reputable company.
4. Pass (Again, depending on context - it may be "dumbed down" and therefore not 100% scientifically accurate)

--

HighKing (talk

) 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sys-Con

) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SYS-CON has fabricated reporters: [60] --beefyt (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A few "articles" attributed to this non-existent author: [61] [62] [63] --beefyt (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, that blog post is still from the same rather ticked off person, and all appears to be issues around the Ulitzer issue. I still do not feel that this negates Sys-Con's decades of reliability, makes it "spam", nor should preclude the use of its printed sources. It should also be noted that other than Aralbalkan's blog and the one Register article, no major news service appears to have actually reported on this story at all. Nothing but other bloggers repeating Aralbalkan's posts. As a side note, I have left notes at the various computer related WikiProjects alerting them to this discussion as it could potentially affect hundreds of computer-related articles.-- --

talk · contribs

) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Another blog posts: [64]. The response of SYS-CON has been amazingly childish and must negate any credibility they had: [65]. --beefyt (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All blog posts...not reliable sources, and one who states he is a friend of Aralbalkan. I also saw other blog posts from the supposedly wronged individuals...who note that they had, in fact, published the articles with Sys-Con years ago and that Utilizer was just recycling their old content. Has any actual reliable source covered this story and discredited Sys-Con, even though it happened months ago? --

talk · contribs

) 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What publication awards has SYS-CON won? If they are so reputable, why don't we have a SYS-CON article? Judging form the Pamela Jones article, it seems to me that the WP consensus is that SYS-CON is dubious at best. --beefyt (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lack of an article doesn't make them non-reliable. And honestly, who knows why we don't have one beyond no one bothered making one? There are a lot of articles that don't exist on notable areas. A partial list is on the sys-con site and easily verifiable[66]. The PRSA, here: [67] Evans, alas, locks their older reports so registration required. And sorry, please show actual Wikipedia consensus showing that Sys-con is dubious? An article about a writer does not show consensus about a possible source. *sigh* Their ColdFusion Developer's Journal is edited by Simon Horwith, one of the top names in the CF industry and expert in the field. Nevermind the endorsements from the various topical areas - Linux, Java, ColdFusion, etc. No media outlet is perfect. Why do you suddenly feel Sys-con should be deemed completely unreliable on the basis of this one incident, which is still supported only by blog posts? The

talk · contribs

) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I expect the sources used to impeach one source's reliability be greater than or equal to the alleged reliability of the source being impeached. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think we should blanket purge SYS-CON citations, I believe it is quite appropriate to raise the issue of their reliability as a source.

07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If sys-con is decided not to be realible apart from affecting a lot of computing articles there a bigger potential peopel then could challange the creditability of other realible sources on the same grounds. Without seeing the exact content that is getting challange i wont make a opinion on it. But based on the creditable of the site i say it more realible than unrealible, if what being challange is a forum or blog posting then i say then yes it unralible for than but for journals etc i can nto see how it unrealible. Again iw ll give more opinion wheni know what is being challange.--Andy (talk - contrib) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The removals were wholescale across some 30 articles or so. You'd have to look at

talk · contribs

) 12:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of the points you have made, Collectonian, I apologize for the edits I made removing SYS-CON references. I should have sought approval or consensus before acting so boldly. Obviously I stopped removing referencing SYS-CON references once you messaged me. I'm glad you were able to revert my edits (hopefully?) easily. Please don't let my misguided actions affect the outcome of this discussion. --beefyt (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I was able to revert all but one or two where you put in new sources. :) --

talk · contribs

) 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed about 5 or 6 random removals esiocpally ones in my fields like IBM and servers. All one i reviewed are of Articles/Journals that has been posted and are very creditable even by the companies they ar eon. If there is particular one that are questionable could these be raised indivual by the beefy? as i like to review them serpertle before giving a overal decision, but just now my opinions are still swayed to it is realible, but i wont make a rash opnion on it until i know excately what is getting question, if there is a few one that are unrealible due ot being a blog or forum post i say remove them but at the moment i fail to see that sys-con is unrealible in general it is a very creditable place and certainly do not copy, if they did and wher enot creditable i pretty sure my degree thesis would be not stand great but senior lecturer all recommend the site for information for sources :)--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

to be

as part of mediation --JN466 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A recent arbcom remedy requires editors working on articles related to Prem Rawat to

"always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source."

One source presently used in one of the affected articles that I am concerned about is

• Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults (1976) E.P. Dutton & Company,
  ISBN 0-525-14450-1

The author, Ted Patrick, is a colourful character (jail time in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Colorado, with a warrant out for his arrest in Massachusetts, according to a 1979 Washington Post article) who in the 1970s and 80s used to make a living by forcibly abducting cult members and other minors and adults, restraining and physically abusing them until they abandoned -- or resumed -- a lifestyle or religious allegiance specified by family members who hired him. Apart from members of the Unification Church, the Children of God, the Divine Light Mission etc., Patrick apparently abducted e.g. two young Greek-American women who wanted to choose their husbands themselves and an Amish woman who had joined a more modern Amish splinter group against her husband’s wishes, who wanted her to rejoin the more conservative group, as reported in the LA Times: "This man was legally married to her," Patrick said. "He had a right to take her and talk to her. He had a right to get his family. He knew she was in imminent danger." Patrick said Elma Miller was abducted because she had joined a liberal Amish sect whose charismatic leader is considering allowing his followers to have phones and electricity.

The anti-cult movement disowned Patrick and his methods two decades ago, as they proved to be indefensible from a civil rights point of view; his kidnappings eventually landed him in jail. Some other sources on Patrick: [68][69]

I guess Patrick is an interesting character in a way. But given that this is a book written 33 years ago by a man who left high school aged 15, who has so many criminal convictions, who represents an extreme, and now totally outdated and discredited approach to cults and new religious movements, I find it hard to believe that this is one of those "best and most reputable sources" arbcom had in mind for us to use. I can't think of a source that might be more polarised than Patrick. Am I wrong?

Patrick is presently used in Teachings of Prem Rawat as a source for the statement that ex-students of Rawat’s, after being deprogrammed by Patrick, said that Rawat's meditations had "diminished their ability to think."

A number of people here may remember User:Jossi, a long-time student of Rawat; whatever faults Jossi may have, I don't think his ability to think, after decades of practicing Rawat's methods, was ever in doubt. Anyway, if you think Patrick is one of the best and most reputable encyclopedic sources we have on Rawat's teachings, please explain why. If you think he isn't, please help me out by saying so here. Thanks. JN466 05:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, you are in mediation about Prem Rawat. This appears to be an end-run around that process. I don't think this is helpful. Let's add this to the lsit of sources to talk about in that process. Furthermore, the ArbCom deos not set policy or rule on content, so quoting their finding isn't really relevant.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are aware, aren't you, that I specifically asked the mediators about using RS/N before I made this post, and was told there was no problem? And I am amazed to see you say that we can pick and choose which arbcom remedies are relevant, and which ones are not. JN466 05:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add it to the list of items to mediate, and then come here instead? Are you intending to get a finding here that will serve as the basis for an edit? You've committed to not make edits to itmes added to the mediaiton list, so this request just doens't make sense. I request that you withdraw it and bring it back when the time comes, if need be.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the privelige of mediation does not prevent users from using pages such as RSN. This is not to be confused with a recommendation to use RSN in this instance, as I think us mediators can handle this matter better than people at RSN could.

The clock is ticking....

05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One does not exclude the other. I am just interested in some feedback from the community about using someone like Patrick as a source. Call it a reality check. To me, it is absolutely barmy. JN466 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So this request will have no bearing on anything until some point down the road when we consuder this in mediation. Meantime, you're basicially driving the agenda and making the rest of us drop the start of mediation and deal with this issue that's now at the end of the list. Maybe we should just drop the mediaiton if we're going to make end-runs around it.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? You're going to hold up Jossi as an argument? If we award Jossi's thinking to Prem Rawat, do we also award his lifetime ban for thinking he could game the system and violate the rules to Prem Rawat too? Or is that somehow different... you're right, that's barmy. --Maelefique ^(talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a curt reminder that conduct and discussions here fall outside of the privelige of mediation, and thus, bad conduct, can and probably will be sanctioned. Be careful what you say before you say it. Just a reminder to you all.

07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this shocking hate piece: [70] (I refer to the virulent personal attack on dr Paulsson). Yet the site seems to be cited and linked to quite on Wiki. Is it reliable? That particular hate piece makes me want to report it to our blacklisted sites... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not RS. Appears to be a website self-published by Kalman K. Brattman. Dlabtot (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A rather excitable fellow at Mount Ararat is insisting in no uncertain terms that the Armenian name Masis for Turkey's highest peak "predates" the name Ararat now mostly associated with it. His source which allegedly CLEARLY says that the designation of the mountain as "Masis" predates its designation as "Ararat" very UNambiguously has the following to say on the point:

"Nonetheless, one tradition identifies the particular mountain as Mount Massis"

Really, just that. The "one tradition" in question is the

. The claim made is thus that the application of Ararat to the peak (not just the plateau) post-dates the 8th century. I don't know if this is true, I think it's unlikely, but I would be happy with sources that actually say so.

The best bit then comes when after I patiently explained the matter to the irascible Armenian, I am rewarded for my pains with the allegation that I have been editing without discussion. So, I think my patience has been stretched beyond what can be expected of a bona fide Wikipedian. Perhaps somebody would like to take over? --

10:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the situation has much improved. You are still welcome to chime in, of course. --

dab (𒁳)

13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Is Roderick Stackelberg,[71] professor emeritus and editor of The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany a reliable source for opinions on Fascism? This is a subject of dispute at Talk:Fascism#Professor Stackelberg. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a reliable source on Nazi fascism. Editors not happy with the material been supported with this source should find equally reliable sources that either criticize this source or counter the info put forward by it.--LexCorp (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from an involved editor: although what The Four Deuces says is true, I think it would be slightly more accurate to say that the dispute is whether Stackelberg is appropriate as a reliable source indicating the mainstream view of fascism, specifically with respect to its position in the political spectrum and whether it is considered "left-wing" or "right-wing". The objection, by User:Vision_Thing is that Stackelberg's view is "ludicrous and out of the mainstream". This objection appears, to me, to be primarily based on the editor's own analysis of Stackelberg's view and its relation to the topic. However, Vision Thing has also asserted that the number of Google Scholars citations of the work in question is too low for the source to be considered reliable or mainstream. From what I can see, the work has been cited 14 times since its publication in 1999. I personally have no idea as to what would be an appropriate way of measuring this result. Factchecker atyourservice (talk)

Don't tell me people are still debating this issue? I thought it was settled that the mainstream view (as expressed by multiple reliable sources) was that Facism is seen as being right wing... but that a sizeable minority (especially among accademic political scientists) defines it as being left wing. BOTH views can and should be discussed in the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker, the issue is merely whether Stackelberg can be quoted as a reliable source to explain the opinion that fascism is right-wing, not as a source that this is the mainstream view. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And the answer to that is, yes. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Perhaps I was too focused on VT's assertions that Stackelberg's view differs from the mainstream view. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a question of whether "Hitler's Germany" is a reliable source. It is a reliable source for Stackelberg's opinion without a question. Issue is whether Stackelberg's opinion on why fascism is seen "extreme right-wing" reflects mainstream view and does it merit an inclusion in the section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, the issue is merely whether Stackelberg can be quoted as a reliable source to explain the opinion that fascism is right-wing, not as a source that this is the mainstream view. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stackelberg makes quite clear that he refers to contemporaneous views. "Is a statement about contemporaneous views valid to make a general assertion about current views?" is the proper question. The question posited above is a straw man argument here. I suggested that his full quote be placed in the article so that readers can determine for themselves what he meant. Collect (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above statement by Collect is flat-out false, and I find this troubling because we already discussed this exact issue, this exact author, this exact quote, just a few hours ago, and his attention was specifically directed to the following text:

• "It is helpful to conceptualize fascism as an extreme right-wing movement not only because it was dedicated to the destruction of Marxism and communism (after all, two movements of the extreme left, Chinese Maoism and Soviet Communism, could also be violently opposed to each other), but because of its fundamental opposition to the value of equality."

Stackelberg is clearly making a general statement about fascism, unlike the entirely separate statement that fascism was seen as extreme-right by its contemporaries. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith concerning how I would phrase the issue. And it would help others if you included the full quote to show how clearly my position is relevant. Thanks!! Collect (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect asked Is a statement about contemporaneous views valid to make a general assertion about current views? That is totally irrelevant to the discussion. No one has made that argument and it is not contained in the proposed text. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote "I added in a paragraph explaining why Stackelberg considered fascism to be right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)"? in Talk:Fascism. Collect (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate. I am finding it difficult to follow your reasoning. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Collect, it is not a violation of AGF to point out that you have made a false statement on a noticeboard; nor is it a violation of AGF to point out that you already knew that statement was false when you made it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the key to this dispute is figuring out how this quote is being used in the article... so it would be helpful to see some context... Would someone please post a diff so that we can see the exact statement that the quote is being used to support, and in which section of the article that statement appears (or in which section do you want it to appear, if it is not at this time included)? Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is part of the section Fascism#Position in the political spectrum that lists the various views. Stackelberg is presented as representative of the view that fascism is right-wing. The specific text that is disputed:

'According to Roderick Stackelberg, fascism was seen by its contemporaries as right-wing, and was supported by traditional right-wing elites in its rise to power. He considered fascism "extreme right-wing" because of its opposition to communism and equality. Stackelberg stated that fascists blamed liberals for advancing socialism, and that fascists shared with traditional conservatives attachment to authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and respect for social rank and marital virtues.[72]

You can see here[73] where the paragraph was.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this section, this is absoulutely reliable. We have an attributed comment by a noted expert as to his views. The context does not claim that his views are or are not mainstream, mearly that he considers Facism to be right wing for given reasons. I see no reason to disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two objections to your view. 1) Roderick Stackelberg is not a noted expert on fascism. His book deals with one form of fascism - Nazism (some other scholars don't even recognize it as a form of fascism) and he is rarely cited. 2) If criterion for inclusion is just that someone is a "noted expert" section in question will get bloated fast. Currently there are more noted experts whose views are either not included in the section or are just mentioned briefly. -- Vision Thing -- 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Blueboar. The text is well-sourced from a reliable source, seems a good summary of a detailed discussion of the subject in this other book of his.[74] Stackelberg has made his career studying and publishing on this period of history; [75] and unless there are massive critiques of his work out there, then this is clearly reliable.--Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that the book has been reviewed, very positively in multiple scholarly journals. Here are some with links online, but there are others.[76][77][78][79].--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The related debate is ongoing, so I would like to request that this thread remain open for the time being. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the

To me, that sounds more like a cross between a group blog and Metafilter than a newspaper.

Specifically, I have in mind a blog post on the Daily Beast as a source for BLP (I don't think it's reliable), but searching the archives, I see that we have apparently never discussed this source here. Perhaps we should. - Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be reliable, as always depending on what you want to say. It's run by

IAC/InterActiveCorp. It's one of these common new media type orgs that is run like a newspaper, but tries to look like a blog because they think it's hip. BLP stuff is always problematic, though. What exactly do you want to use it for? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to use it at all. ;) It was proposed by another editor to use this blog post at the Beast as a source for the claim that

WP:BLP

warns that "[m]aterial about living persons must be sourced very carefully," that "poorly sourced" material should be removed (presumably contemplating the latter as a remedy for the former), and that blogs must never be used for BLPs. The source just given may qualify for the newspaper exception to BLP's blog rule if the Beast is a newspaper for purposes of the rule. So far as I can see, though, the Beast looks more like the "Huffington Post" -- a group blog / content aggregator popular on the left -- than a real media outfit.

Alternatively, it may suffice for the Beast to be a reliable source generally. But is it? We haven't discussed the matter here before. While I'm interested in answering the immediate question, the broader question is worth pondering also.

WP:LAW

} 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for that. That's too controversial. I'd wait until two really good sources pick that one up. The author is a real reporter who works for New York Magazine, though, so I still think Daily Beast is reliable in general. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the Daily Beast as a reliable source in general, the article in question was a speculative opinion piece that's really not suitable as Wikipedia source whether published in the

undue weight. An opinion piece written by a high-level authority (eg, Paul Krugman on economics) may deserve a standalone cite, but still should identify the authority in the article text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 02:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As others have stated; the Daily Beast meets RS, but speculative opinion peices are speculative opinion pieces regardless of where they occur. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For my money, KC is right. The daily beast has editors, names authors and takes responsibility for content, so it meets the spirit of RS, but their job is not to do journalism. Rather they are largely an opinion piece aggregator. This is something we have to tussle with more and more, as online (And print) journalism moves away from hard reporting toward a mix of opinion and fact. I would rather we source items in BLPs to it as little as possible. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone find Behind the Name to be a reliable source? It's used extensively throughout Wikipedia in large part due to its usage at

) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

it's an ok source, mostly. It is fair to use it as "better than nothing", but of course if a claim is challenged, you need to start looking for better sources. --

dab (𒁳)

10:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we went from reliable sources to "better than nothing." There are articles out there with reliable sources as to how popular certain names are. I don't think this random website deserves this kind of exposure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to think it's reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not RS. Just some random website. Dlabtot (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better, you can add in whatever information you want yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we positive that isn't moderated? ( link leads to a login page, don't know what's on the other side ). There must be some reason why we don't see silly name origins added to the site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moderation doesn't fix the problem unless the moderator has some expertise in the moderating, which, again, has not been shown. DreamGuy (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, if the site has a good reputation, which being mentioned in books as a good place to look up the history of surnames would count towards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If that turns out to be an issue, it would still be usable as an EL. Just like EL allows links to other wikis provided they have a history of stability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think it'd meet

WP:EL standards either, based upon the discussions on the EL page's talk page in the past. DreamGuy (talk

) 12:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't monitor WT:EL, but it's clearly within the bounds of EL. It has more stability and reputation than, for instance a lot of the fan wikis ( Star Wars, Transformers ) which are definitely an appropriate use of EL. If BTN was just a personal fansite that would be one thing, but it's a much more comprehensive reference than that. I've had it bookmarked, alongside dictionaries, as a reference for about eight years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The site has been around for years and may have acquired a reputation. A quick Google Books search shows some books recommending it for genealogical and classroom use, so once could make a case from that. But other sources are available. One is Dictionary of American Family Names from Oxford University Press, another is Ancestry.com's surname pages, which has excerpts from that dictionary plus U.S. Census and other statistics. It's hard to navigate there from the main page, but here is their entry for "Smith". Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, I really don't think it's so great a source that it should use on the main template as a source for the popularity of certain names (especially when it has such a huge systemic bias problem). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The popularity information looked a little odd at first, but it comes from the U.S. Census ( and similar for other countries ). i.e. when you look up Smith it comes up as the top-ranked surname in the U.S., England-Wales, and Scotland. ( The figure 1 out of 100 for Scotland vs. one out of many thousands for the U.S. has something to do with how extensive the data sets used were. Perhaps for Scotland they only have a top-100 list. ) If you click on the "Most Common Surnames" page and choose a country the figures for Smith are confirmed from the U.S. Census.

So it's not bad to use BTN as a templated EL for popularity, though other sites may provide more comprehensive statistics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the following website a reliable source: http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=3426

It's in Spanish, but it seems reliable. It even has a bibliography...

"Bibliografía :

a) Pinochet en Piccadilly. Andy Beckett.

b) 1891.Chilenos contra Chilenos en Caldera. Ed. Portada.

c) Chile : Política Exterior para la Democracia. Varios autores.

d) Gobierno Chileno y Salitre Inglés 1886 1896. Balmaceda y North. Harold Blakemore.

e) Diego Portales.Benjamín Vicuna Mackenna.

f) Política y Estrategia en la Guerra de Chile. Edgardo Mercado Jarrín.

g) Historia de la República del Perú. Jorge Basadre.

h) De la Guerra. Karl Von Clausewitz

i) Guerra del Pacífico. Augusto Pinochet U. Historia Diplomática de Chile (1541- 1938).Mario Barros Van B."

--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly to be used with care. You should cite the source in the article, and if possible check with the listed sources, I think. El Correo de la Diaspora Argentine has a mission statement [81] but no indication of editorial overview, staff, etc. Can you find statements by other RS citing El Correo and attesting its reliability? I reformatted to improve the readability of your question. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did some more checking and found out that the information was actually from this website: Liberacion Newspaper (From Sweden)

This is their information statement: [82]

After reading this, I still think it's a reliable source. What do you think?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The author of the article is Armando Parodi Buendía, he is also cited here. Not really the fellows I like. --Keysanger (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because he is cited there, it doesn't mean Mr. Buendia is a non-reliable source. Anybody can cite Mr. Buendia. You can't determine a source's reliability by who cites it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is something of a "heated" debate taking place on the Transcendental Meditation talk page. In essence - for twas i - I added the following study often found in acadmic textbooks, research papers and journals:

In a randomized study done at Stanford Research Institute, every 20th member of all 40,000 individuals on the Students International Meditation Society's (TM's parent organization at that time) mailing list were mailed a survey. Of the 1,900 people surveyed, 47 percent responded. The survey included both a self-concept word list (the Descriptive Personality List) and a checklist of physical and behavioral symptoms (the Physical and Behavioral Inventory) The results found that while those dropping out from TM experienced fewer complaints then the experienced meditiatiors, there was a positive correlation between the number of adverse effects and the length of time in TM. Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners included: antisocial behavior, 13.5%; anxiety, 9.0%; confusion, 7.2%; depression, 8.1%; emotional stability, 4.5%; frustration, 9.0%; physical and mental tension, 8.1%; procrastination, 7.2%; restlessness, 9.0%; suspiciousness, 6.3%; tolerance of others, 4.5%; and withdrawal, 7.2%.

I am now under some demand to remove it as it is not considered "reliable" (There is also discussion about much other research and it's validity/presentation also) .I personally feel - and I might of course be very incorrect - that many editors of this page have a conflict of interest and are desperate to remove any criticism of the TM or its associated products.

I would appreciat any impartial editors reviewing this discussion and this source - and the others if possible and give their opinion. If I am wrong - and it would not be the first time - I would like to correct any error I have made. This especially so as i am keen to move on and complete some additions to Mozart, early Piano Concerto pages :) The7thdr (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add to this that one of the involved editors who is insisting that reference to this study be removed has a very definite COI, and has been told by Admins, both on the

Fladrif (talk

) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

religioustolerance. org revisited

Resolved

 – It is an RS because Robinson is a notable and acknowledged expert who has been published previously in reliable third-party sources and religioustolerance.org is used as a source for fact by reliable sources. However, it is still a self-published source and BLP restrictions for self-published sources apply. Care should also be taken not to add the site indiscriminately as as an external link; this has led to problems in the past.

Yes, I know this has been discussed before, specifically here. I have however recently found J. Gordon Melton or James R. Lewis (I think the former, sorry, but it was a few days ago) listing the website as a source in one of the reference books they write. On that basis, I have to assume that it is a reliable source, considering at least one of the most reliable sources on NRMs uses it as a source. I realize that there would be problems in determining which articles could link to the webpage, but I do think that, in at least a few, we would be better off being able to use it. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think a university press-published book is generally preferable to the

Religioustolerance.org site, the site has gathered acclaim from a number of reputable scholars. It is quite often used as a source in scholarly writings; university students are taught to use it. RS; but perhaps best used with attribution. JN466

03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this site has not been considered an RS before. The lead researcher is a retired electrical engineer, another researcher is an urban planner, a third is a IT manager, and a fourth is a waitress. "None of us has any formal education in theology." Many primary or questionable sources may be used by scholars who are qualified to pick and choose in ways that we aren't. As far as I can tell, the site is only linked from two Wikipedia articles, both concerning nudism.[83]   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of the feeling that RT may be considered self-published. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Our

article on the site lists academic sources endorsing it; the endorsement of someone like David G. Bromley

in a university textbook on this topic area carries a lot of weight, IMO. Some of these sources were also detailed in the previous discussion that John Carter linked to. As a source, it's not top drawer, but among websites on this topic area it is clearly among the best. The main author has one or two academic publishing credits to his name as well.

I'd say it's about as reputable as a good sceptics site. There's worse websites we link to. --JN466 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If we consider endorsements as part of the criteria for evaluating sources then criticisms should be considered as well. Taken as a whole, the site appears similar to a group blog written people with no expertise in the field. Saying that it is the best of its type is faint praise. If we were to accept this then it'd really open up a much wider field fo sources than we currently use. Sourcing religion articles to a waitress? Is that really the best we can do? The actual usage of the site as a source on Wikipedia shows the community's judgment. It is apparently considered reliable on the topic of

nudism.   Will Beback  talk

  10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of expertise seems to be way off base if you think this site has none. The actual usage of the site doesn't show whetehr it is considered reliable since there was a coordinated campaign by POV pushers to remove it. Before it was removed it was extensively used, so your argument collapses. DreamGuy (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The researchers on the site admit that none of them have any formal educaiton in the topic. They have expertise inthe same way as any of us have espertise, or thousands of bloggers have expertise in feilds where they've never had formal educaiton bu write extensively anyway. Who are these "POV pushers" who acted in a "coordinated campaign"? Could that "campaign" have been a result of discussion here that decided we should use a waitress and an electrical engineer as sources for articles on religious movements?   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, will you admit any argument based on the fact that the site is used as a source by reliable sources, and that university students in these fields are directed by their professors to use it for research? --JN466 10:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They have expertise for having extensively researched it and w*having been recognized as experts* on it. The argument that someone has to have formal training on a topic to be a reliable source on it might hold for topics like particle physics or something along those lines, but it's a ridiculous stance for a lot of fields, especially this one. Thousands of bloggers write about lots of things, but that doesn't mean anyone with a website is just a blogger. DreamGuy (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This site has ALWAYS been a reliable source, and has always been extremely well respected by other reliable sources. The only reason it ever became controversial and people denied that it was a reliable source was some very vocal editors who seemed to be largely objecting because of having a POV different from the site and wanting to remove it and those views. If anyone was ever under the delusion that the site was not reliable, we should make it very clear that that's not the case. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Always? Then why isn't it used as a source for any significant articles?   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As already explained, because you and some other POV pushers took it out of a ton of articles where it had been used because you just don't like the site. That's like if you went around and reverted every edit Jimbo made and then tried to explain why you did so by saying "All of his edits were crap edits, obviously. After all, if they were any good why then did they get reverted?" It's a complete nonsense argument and frankly just shows why your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. DreamGuy (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the site is currently linked to from 341 articles. --JN466 10:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - when I checked I only found two.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not RS, just a self-published website. Dlabtot (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a self-published website, so all restrictions that apply to
    WP:SPS (notably controversial material on BLPs) would apply. But Robinson is an acknowledged expert. JN466
    10:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Every site in the world is a self-published website. That in and of itself is not a reason to call it not reliable. The main author is a recognized expert, so it is a reliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If Robinson is an a recognized expert then his writings would be acceptable. Non-experts are not included just because they post to the same website.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Given the widespread citing of the site for fact by academic and mainstream news authors, as documented for review by editors below, and also its prominent inclusion as a recommended external site in several articles on the Encyclopaedia Britannica website, shall we agree a finding that any articles on the site authored or co-authored by Robinson meet WP:RS? JN466 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. [emphasis in original]
          • According to
            WP:SPS, if Robinson is a notable and acknowledged expert who has been published previously in reliable third-party sources then his statements on that topic may be used as a reliable source even when self-published, so long as they do not concern living people. Which reliable, third party publications has he written for?   Will Beback  talk
              21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
            • He's the author of chapters in –
              1. ISBN 1-57607-292-4
                 .
              2. ISBN 0-7623-0535-5
                 .
              3. ISBN 9781573922227
                 .
            • Add to that the fact that even Encyclopaedia Britannica link to his writings, as do hundreds of scholars and journalists. --JN466 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't think the EB links count for much, but the books listed above appear sufficient to establish Robinson as a published expert. Use of his articles on a self-published site would still be subject to
                WP:BLP where applicable.   Will Beback  talk
                  00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Absolutely. The BLP-SPS restriction applies. Can we mark this resolved? JN466 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • It's resolved to my satisfaction.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• WP:SPSes -- occasionally inadvisedly so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P
  ) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks; that is the relevant criterion. The site is widely quoted for fact. Google books returns 600 matches; do look at them. They are citations for facts, inclusions in academic bibliographies, etc. More than 1000 google scholar hits. --JN466 11:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To give some examples, here is an
    Skeptic's Dictionary quoting it – [85] – and it is included in the "External Web sites" section of several articles on britannica.com, i.e. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/704347/New-Age-movement http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196711/euthanasia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/704601/ECKANKAR http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/523208/Santeria JN466
    12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So far as I can tell, the main reason for its initial removal was concerns about it being spammed as an external link. If we try to help ensure that the link isn't added to too many articles, I think that there shouldn't be any problems listing it as a source on those occasions when it is directly used as such. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)