Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40

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 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Lasting Tribute is a commercially run website in the UK which provides tributes and memorials. It is run by Northcliffe Media, owners of British newspapers such as the Daily Mail and various regional publications. I personally think the website is of questionable taste because its primary purpose seems to be to sell memorial gifts - essentially gloss reprints of the content of each memorial together with pendants, ornaments etc. I have already reported it on the spam noticeboard due to the pattern by which a large number of links were added by a small number of users. Any comments you care to make on Wikiproject:Spam would be welcome.

With specific regard to it being a reliable source, it is very like a wiki. Anyone can start a memorial to a person on the site. Anyone can add information to that memorial. It does not publish sources for any of the information on the site. I do not believe therefore that it is a reliable source, but would be interested to see what others think. --

) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If it can be edited by anyone, and there is no editorial control, then it isn't reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's completely unreliable as a source and also in violation of our

) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the site is a nice one to be honest - it might help provide closure, etc for relatives of the deceased. However, as it is basically a WIKI and can be edited by anyone, it cannot be considered a reliable source - no more than WIKI IS :). Also, it may indeed be in breach of

WP:EL although i am no expert in this.The7thdr (talk

) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm glad you concur. It would be helpful if you could comment on the topic of whether it is spam i.e. whether it violates WP:EL, because at some point I'd like to have at it and remove the huge number of links to this site. Here is the

talk

) 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lapot (custom)

Most of the evidence for this article seems to be related to one book and movie, and I'm not certain on reliability for these sources. Anyone else care to take a look? Irbisgreif (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - this article is now expanded and sourced with a book, film and book reviews, and several academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, far better now, thanks to User:Jezhotwells. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The

) 08:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick look makes me thing these are primary source materials... which, while they can be used in articles (in a limited way)... do not establish notability. If I have missed something, let me know. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't

WP:NOTLINK apply here? I would feel comfortable deleting the whole bunch, with a pointer to a DMOZ or similar. --Nemonoman (talk

) 15:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No,

WP:NOTLINK

does not apply here, since it does not help to answer the question. Please stay on-topic.

Under what guidelines are "download pages" not "reliable sources"? --Hm2k (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved this discussion down to the bottom as it was not getting any attention. Please note that due to page merge the discussion has moved to

Talk:Computer icon#Icon editor software

As I have repeatedly explained, download pages do not meet "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". They do not provide credibility or notability.

Can we please get more feedback on this? Look at this page [1] it's a download page in German with nothing more than the blurb about software features - completely invalid. This [2] is a tutorial that uses one of the softwares - does that make it notable? Why is this arbitrary tutorial a source of notability? Same here [3]. This download page [4] has a very brief editorial; does that indicate notability? This page [5] strikes me as worthless, it's just a blurb about "we added this program to our downloads".

We need more feedback. Thanks. Some guy (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question was whether download pages are notable or not. Now you're providing specific links and giving your opinion as to whether they are classified as notability or not. They are valid references that are reliable sources which support the entries making them notable. None of this answers the question. But then we already know the answer, which is yes, they can be. So if you have an issue with specific links on the article why not use the talk on the article to discuss them? --Hm2k (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is "we" that already knows anything? I am asking questions about whether the sources you have cited are reliable. I do not believe they are. This seems like the appropriate place to get answers since it's the reliable sources noticeboard. Some guy (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the heading, not all the links I've provided are in question, only the ones you are classifying as "download pages". Yet not only did you delete the whole section in the article on more than one occasion because with the edit summary saying "download page is not a source", but you are now questioning ALL the links i've used as references, some of which ARE NOT "download pages". I also refer back to my original point which is "the fact that it's a download page has nothing to do with it", this removing content for that reason is NOT a valid reason. Why don't you stick to the original question rather than bringing up other issues? We don't need to discuss them here, they are irrelevant. --Hm2k (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering "download pages" are essentially just like any other page found on the internet, I can't see any reason why they couldn't be considered as reliable sources. Whether the "download pages" I have used are reliable resources or not is another question entirely, which isn't what you've asked here... --Hm2k (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop these rediculous word games. The issue at hand is whether the sources you have used are reliable sources that can be used as sources. The fact that they are "just like any other page" makes it very strongly likely that they are not usable as sources, as the vast majority of the internet is not considered reliable source. Some guy (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Any page on the internet can be used as a reference if it qualifies as a reliable source. The links I've used qualify, regardless of whether they are "download pages" or not. Also whether they qualify or not is not what's in question here. I suggest you revert back to

) 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In what universe are download pages reliable sources? Not on Wikipedia, anyway, which is the important thing. DreamGuy (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable sources so long as they qualify with Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, which these do. So, in this universe, they can be. I don't see any guideline that suggests otherwise. Do you? --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Download pages are

self-published in the vast majority of cases. Anybody can post an app on Softpedia or a shareware repository and get it listed since they don't check if the app has any value. However, this source combined with that one makes the app notable in my opinion. Laurent (talk

) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Vast majority of cases", is often but not always. I agree. You also agree that the references I have used are suitable for notability. I think this answers the question. Download pages can be used as a reference for notability but should be supported with another reliable source. --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As said above, download pages do not qualify as a reliable source as to the notability of a software product. @Laurent1979, I disagree that combining references makes for a reliable reference. A simpler way is to simply remove any product reference without it's own article using the hard-to-argue-with logic that if it were notable, it would have an article (which would use references to establish notability). --

HighKing (talk

) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this is down to an ignorant generalisation of "download pages", some sites can qualify as reliable sources. Not every entry on Wikipedia requires an article, just references for notability is often sufficient until it can be expanded into an article of it's own. --Hm2k (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So if people disagree with you and say that they aren't valid sources, those people are "ignorant"? That's offensive. I don't see that Laurent has "agreed" that all of your sources are suitable.

Laurent, how does that winfuture page qualify as a source? It's a download page. The information on the page is the product description/features blurb created by the company that produced the software. Some guy (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand German but, since it's in the News section, I was under the impression that it was a review and not just a download page? Otherwise, perhaps this article written by ZDNet (and not by the developer) would be enough to establish notability? Laurent (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, try http://translate.google.com for rough page translation. Here's the winfuture [6] and the ZDNet [7] . I think the first one is clearly not a source, I'm not totally sure about the second one. Thoughts from others? Some guy (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously not. Besides, the entire section is inappropriate -
  WP:NOT. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This does not answer the question. Under what guidelines are ALL "download pages" considered "obviously not" reliable sources? --Hm2k (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't in any respect meet any of the criteria for reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's up to whoever thinks they are reliable sources to justify them. Under what conditions would a download page be a reliable source?

talk

) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'd be happy to justify any specific source. However, as we appear to be generalising ALL "download pages" here, I'll ask the following question: What makes a download site any different from a news organisation's website that publishes press releases and DMOZ that publishes user entries? Both are accepted as reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Should download sites be considered any different? If so why? --Hm2k (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do download sites exercise editorial control and publish researched information from credible writers? The problem is that they don't. So the rule of thumb here is that yes, "All" download listing sites are not regarded as reliable sources. If you believe you have found an exception, by all means argue the merits of the different download site. --

HighKing (talk

) 10:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't and shouldn't make any generalization regarding download websites. Some are reliable, some are not - it depends on the source, who wrote the review and who is the publisher. This is a reliable source but this is not even though both are download pages.

talk

) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not reliable, from the same download site. If there's a review of a product from a reliable (named) author, or where editorial control has been exercised by a reliable organization, then the review would be deemed reliable, regardless of whether it is published on a download site or not. Since most download sites fail on this point, I'd maintain that the rule of thumb is that All download sites fail, and exceptions are looked at on a case by case basis. --

HighKing (talk

) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I wrote that it depends on who wrote the review. In your example, the "review" is unreliable because it's only a publisher's description, in the example I mentioned, it is reliable because it's an actual review written by the CNET staff. You may be right though when you say that most download sites fail, but we still need to look at the sources on a case by case basis.

talk

) 11:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I created this thread to address source issues at the Icon editor

Computer icon page. If we are generalizing, that's fine, but the original page/problem isn't forgotten. The reason is that a download page is does not exist to provide news or information, it exists as a way to deliver a product to a consumer, usually with a little advertising blurb written by the publisher and possibly accompanied by a "look we added something to our catalog" blurb or a review. It strikes me as exactly the same as picking up a random appliance at your local hardware store and deciding it's notable because the store carries it, it appeared in an advertisement, and an employee said he tried it once and it seems to work pretty well. I would guess that more people use a given DeWalt drill than Icon Sushi, but you're not gonna find an article about that drill. Some guy (talk

) 10:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question is generalised and not specific or concise. If it's specific to an article, perhaps you should discuss it on the article, if it's specific to a particular source, you should question that source. Some download sites exercise editorial control and publish researched information from credible writers. You CANNOT generalise ALL download pages. Neither can you use your shopping experience to decide what should or shouldn't appear on Wikipedia. --Hm2k (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep playing these word games. I was very specific and concise towards the beginning of the discussion. Look at my paragraph that starts "I moved this discussion down to the bottom as it was not getting any attention". I specifically addressed my concerns with the reliability of many of the sources and asked for feedback on them. You are ignoring the fact that people are telling you the specific sources you have used in the article are not valid; these are not mere generalizations. Reviews are not necessarily "research information from credible writers". The winfuture page has absolutely no credibly researched information brought forth through editorial control from credible writers. It has a product blurb written by the software's developers/publishers. You have to specifically explain why the sources you have used in the article are valid and should be kept - the burden of proof is on you, but you seem to be deflecting. Some guy (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was just the winfuture page you had an issue with, why didn't you just remove that one source and dispute that? Instead, you decided to dispute the whole thing even to the point of removing the entire section a few times, not only that, but you're also disputing an entire source type. Perhaps now you've seen the error of your ways normal programming may resume. Why not return to the article and dispute the single source you have an issue with, rather than this ridiculous dispute over nothing specific. --Hm2k (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Don't waste your time, I'm already discussing the specifics here. Discussion here is over. --Hm2k (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we are allowed to continue the discussion here, even if you don't want us to. Just FYI. Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Please note the revelant text has been moved to

WP:NOTDIR

.

I am disputing all of the sources. If I say "the download pages", that's because it's easier than constantly listing each page individually any time I mention them. If I use a specific page as an example, that doesn't mean it's the only page I have issue with.

Would anyone care to comment on the validity as sources of the tutorials that mention the software? Some guy (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this is ridiculous now. You're not even staying on-topic any more and simply proposing any reason you can to remove the references. I see no point in discussing this any further here. If you like we can follow

) 08:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss it here, you don't have to. But if you want to contribute to the consensus-building process, it probably would be a good idea to participate. Dlabtot (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but this is not a

WP:RFC is for. This is just useless discussion with no possible resolution and a complete waste of time. --Hm2k (talk

) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating when the consensus is clearly against you, isn't it? I can relate. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No real consensus can be made from this. An

) 07:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus from this, but I don't want to speak for anyone. Any more comments? Some guy (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether or not I should use the Maryland Municipal League website as a source. It appears to be neutral, and to add anything to the site one must apply to the webmaster for an account and only for an individual municipality. I just don't see where they are getting their information. Any opinions on reliability? LA (T) @ 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is the context of what I would like to do. I want to say in the lead of the Woodsboro, Maryland article is "Woodsboro was founded by Joseph Wood when the land was granted to him in 1693." and use this page as the source. if you look here you can see who, in general, can edit what for each municipality. LA (T) @ 06:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is the correct noticeboard. Geographic area can be easily calculated from official maps with the help of dedicated computer programmes or even simple graphic software. Can I insert the area of, for instance, Lichtenberg, and state "manual calculation" in the Edit Summary? Is that a reliable source? Pixie (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest

WP:NOR/N. Dlabtot (talk

) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should do this. If you do the calculation yourself based on a map, it would be very hard for others to verify your result. Also, there is a good change that your result will be wrong (for example, because you're using a bad projection). Surely you can find explicit area data somewhere instead?

Offliner (talk

) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To test the validity of my results, I'm calculating several known areas from the same map. If I'm getting results that perfectly fit established data, I can definitely assume that map and calculation are accurate. Correct? Of course finding a data source is preferable, but not always possible. Pixie (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably fine. However, it should not override better info. Does the CIA world fact book not have anything? Irbisgreif (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking this over a bit more, I definitely object to this. It is original research in any case. Since you are using specific tools, it is not an uncontroversial common sense derivation from well-known facts, and the result are too hard for others to verify. If there is no source available which states the data explicitly, then that data has no place in Wikipedia.

Offliner (talk

) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First off- the area of a locality, whether published somewhere or not has its place in Wikipedia and is notable. Second- a calculation as long as the program you are using is from a reputable and reliable source is fine. Third- it is probably not in the CIA World Factbook because its not a country or colony. Fourth and most importantly- for something to be "verifiable" that does not mean EVERYONE can verify it by themselves. We've been through this many many times on the original research noticeboard. As long as SOMEONE can, if they wanted to, verify it then it is fine. Doesnt mean that you, from your computer chair, in 2 mins must be able to verify the claim. Not everyone will be able to verify everything on Wikipedia themselves. If we held to that standard then we must not allow NRHP documents because some computers have trouble downloading/displaying the info (such as mine), I have to have another editor email me the docs on a one-by-one basis as I need them for various articles. Verifiability in this particular case about a computer program means, if another editor gets that published program that is available to the public (free or has to be bought, doesnt matter) and the editor uses it they get the same number you get. That is all verifiability means. It is not OR, it is verifiable.Camelbinky (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The act of calculating the area data from a map using a special program is original research. By your logic I could draw any conclusion from available published data (a new scientific theory, for example) and insert it in WP as long as someone can verify my claim by conducting the same measurements or experiments as I did. Verifiability means that the readers must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The results of these measurements have not been, thus it doesn't pass the criteria of inclusion.

Offliner (talk

) 04:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and have to admit it has shaken my confidence in my own opinion. But ultimately I am sticking to my original points and opinions. User:TheFeds is one we may want to contact, as he has had experience on similar issues and he is fair.Camelbinky (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't consider it OR to make a notable derivation from an equation. For example, taking the equations for the motion of the moon (say, in a sky simulating program) and pointing out when the next eclipse is. The RS would be the program, if it's reliable. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at this from a more pragmatic angle, I am sure sources can be found. The German article confidently states the area is 7.22 sqkm, quoting the Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. This is backed up by the Lichtenberg district regional government website: [8]. Looking for sources makes more sense than trying to calculate the area by hand. --JN466 11:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside of religion, there is probably no topic as sensitive as political boundaries. Boundaries are often more complicated than they appear. When I was new here I complained to a bot-owner for updating a city article as having 80% water when I knew it had only a few little streams and ponds. Others who looked at the map agreed that the number looked absurd. Then we learned that the boundaries of the city, a coastal strip five miles wide and twenty miles long, included twenty miles of ocean, making the overall territory 20x25 miles, 80% of it water. That's just one of countless pitfalls in calculating geographic areas of political entities, and why "no original research" is a policy.   Will Beback  talk  11:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not really a case for this notice board... as it relates more to

WP:NORN if needed. Blueboar (talk

) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Will and Blueboar. It is best not to go there. JN466 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the interesting discussion. I indeed wanted to see if this issue has concensus in Wiki, and clearly it doesn't. I'll desert the idea for now, concluding anecdotally that in many articles in Wiki it says something in the spirit of "Boston lies 223 km northeast of New York", a fact which is probably not published by any reliable source, but which is easily calculable. Is this similar to our case? Pixie (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the problem with the quote about Boston being xxx KM northeast of NY is, other than being metric, a problem with notability and relevance. What articles have that quote? The info probably isnt relevant to the article and could be removed, or at least verified and cited using Mapquest or something similar to a Rand McNalley road atlas which has charts listing the distances between cities.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. And even distances are more complex than they first appear. Mapquest will giving you the driving distance, not the straight line difference. Also, are we measuring border to border, center to center, or City Hall to City Hall? Coming from the point of view of a read, I can see that it would be helpful to know which big city a town is closest to and the approximate distance. Where such information has to be calculated perhaps it should be kept vague and use a clear footnote. Something like "Jonesville is approximately 20 miles north of Scranton. [Measured from City Hall to City Hall, using MapQuest]." That way it's at least verifable.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just double checking on this so that I don't hit any snags when I take another article to FAC: On Friday, Outpost Gallifrey officially shut down its Doctor Who News Page. However, the News Page had already moved several weeks beforehand to Gallifrey Base and the http://doctorwhonews.com url serves as a redirect to the new News Page. My question is, given that:

1. the DWNP has been upheld as reliable on multiple occasions;
2. that the News Page contains many of the staff that the old one did, and;
3. that Gallifrey One's website—formerly the host of the News Page—treats Gallifrey Base as the successor of the News Page and the forums;

Am I right to assume that just because the name has changed doesn't mean that the reliability of the site has not diminished at all? Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 08:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, but changing the name of a reliable source does not make it unreliable all of a sudden. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless they significantly changed the editing policy (or something like that) in the process of moving the page, I don't see why the new page should be treated differently. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Blueboar and Peregrine, but I'd advise making sure that the quality hasn't changed, just in case. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can any Honduran media be considered reliable sources, given that there has been something that has internationally been described as a coup d'état, and international reliable sources have reported suppression of free press in Honduras after the events? Or is it reasonable to assume that only the sources favorable to the new government have been allowed to continue publishing, thus leaving no local reliable sources for what concerns the government-related events? --LjL (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable Honduran media sources right now, due to the 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Media_war. See also:

• In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post.
• Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure, Washington Post.
• Honduran army smothers media after coup, Reuters.
• Honduras new government is censoring journalists, The Miami Herald.
• Journalists briefly detained by troops in Honduras, Associated Press

-- Rico 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It can be considered as a reliable source as far as reporting what the Honduran press is saying, but not as far as a reliable source as to fact. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, yes... basically it is to say that everything should be treated as opinion pieces even when they're technically not, isn't it? --LjL (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• As long as you used a nuanced approach, I don't see why you cannot use Honduran newsmedia as a source. They aren't all being censored...generalizing from the few to all is not wise. There are vast differences between, for example, La Prensa, and La Tribuna, and what they choose to report. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them, only that you should take anything that either writes with a grain of salt and look for outside corroboration. Rsheptak (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize I was mostly asking for third opinions here, I wasn't really intending to bring the discussion among partecipants to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis here... --LjL (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see why you cannot use Honduran newsmedia as a source."

If, "you should take anything that either writes with a grain of salt," they are not reliable sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states, "Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles".

-- Rico 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(Placeholder: My own comment removed per ANI) --LjL (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to the whole ANI. -- Rico 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this part of that tired debate about whether the coup was really and truly a coup? Is there any material reason why it would not be considered a coup? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. If you look into the sequence of events that preceded the forced departure of Zelaya, he was attempting to change the constitution of Honduras by referendum, which is explicitly forbidden by the constitution. He was rebuked by the Congress and the Supreme Court, so he attempted to use the military to circumvent their authority. The military sent him packing. So, it could be argued that the would-be coup-maker was Zelaya himself. At any rate, this is a complex diplomatic affair, and Wikipedia should not go blundering into the middle of it by annointing one side of the dispute as "the good guys" and proclaiming opposing press to be unreliable. --

Coleacanth (talk

) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's part of that, but it's also broader than that. I do ask people to forget about "that question" for a moment, and, at least here, just concentrate on determining whether local Honduran sources can be considered reliable, given the state of things (suppression of free press etc.), or not. --LjL (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel I should weigh in on this. I haven't found this much of a problem, as it's often not hard to find sources conceded as reliable outside of Honduras to establish one's point about the crisis itself. My worry, however, is that we're not getting the views of actual Hondurans by ignoring their media on this basis. There may be a problem in getting the pro-Zelaya view of actual Hondurans reported by their own local media, to be sure. But it's not clear that everything the anti-Zelaya media reports is completely unrepresentative of local views of the crisis and thus should be rejected. For me, it's like using Pravda or Izvestia, back in the days of the USSR, to report on what's going on in the Kremlin. You would expect, as the old joke goes, that there isn't a lot of Truth in Pravda (which means "Truth") or News in Izvestia (which means "News"), but you would at least get from these sources a window into what the Soviet government thought, and potentially into what a fair number of Soviet citizens thought. I wouldn't be opposed to critical use of even these well-known propaganda rags...and I think judicious use of Honduran sources is probably also fine. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

. Back in 1932 Antun Saadeh had founded the Syrian People's Party which asserted the superiority of Syrians over other peoples and followed Nazi models even in its outward expressions, a swastika-like flag, the open-handed salute, etc.

The book above was tagged with {{

) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The book is not reliable by its nature and unsubstantiated assertions. Why do you think we don't cram the Adolf Hitler article full of the opinions of Hitler's many admirers. (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Telos is a reliable publishing house. Küntzel is a respected scholar. So it does qualify as a reliable source. If there is a question of bias, the way to deal with it is through Attribution... to say something like: "According to Matthias Küntzel ... <cite to Küntzel>" this lets the reader know that the view point expressed is that of one scholar and not necessarily accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Telos is a reliable publishing house. Küntzel is a respected scholar"

• According to who..?

Attribution isn't a licence for

questionable sources (those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight), nor a substitute for balanced and impartial content. Taking exclusively the opinions of people who conjecture Nazi and Fascist associations - including known polemicists, and piling them into the article en masse, void of attribution and represented as factual statements, is an outrageous smear campaign. (talk

) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

According to who?... well, the Wikipedia articles on them for one. Universities such as Yale for another. Is Küntzel controvercial... yes. Is he biased?... perhaps. But one can be controvercial (and even biased) and still be considered a reliable source. Even Adolf Hitler can be a reliable source for attributed statements about what the Nazi view of the world was. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered an editor citing Wikivest. This is clearly not a reliable source and I've undone some of his or her edits but I have to run now. Can someone please (a) look into this further as there may be more than one editor using this as a reference (there's a template for it :( ) and (b) undo the rest of this editor's edits as appropriate? Thanks! And please accept my apologies if this topic has already been discussed or noted! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor who is using this website as a reference is continuing to do so. I've dropped him or her a line but I would greatly appreciate one or two other sets of eyes on this and outside opinions. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions and reverted. I've left another message - let's see if the editor responds or ceases. --

HighKing (talk

) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I added a comment on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all! We'll see where it goes from here and how this editor responds. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been a dispute at

) 09:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as we do not have an article on any lesser ziggurat of Ur, I see no point in moving the article away from the perfectly reasonable Ziggurat of Ur.

You could have mentioned this is about

09:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(aside)I see no reason why he should have mentioned who the editor was, and it's not helpful to call someone a "problem editor". All editors have equal standing in the project, and we should definitely AGF!

This is odd. From what I can see, it's not at all clear. Looking through mentions on Google Books, both "Great" and "Ziggurat" appears to alternate between upper and lower cases, with some books treating the full "Great Ziggurat of Ur" as a title, while others talking about the "great Ziggurat of Ur", and others still mentioning the "great ziggurat of Ur". Most books don't include the "great" though. I counted 116 books with the phrase "GZoU" with a variety of upper and lower case instances. There are 631 books with the superset phrase "ZoU" which taking away the inclusion of "GZoU" leaves 517 mentions without "great". I believe though that there are enough mentions to suggest that "GzoU" is an alternative and less used title. --

HighKing (talk

) 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagre with that, I just don't think you can use a source to prove GZoU that says gZoU.

talk

) 11:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ad the (aside), the comment it's not helpful to call someone a "problem editor". All editors have equal standing in the project just goes to show that you haven't had to deal with actual problem editors. All editors have a right to be cut some slack and granted some patience, when they first arrive. Some editors prove time and time again that they cannot or will not respect the project. These we call "problem editors". Some editors will push this very far and end up permabanned. We have a very large limbo of problem editors who have amply demonstrated that they will not respect the project and will not contribute reasonably but who have not yet been permabanned due to the traditional extreme leniency in banning mischievous editors inherited form the early days of the project. It is a sad, but rather unsurprising fact that not everybody editing wikipedia is here to help the project or improve articles, and what is not helpful is denial of this fact due to some misguided notion of politeness or anti-elitism.

on topic, cutting all the wikidrama, we are left with the pedestrian fact that the ziggurat of Ur is sometimes also called "great ziggurat of Ur" or "Great Ziggurat of Ur". We can make mention of this and move on. If there is any issue here, it is user conduct, not content. --

dab (𒁳)

11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a discussion with you in another place - it is something I'm sure we both have ideas on. But we agree on the fact that there is no evidence that the "Great Ziggurat of Ur" is *the* name, and a mention of an alternative title would suffice for the article. Peace. --

HighKing (talk

) 12:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou to HighKing for his independance and goodwill. dab's comment is a wholesale personal attack on my character and it is unacceptable for him to paint me as a "mischievous" "problem editor". I have been here since March and have some 2,200 edits - I have never been blocked where it was not subsequently established that the block was wrongful. dab's comments tell us more about his character than my character. I have a question, why when "Pyramid of Giza" is more commonly used than "Great Pyramid of Giza" do we have an article named "Great Pyramid of Giza"? Izzedine (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article.

Using the same Google Books example (which is rough and unscientific, but...), "Great Pyramid of Giza" throws up 687 references while "Pyramid of Giza" shows 710, leaving 23 references that leave off the "Great". Of those references without "Great", most refer to the "Fourth Pyramid of Giza" or the "Second Pyramid of Giza", or refer in general to "pyramids of Giza and Saqqarah". So that example doesn't stack up I'm afraid - I don't see evidence that PoG is "more common" than GPoG, sorry. --

HighKing (talk

) 13:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an simple reason why the majority of sources use "Great Pyramid of Giza" when talking about this specific pyramid (and not just "Pyramid of Giza")... Giza has more than one pyramid, and the one in question is the largest. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not definitive, but it is certainly indicative; "Ziggurat of Ur" brings up 552,000 google hits [10], while "great Ziggurat of Ur" brings up only 1,880 google hits [11]. LK (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very extensive background information (apparently to establish his qualification as an expert witness) was given under oath in an affidavit by Lester Grinspoon in support of a court motion for reconsideration and request for evidentiary hearing. http://norml.org/pdf_files/brief_bank/Grinspoon_suppl_affidavit.pdf

What would its reliability be considered?

Related questions that may belong here or elsewhere. This can't be more misplaced than the discussion section of the Lester Grinspoon article which is where I started to write it.

For Wickipedia purposes is this a primary, secondary or tertiary source for biographical & professional information about Grinspoon?

I'm inclined to consider it a secondary source despite the information being furnished by Grinspoon as it is an affidavit and a public record. I'm also inclined to consider it biographically & professionally reliable both because it is a public record and because Grinspoon was subject to criminal penalties for perjury and submitted this in an adversarial procedure where his qualifications were likely to be challenged if possible. Would Wickipedia standards support this position?

If considered a weak source based on the general Wickipedia interpretations of source and reliability, would the specific nature of it allow stronger reliance based on "common sense"?

I was looking at the Lester Grinspoon article which has a statement the article needs citations to references and sources and this affidavit has a lot of information gathered together in one place. At the least, I would hope it would be acceptable to mention in Talk as a source of information that can be searched for elsewhere. Regardless of whether this would be an acceptable or preferred source, I would like a statement and an explanation of the type of source and reliabilty this affidavit is considered for Wickipedia purposes to aid my general understanding. Thanks to anyone who responds. Moss&Fern (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly

WP:SELFPUB. Usable carefully, but not authoritative. The fact that it is a court affidavit doesn't matter. People have been known to lie in court.--Wehwalt (talk

) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly usable for non-controversial material. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seem reasonable answers so far as they go, thank you. I'm responding now mainly to see if editing this section will put it specifically on my watchlist rather than put the entire Reliable sources/Noticeboard on my watchlist. But I'll also ask if there is somewhere that addresses the different reliability generally given to self publication by individuals and self publication by government agencies, nongovernmental/quasi-governmental entities and other organizations. Perhaps I haven't read carefully enough but there seems to be an excessive bias in favor of governments, the powerful, the wealthy, orthodoxy and popularity in this regard. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the wikipedia page for The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iipm), user Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi) has included a completely new section based on a source called Career 360 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iipm#cite_note-Careers360_story_about_IIPM-8).

After elongated discussions on the discussions page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Blog_and_JAM) I have said the above mentioned Careers 360 link is not reliable due to the following reasons: 1. Career 360 is a website that has been launched only two to three months back. 2. The number of journalists in that web site is only one (therefore, the number of people who might have verified the details is less). 3. The publisher of the site is a person called Maheshwar Peri (http://www.careers360.in/pages/contact-us.html) who is well known as being a (former) publisher with a leading magazine called Outlook in India. But in India, the term 'publisher' is meant for the person who invests in the magazine, not the one who reports as a journalist. 4. the legal link in the website (http://www.careers360.in/pages/disclaimer.html) says that the website is owned by M/s Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited. It also mentions that "PPPL does not endorse or subscribe to the suggestions, advice and views of the authors of the content." It means that the owners do not subscribe to their own website's contents. 5. The website is a beta version (though I don't think this point is strong enough on its own).

I need your help in advising me whether the one link, on the basis of which one whole section has come up, is correct or not. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably you need to look at about us page, and this says that the magazine is a venture from

talk

) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nvineeth :) Thanks for the comments. i checked the link you provided . it surely does not mention that the magazine is an outlook group publication. it only mentions that the owner is also the publisher of outlook. that is a point i have already mentioned above. Also, I do remember seeing the line in one of the wikipedia policy guidelines which said that the more the number of people who were involved in researching some topic, the more reliable it is. that is why I put the point that there is only one journalist mentioned. I am not able to recall the page where I read this policy. I can try and find out although I am not in the know of many pages out here. finally the legal disclaimer is important because reputed news magazines do not have a disclaimer which says that the magazine's owners do not guarantee the authenticity of the information. But I may be wrong. cheers Wifione (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI,

User:Mrinal_Pandey based on this behavior. Makrandjoshi (talk

) 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

dear makrand joshi. i request you to be again civil, calm and responsible in your writing. if you realise, i had logged in after a month only to my wikipedia profile and that is why it took me so long to respond. many people do have lives and do take personal vacations where they prefer not to check wiki forums on a daily basis. but you have to appreciate the fact that the moment i logged on after a month, you had my discussions put up on the relevant forum. therefore your continuing accusations of me being a sock puppet despite 'administrators finding your accusations not correct' is in bad faith. instead of doing removing tags without accepting there is a dispute on the forum, i would respect your comments on why should your career360 tag not be removed as it does not stand up for fact. please add your information that will lead to developing the article rather than being accusatory. i will support you to a large extent in improving the article. i write this because you removed a clear reference to iipm being a society (which had a valid citation) and to the topic national economic planning (which also had a valid citation). please add to the encyclopaedic knowledge. i will be with you 'whenever i log on'. cheers Wifione (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

i also notice that you, makrand joshi, are more or less a single purpose account only since you set up your account. i will support you in case you wish to go beyond editing the page in question as other editors might believe you have other motives to edit this page. cheers Wifione (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of factual inaccuracies and lies in wifione's complaints about Careers360

1. Firstly, Wifione is the only user who has had any problems with Careers360 being
   WP:RS Everyone in India knows about this magazine which has been available on the news stands for the last few months. Even the Wall Street Journal's business newspaper in India - Mint carried a story about it - http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/05213711/Outlook-publisher-launches-own.html
2. This continuous reference to Maheshwar Peri as "former" publisher of Outlook Group is just false. He is still the Publisher and the President of that respected media group. And I don't get this harping on his being a publisher and not a journalist. No one has said he is a journalist, nor cited anything written by him. The purpose of citing his connection is
3. Where exactly has the number of journalsist been listed as one? There are several articles and reports on the magazine written by several people

Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

dear makrand, i request you to be civil, calm, mature and responsible in your discussions. i respect your views but you have to be civil. with respect to your points i have given the reply below:

the article in question has for long been edited by very few people, and massively by you. you have done good work too. but you have to realise that sometimes there might be mistakes that might have escaped your attention.

me being the only person having a problem is a justifiable problem as wikipedia advises editors to be bold and move forward with changes. i read somewhere that nobody owns any article on wikipedia and everybody has the full right. therefore, just me having a problem does not address the actual reliability problem. you are saying that everybody in india knows about the magazine. i don't. i live in india.

news about launch of a magazine does not make it reliable. years of existence and justifiable past reports do.

Mr. Maheshwar Peri may be the current publisher. If he is, I apologize for the inadvertent mistake. but it is wrong on your part to use harsh language and to use uncivil words in addressing a mistake. but mr. peri being the owner and having invested money to set up the new magazine (and him not the journalist) still does not make a new publication reliable.

most of the articles that i see written on career360 format are from guest editors. perhaps here too i am wrong. but i would wait for a confirmation page or a link that mentions their journalists.

you have to directly address the issues about the time period of this magazine and the fact that it is not reliable very clearly. till then, i'll look forward to encouraging discussion with you. let's discuss, not debate acrimoniously. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, based on your entire reply above, it seems like the only objection you have to Careers360 magazine is that it has been started only a few months back. Is that it? I am not aware of any WP that puts a minimum threshold on the time that a mainstream media entity has to be in business for it to be considered RS. It might be new, but is a registered magazine that is available on all news stands, has been started by the head of one of the most respected media groups in the country, and its launch has been reported in the WSJ's Mint as I stated above. So it is clearly not some fringe website like you make it seem, by citing objections like its website is in "Beta". So let me ask this again - apart from the short time that it has been in operation (an issue I will wait for admins to weigh in on), what are your objections against it being

?
Also, I am curious about where you got the information that it has only one journalist? Was it from some source or did you just make that up?
I also find it curious that you are the only one claiming the said magazine is not RS. There is no other, not a single editor saying the same. Also, you are the only one claiming you had never heard of the magazine. Fine, who has heard of what can be debated. But what can not be debated is that even the WSJ's Mint reported the launch of this magazine.
To other editors and admins This whole dispute has been raised by one person questioning the RS nature of a magazine. As far as I can see, the only valid concern being expressed by this person is that the magazine is only 4 months old. Everything apart from that is bizarre and irrelevant padding, like the website being beta (so what?), or the magazine having only one journalist (no idea where this info came from), or pointing to the disclaimers by the publishing company (which are common practice in the media).
I wonder if it is just a coincidence that this happens to be a magazine that did an investigative expose on IIPM. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Career360 magazine is new, but I don't see any problems with using it as a source on wikipedia because,

1. it has a reputable publisher, Maheshwar Peri,
2. reputable editor, B Ramesh Sarma, who also happens to have penned the article being cited, and
3. it is marketed and distributed by Outlook Group, which not only published Outlook (magazine) but has also distributed Newsweek, Marie Claire etc in India.
4. Finally the claims made by the magazine article are similar in nature to the ones made by other media and governmental agencies (as summarized in
   WP:REDFLAG
   issues either.

As long as we paraphrase the magazine claims accurately and neutrally, and attribute them to the source, I don't see any problem with

) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law and the Telegraph

There's a bit of uncertainty at Talk:Jude Law as to whether the regular 'Family Detective' feature in the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source: [12] I've no qualms about the column because it's not an opinion piece (frowned upon by

) 06:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly based on the primary sources, most of the information given about births and marriages could be double-checked against http://www.freebmd.org.uk likewise the information for 1891 census and 1911 census is publically available online (usually requiring fee or subscription), the military records referred to are probably online at Ancestry.co.uk since it appears the man concerned was discharged to pension (for these, and the census records, the originals are all held by

original research, but since it's been put together by a professional researcher and published in what's normally considered a reliable source, I can't see any problem with it. David Underdown (talk

) 09:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An article in a broadsheet

Old Moonraker (talk

) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Mises.org articles in BLPs

Hi, I posted at the

) 11:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mises.org is pretty much a blog. Could you plase give the link to the specific page that is being cited?   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Will Beback, Mises.org has a blog at blog.mises.org. But the site itself is not a blog. The articles I wrote, which are the ones in question, were "daily articles" which are submitted well in advance of posting, discussed over by editor and author, and carefully edited. They are not posted at will by bloggers. The daily articles have included entire chapters of economic treatises. --Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about this. The

WP:BLP article. They may be a notable voice for critical opinion ("The LvM-Institute, a free market think tank, has criticized..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 11:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

These articles for the Mises Institute ([13], [14]) have been proposed for inclusion in the article. Thanks, LK (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both written anonymously (or pseudonymously). Not acceptable, I'd say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Definitely not for the reasons given above. All we know of the author is his blog [15], and even if we knew more, using mises.org for a BLP is different from using from using it in an article not a BLP. Basically this is an anonymous attack.

talk

) 13:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Stephen Schulz and Dougweller, Regarding my pen name, Lilburne is my name in regards to my writing career. I have written four articles under that name, and I will continue to write under that name. The only "identity" that is relevant to my writing is my other writing, and perhaps my profession, which I disclose in my author bio. I don't see why any more information would be needed, when other authors who use the name that also happens to be on their driver's license aren't required to disclose personal information. Does Wikipedia have a policy against pen names? Would Cato's Letters or Mark Twain not have been cited by Wikipedia? --Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The author has showed up here [16] to discuss it.

talk

) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mises.org fails to meet any of the criteria to be considered a reliable source except for an article about the Mises Institute or its writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

TFD,

The Mises Institute holds an annual weeklong intensive series of seminars called Mises University that is attended by economics grad students from around the world. It publishes the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, which is a refereed scholarly journal. Its adjunct scholars include several full professors from top universities around the world. The site offers almost every key work of Carl Menger (a main figure in the "Marginal Revolution" of economics), Ludwig von Mises, Nobel-Prize winner F.A. Hayek, great French economist Frederic Bastiat and others in HTML, PDF, and/or audiobook. They publish a huge number of important, but otherwise lost books, and offer them at a steep discount. From resources from their site, I've learned about Menger's utility theory, Marx's value theory, Mises's epistemology, Bohm-Bawerk's capital theory, Ricardo's trade cycle theory, Keynes's monetary theory, the history of colonial America, the economic thought of the 14th century scholastics, the currency/banking schools controversy surrounding the Bank of England, the entire financial history of the United States, and much, much more.

Censoring the Mises Institute on Wikipedia as utterly and completely as you would have it (only referenced regarding itself and its writers) would be a disgusting act of intellectual thuggery.

I ask you to reconsider. --Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TFD, I also notice, directly below this entry, that while you would almost completely block the Mises Institute as a reliable source, you deem the progressive talk show "Democracy Now!" as unquestionably RS. Are you really going to be that baldly partisan? --Lilburne2 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This easily falls under a big NO for a BLP, as the source is really just a blog. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Valid only for opinions ascribed as opinion to their authors. Collect (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

An argument can be made for using materials published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. But Mises.org is just a blog, and it is especially inappropriate to use for a BLP.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will, why is it obvious that Mises.org "just a blog"? Mises.org hosts tens of thousands of sources including books, daily articles, working papers, multiple peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and a blog. The particular question here should be narrowly tailored to solve the content issue, which is first, whether or not a Mises.org Daily Article can be a reliable source in a BLP, and secondly, whether this daily article can serve for the proposed purpose. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this site reliable? It's a non-profit company. However, no authors are provided in the reports they produce.

) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to explain how you plan the use the site and provide more information about it. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I plan to pull the #s from their comparatives and provide them in the article. It says to be non-profit, independent, and vendors may request testing of their products.

talk • contribs

) 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which article? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of mentions of them on the websites of anti-virus software companies, but not in independent reliable sources. Till they acquire a reputation that can be verified in independent sources, I'd say no. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Their reports are cited by various PC magazines.

talk • contribs

) 22:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some details? Dlabtot (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is cited by CNET/ZDnet; here's an example. Another example is PC Magazine.

Which Wikipedia article(s) do you want to use it for? Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

talk • contribs

) 02:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which would be considered more reliable sources for an article on the history of this beer:

1. a wine shop in San Francisco (http://www.plumpjackwines.com/plumpjackwines/)

2. an American beer import company (http://www.belgianexperts.com/)

3. several (American) amateur brewing sources

4. a couple of British beer writers (one of whom is misquoted in the article)

or

1. Jef van den Steen, Trappist - Het Bier en de Monniken

2. Geert van Lierde et al., In het Spoor van de Trappisten

Mikebe (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Impossible for us to judge without knowing the comparative reputations of the authors (something better determined by consensus at the article talk page). Without knowing this, I would hazzard a guess (and it is a guess) that van den Steen, van Lierde and the British writers are equally highly reliable, the amature American might be, and the retailers may not be. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The two Belgian writers' books are not in English, so I can only tell you that van den Steen is a retired school teacher who has spent the past 30 years researching Belgian beer. His books have a bibliography of Dutch and French documents. Geert van Lierde is a journalist and currently chairman of the association of Belgian beer journalists (http://www.agjpb.be/vvj/vereniging_verwant.php?subcategorie=bierjournalisten). He has written several books on Belgian beer. Michael Jackson, the late British writer, is reliable, however, in the article in question, he is misquoted. The other British writer, Roger Protz, does not have a reliable reputation for British beers. Most of the material taken from the amature American brewing sources conflicts with information in the Belgian sources. I hope this answers your questions. Mikebe (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

context: mikebe is objecting to this [17] version of the article. The version he wants to revert to [18] is a much shorter article with 4 references, 3 of them in Dutch/Flemish.

Note that

. Jackson was probably the most renowned authority on world beers full stop.

Having taken a look at the talk page... this seems to be a dispute between two editors who prefer different versions of the article (each exhibiting a strong degree of

Ownership). I suggest that both sides in this dispute look for compromise language, discussing what all the different sources say on the topic. Blueboar (talk

) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise. Mike won't say. Could you give a verdict on Protz, Jackson and Webb as sources? TIA.1Z (talk)

They seem eminently reliable to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the original question above "one of whom is misquoted in the article" (Michael Jackson). Michael Jackson is now listed as a source in the current version of the article and I, for one, have absolutely no problem with it. Furthermore, I agree that Tim Webb is also a reliable source. However, I disagree about Roger Protz (regardless of his position in CAMRA, which, as far as I know, has never studied the history of Belgian beer). The article as it now stands is supported by three reliable sources and, considering that it is a history article, is quite complete. If Michael Jackson or Tim Webb have anything to add, I have no objection so long as it is done correctly (not as it was done before) and is verifiable. Mikebe (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as you know: Roger Protz, The Complete Guide to World Beer.

ISBN 1-84442-865-6. The rewrite was performed by a very experienced editor (user:SilkTork) in response to a number of issues raised on the talk page. Reverting leaves those issues unaddressed. The old article is poorly sourced since foreign-language sources are deprecrated. 1Z (talk

) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to defend the previous versions of this article... accept that both versions were flawed, and that you should work together to create a new, better version. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are speaking to me: how do justify the statement that both are flawed? Yes, the new one is for the reasons stated above, but I don't understand this sweeping statement. And Peter: If "foreign-language sources are deprecrated" that means we won't use English since the subject is the history of a Belgian product. Glad to see that we finally agree on something. Mikebe (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that each version has information, cited to reliable sources, that is not in the other version, I would say that both versions are flawed. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point. However, as I wrote originally, the information from the reliable source in the new version was misquoted (twice), therefore it is not based on a reliable source. I am not aware that anything is left after you remove that and the parts using the dodgy sources. Mikebe (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK but it is easier to merge into the longer article from the shorter. 1Z (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is for you folks to figure out cooperatively at the talk page... Another alternative is to scrap both and start from scratch. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It takes 2 or more to co-operate. 1Z (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, an article I've recently started to improve and edit has wikinews as a reference for some of it's content, in particular this reference is an interview conducted by members of the wikinews community with the subject in question. Though wikinews is open-source and therefore according to wikipedia policy is unsuitable, the fact that its a primary source interview may supercede that. Not sure whether to remove it or not and I'm looking for some direction.
Thanks, --

) 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed Wikinews interviews before, and as near as I can remember (I would have to check back though the archives) after a long debate we determined that they could not be considerd reliable. It was not an answer the folks at Wikinews wanted to hear, but the fact that anyone could come along and edit an interview made it necessary (imagine something as small as the removal of the word "not" from an interviewee's statement). Unless our collegues at Wikinews have changed their policy (ie making it impossible for anyone to edit interiews once they are posted), I don't see how that could change. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, will remove the reference soon and replace it with a better one then. --

talk

) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this can be used to start a broader hypothetical- what should we do if more reliable sources should use Wikinews (interviews or other material), it has already occurred that reliable sources have come to Wikipedia and used us as a source. Since our policy is not to cite ourselves or to use sources that got their info from us as a source for that same info, this can bring up a problem in the future as the influence and credibility of Wikipedia as a source grows stronger (which I think is our goal). There has already been a proposal to create a new wiki called Wikijournal where original research would be encouraged and people can "publish" their OR conclusions based on reliable source material, and have their "journal articles" reviewed. What should happen if a newspaper (or author writting a book) reports/adds to his book, a conclusion, hypothesis, or whatever from a "Wikijournal" or from Wikinews. Is getting reported by a reliable source then make it reliable? Or is the fact that the info came from a wiki in the first place make it unreliable. No slam intended on publishers of books or newspapers but they dont exactly do research or fact-checking like they used to (and we are partly to blame, the internet community has caused them to lose money and cut corners).Camelbinky (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikinews would be a good source, just because of the mutable nature of a Wiki. But, I've gotta say, seeing a reference to my 'WikiJournal' idea so soon gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though my question has been answered to reply to Camelblinky if on a more general/widespread scale publications began to quote wikinews, and lets say in some cases the info was wrong well it's not our problem. (Disclaimers and all about open-source project, so tough luck). On this information superhighway of ours in this modern world I believe the responsibility to discern a source's quality falls more and more to the people themselves nowadays.

Commenting on the wikijournal, which sounds like a great idea, (opens new possibilities for researchers to both showcase their findings and review their work). However I feel this wikijournal would become more of an extension of wikipedia, less open source per say. Those publishing work could edit and change their work, while others could only post comments, reviews, comparisons etc' maybe. For the wikijournal to gain recognition and respect it couldn't be open-source, the slightest of changes could affect journals published further on referencing the wikijournal. All in all though that's just my belief. --

talk

) 20:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A better place to discuss the WikiJournal idea would be my talk or over on meta. Let's not clutter up the RS noticeboard. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In an annoying development, all links to the International Herald Tribune archives no longer work. They now lead to this page, which leads to the New York Times search engine. But the IHT archives are still being loaded into the NYT archive, so right now, many articles are inaccessable. In any case, all IHT links now need rework. --John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you... the inaccessability of archived IHT articles appears to be a temporary issue, since it states that they are moving their archives to the NYT site. I don't see why that means that we need to run around "reworking" things here. Most importantly though... how is this an issue for the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? *confused*
— Ω (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case the link isn't really the reference, there should be sufficient information supplied that the story can be found in a hard copy archvie anyway, that's sufficeintly verifiable, even if it can't be immediately checked online. David Underdown (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with David. While annoying, the links can be fixed once the NYT has completed their transfer... the source is still reliable, and verifiable the old fashioned way (by going to the library and looking at the hard copy). Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Site: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/about/ NASASpaceFlight is often being used recently on NASA related pages (surprise!) as a news source. Chris Bergin is doing an excellent job in my opinion, but this is a WordPress site (read:Blog). So, I wanted to see if we could show consensus that the site is (currently, at least) a Reliable source. I say yes, but it would be nice to have confirmation on this.
— Ω (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can find no confirmation that other quality RS regard it as reliable according to the criteria at

WP:RS#Usage by other sources. Is there any reliabiliy information about Chris Bergin? Jezhotwells (talk

) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

...not that I know of. To be honest, I don't know much about the site at all (other then that it's cited quite often recently, here on Wikipedia). Google news will return results from nasaspaceflight.com as a source, if that means anything (probably not). Google searches don't return any meanngful results though, for me (so far...).
— Ω (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they are reliable. Only difference between them and say Spaceflightnow or Aviation week is that NSF have the stories a little earlier then the rest. That's just my 2 cents on it!--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's the way I feel as well. The problem is establishing what we feel to be true as a fact in terms of Wikipedia "reliable source" usage.
— Ω (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I posted a note on their forums, and Chris replied here with the following information:

“

Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] - and just because we opted to use Wordpress as a CMS format does not mean we're a blog (and we're not a blog!) It simply proved to be a stable program to build the site on top of (and the site is actually professionally built). Here's a couple of articles right off the bat as examples of mainstream media accrediting our news content: New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E6DF1230F935A35753C1A9609C8B63 USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-05-28-nasa-roller-coaster-escape_N.htm We have a journalist at the NASA briefings. We have several mainstream journalists on site. I can request a server log screenshot for the visitor figures if required.

”

— Ω (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

References added to

NASAspaceflight.com
— Ω (talk

) 03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it now appears to be an RS, but this was not obvious at first. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in and state that I believe the site to be highly reliable; its articles are based off NASA internal documents, and its much better at keeping up-to-date with accurate information than any of the other sites, particularly NASA's own site, which is notoriously sluggish in running updates.

talk

) 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in some other opinions about this journal, which sounds official enough but which has no named editor or editorial board and which publishes material that "pleases the critics that read it" (peer review of a sort?) [20]. Any comments about this journal and how we should the material contained in it? --Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's published by The American College of Forensic Psychology [21]. Links from this page give some useful information about ACFP Continuing Education approval and other matters of relevance. Using "American Journal Of Forensic Psychology" as a search term turns up a lot of references that suggest scholarly acceptance of the journal and some may state what peer reveiw standards exist or are lacking. I'll leave investigating that to you. Where some of the articles have been cited in other journals may be useful for evaluating specific articles. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for dredging this up again, but after I removed material from the

) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the source be used for? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know ALOT of users will jump on me for saying this but here I go anyways... is the info from imdb TRUE. If so then wp:ignore all rules and its fine. IF the info is false and/or damaging to the article then fine remove it. IF the info is correct what is the harm in keeping it? We really need to stop this "its not a reliable source" crap, if the info is correct then it becomes a reliable source FOR THAT INFORMATION, the policies and guidelines specifically state that a source is not ALWAYS reliable or ALWAYS unreliable, but instead a source must be reliable for the particular piece of information you are using. A Fundamentalist magazine MIGHT be a reliable source for certain information (probably religious) but probably not when it comes to hard science like evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Likewise Discover or Popular Science will be reliable for science but probably not reliable regarding the Catholic Church.Camelbinky (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it actually is reliable for a lot of stuff. Not user comments, trivia, mini bio, and some of the other random user generated stuff. I think the main problem, is we aren't sure which parts are provided by media companies and entered by paid staff, and which parts are purely user generated. I don't think anyones figured which parts are which, anyways. As Camelbinky points out, a lot of people like to jump on imdb, because they would prefer that it not be a reliable source. People would jump at the chance to add a bunch of reliable info about pop culture from an easy to use source like imdb, and some people don't think that's encyclopedic. I'm sure we'll hear some stern "no"s in a bit. I wish instead we would figure out which parts are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this group of comments has someone who breaks it down nicely. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No jumping here (chuckle). But until such future time (if ever) that consensus recognizes (at least certain parts of) IMDb, its best to simply use it as a tool to do further research. The discussions at

WP:Citing IMDB tried to deal with this, but were unsuccessful. Basically some parts are reliable and other parts are not. Because they do not have transparancy, do not reveal the names of their staff members, nor disclose their vetting processes, the entire site is seen in doubt. It is best that one tells an editor wishing to use it as a source, that he perform searches to confirm the informations in other locations and use themn as a cite instead. Saves a lot of argument. Send the editor to Google News. He'll find plenty on this actor. MichaelQSchmidt (talk

) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If imdb were to be determined reliable for something, cast lists, MPAA ratings, whatever. Almost every movie and tv episode ever would then pass the part of

WP:NOTE) that says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I think that may be one reason people don't want it to be reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of "want". It simply doesn't meet the definition of

WP:NOTFILM. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB, is also cited by a ton of reliable sources.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC) And some RSs saying IMDB is reliable.[30][31][32][33] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible we've taken our sourcing standards just a little too far? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if part of the concern is that deeming IMDB an RS would cause almost every film ever made to be notable, that just isn't so. IMDB is a tertiary source, like an almanac, and a trivial mention in a database-type source wouldn't meet the general notability guideline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't effect notability (much), but it does two things that would be nice for inclusionists. It takes care of that part of

WP:V (a policy) vs. NOTE being just (cough) a guideline. And it adds one easily found ref for all the films and tv eps, and in film and tv ep AfDs, ref counting (right or wrong) is a key component. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks IMDB is a reliable source for biographical information should take a look at this page [34], which, coincidentally, I checked out just a few hours ago. Don't see any problems? Look closely at those marriage dates. I think IMDB is reliable enough for TV and movie credits for mainstream performers, but the biographical sections are not reliable (in part because they're too often sourced from Wikipedia), in part because there's too much credit-faking for minor/extra roles for people with thin credentials, porn performers claiming to have uncredited roles in well-enough-known films, etc. Birthdates and birthnames also pose questions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking closely at those marriage dates, no, I don't see any problem. [35] It says: "Doudna, Jeremy (12 June 1999 - September 2004) (divorced), Lee Stone (September 2004 - present)" What seems to be the problem? Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been "fixed". When I first posted the link, two weeks ago, the divorce was dated 2006, even though the second marriage began in 2004. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So they had an error on one of their many thousands of webpages, which has been corrected. Seems to be pretty solid evidence pointing to the reliability of IMDB. Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. They had a conspicuous, undeniable error which stood for an extended period of time, and wasn't fixed until I made an issue of it here. Indicates that nobody at IMDB screened it to begin with,and the imdb entry on her supposed second husband contradicts itself on whether they ever married. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All sources will have occasional errors. And the correcting of these errors is the very essence of what distinguishes reliable sources from unreliable, no matter how you try to spin it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. Using it to get credit lists rather than grab the DVD is acceptable, but that does not make it a reliable source that should be cited (and such credits should always be double checked). IMDB is rife with errors and is user edied. Some like to say that IMDB checks edits, but in reality, any edit is accepted so long as it looks reasonable enough. Look at their trivia sections for any film. Often false, or unverifiable, but allowed to be added anyway. They do not vest their content, and it is not a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For Collectonian and others I am going to repeat this AGAIN- per Wikipedia policy and guidelines there is no such thing as sources simply being RELIABLE or NOT RELIABLE. PLEASE refrain from such comments that make it seem a clear-cut all-or-nothing strict classification. And also remember these things you state are YOUR opinions, please frame your comments as such. IMDB may be a reliable soure or not a reliable source on a case by case basis since it does not, as far as I can see, violate any particular policy on what types of things can or cannot be used as sources (such as the current ban on blogs). Which if it is ever found to be doing so (because I can be wrong) then that would not have anything to do with it being reliable, that would simply mean it violates a different aspect of our "rules" on what is permissable and it has nothing to do with being reliable. I know of many blogs written by professionals that arent permissable but are very reliable. I could go to many articles and find mistakes in a publication that is used as a source, but having a mistake somewhere in a book does not mean you throw out any use of a different part of the book. You dont throw out the baby with the bathwater.Camelbinky (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That only pertains in very select instances. IMDB may be considered reliable for the article

Internet Movie Data Base, but that's it. That's what that means generally. For a very close comparison, Anime News Network

's encyclopedia was recently delisted as a reliable source (though their news and reviews still are) for the exact same reasons that IMDB info is; there are a lot of inaccuracies, it's hard to tell what level of scrutiny is needed before info is added/corrected, etc.

The only thing that might be reliable are their news feeds which its better to just go and cite the original source.陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to go through this again? IMDB accepts user-submitted content that is not reviewed by an editorial staff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry AQFK, but that is flatly incorrect, as approximately 70% of their staff is dedicated to vetting user submissions. Yes, IMDB allows Joe Sixpack to submit information. But it also allows industry professionals to submit information. They also have their own staff that add informations. However, all such credible informations ARE vetted by staff before they are published... and NO, I am not taliking about user's comments or actor's bios. Any flat assertion that IMDB does not have editorial oversite is simply incorrect.[36][37] It is their not giving full disclosure of their processes that darkens them in the eyes of many Wikipedians. We all agree that IMDB bios are not reliable and urge editors to simply do their own search for other sources to confirm whatever they find in IMDB and then provide those other sources as the cite. And absolutely no one is promoting IMDB as a source for notability. Personally, I believe

Washington Post

have a far greater error rate than IMDB... but that is not the answer to the question being asked far above. It is that IMDB does not disclose that is the problem. And in previous discussions, no one ever answered my question as to what error rate is allowed before a source is deemed unreliable. If IMDB says anything other than what is found in the film credits, WGA, or MPAA, an editor should simply say to themselves "Hmmm, let's see if I can source that elsewhere", do so, and avoid the wikidrama.

MichaelQSchmidt, no, it's not flatly incorrect and your selective quote is highly misleading. It does not say 70% of the content is reviewed by staff. Instead, it says 70% of its staff reviews content - which is an extremely meaningless statistic without knowing how big their staff is in comparison to the "massive" amounts of user-submitted content they get. Further, if you keep reading, even IMDB admits they are not reliable: However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes. 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But the point is moot, as this entire discussion has taking a wrong turn. Please look at the original question above. That is all to which we need provide a decent answer, not debate IMDB all over again. So to User: Nightscream, simply instruct User:Lx 121 to source his informations from this Google News search and let's stop this argument that has no end. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, the info for which User:Lx 121 wanted to use it was for biographical data (date of birth and place of birth, specifically), the exact sort of thing for which people consistently say it's not reliable. You point out others who cite it. But couldn't this be because imdb doesn't have Wikipedia's reputation for lack of reliability, and so, people are just not aware of it? I mean, prior to being told here that it wasn't reliable, I myself used it, because I was under the impression that it was. Yeah, Roger Ebert, references it, but he never notes whether the info in question is sourced or not, and even Jimmy Wales himself said WP shouldn't be used in this way. The marriage dates on the page Hullaballoo Wolfowitz linked to underscores perfectly how bio info like dates is not reliable. Camelbinky, you ask what the harm is in using it if the info is true. My point is that we don't know if it's true, precisely because it's unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge, I brought this up again for reasons explained in the first post in this section: When I removed material from an article because it was sourced to imdb, another editor insisted that there was no consensus on this point, even after I pointed to numerous discussions in which most of the editors stated it was unreliable. Michael, thank you. It appears that imdb is widely considered unreliable for biographical info, if not for screen credit info. Nightscream (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not and has never been a reliable source and cannot be used as such. A couple of disgruntled editors (one I recognize as a extremely dedicated AFD patroller who seemingly votes to keep every article up for deletion with any flimsy source he can grasp at to try to justify it, who therefore would love to add IMDB fluff to his arsenal) don't get to just ignore the longstanding consensus that's very clear on this point. 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by, and state again, the fact that Wikipedia does clearly states that a source must be reliable on the particular fact it is quoting, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINITELY STATE A SOURCE IS RELIABLE IN ALL INSTANCES! If the NY Times says a building was built in a certain year and that is wrong we dont then say- its a reliable source the info stays! and we dont say- its now an unreliable source throw out anything in it! Stop saying something is reliable or unreliable in all instances. I dont care if you say I'm wrong. You are wrong, I'm right. If there is something in IMDB that is true and then there is no problem with using it a citation. Truth trumps everything. Bite it.Camelbinky (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• While I do think that IMDb is reliable for some purposes, from Wikipedia:Citing IMDb it appears that we could not even get a consensus as to whether there should be a guideline about that, much less what that guideline should be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reliable for cast list information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Just like any

) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But, to repeat what I've said in prior discussions, although imdb can be considered generally reliable, as an enterprise that endeavors to list ALL films, rather than just notable films, appearance in imdb can in no way be considered as an indication of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the participants of this discussion are aware of the rough consensus from the last few times IMdb has come up: information from there is reliable so long as it isn't in the 'user-generate' and non-vetted section. So dates, cast, crew, etc. are ok. Forum posts, trivia, etc. are not. Also, as Dlabtot points out, IMdb is effectively a directory, so the presence of absence of a film or person on IMdb is not a sign of notability. As for the true vs. reliable discussion above, that's a false dichotomy. If you know information provided in a source is false,

) 07:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to dispute this given that anyone can submit information (not just experts) and that their review of the information is not of quality level. Other sources with similar makeup and arguably higher levels of oversight have been deemed for that content non-reliable. And yes, IMDB cannot be used in any way to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My easy response is that people will use imdb whatever our decision here is. I think that we would rather they footnote and source particular claims so we have some trail (and not one that ends with 'because some wikipedia editor said so'). I find, at least anecdotally, that imdb is reliable (a family of movie buffs has yet to find more than a few eggregious errors and my dad has surfed this site since its inception) and I feel that as a directory service they perform more due diligence than most. I agree that it is low on the continuum of reliability, but it should meet our threshold. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

People lose sight of one thing: if information can only be found on IMDB, there's a real problem. People are using IMDB as a crutch: it's easier to find something there than to actually look for it. Very little of the information sourced to IMDB is exclusive to IMDB. If some piece of information can only be found there, it probably isn't important enough to mention in an article. IMDB is like Wikipedia: a great place to get an idea of what you are looking for, but not reliable enough to quote.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kww...something I'm not always known for. IMDb can be used as a launching pad - going there to check who may be the producer so you have a name, but then you should go and look elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Our film and tv pages are using a ton of info that came from imdb, without attribution. I guess we're pretending that we're closely examining the credits, when if anyone is closely examining the credits, it's the people at imdb. We should be upfront about this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IF the information being used from IMDB is correct, then who cares if it originally is from elsewhere?! If IMDB has alot of info X editor is going to use 10 pieces of info from there in Y article and if X was to get all the info from somewhere else then X would have to use 10 different sources because none had more than one piece of the info needed, making the choice of either citing all the info to IMDB or sourcing each different piece of information to a different source then it is better to use IMDB. I have often used less than desirable sources to source one sentence that had a couple of different pieces of fact just because that one source had all the info instead of using multiple reliable sources just because it would be unwieldy to have several individual sources stacked up at the end of the sentence or several slapped through out the middle of the sentence. Unless the info is wrong, why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over using IMDB, if the info is false, show the correct info in a reliable source and remove the offending info. There seems to be some with a grudge against IMDB as if IMDB killed their grandmother. If it did, ok, then we shouldnt be using it as a source if it is out there killing grandmothers, and my condolences to your family. Otherwise explain why you are in such a huff that IMDB must not be used under any circumstances? The truth is the truth no matter where it comes from, stop being so worried about whether a source is "reliable" and worry more about whether the information itself is correct, and is being used in the correct context in the article.Camelbinky (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is a generally reliable source because it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, for correcting errors (see the example above), and a dedicated editorial staff to fulfill these tasks, not because we somehow 'know' that what they publish is 'true'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The expressed consensus is that it is an RS. JN466 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What are editors' views on the reliability of this news item:

• http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/7/13/obama_calls_for_probe_into_2001

It's from

. The linked page includes the full transcript of the show (you have to scroll down past the box to see it).

RS or not? To be used for an overhaul of Dasht-i-Leili massacre, along with a bunch of other sources. --JN466 17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DemocracyNow! is unquestionably RS. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Although undeniably liberal, DemocracyNow! has a large editorial staff, has won multiple awards for it's programming, and its host, Amy Goodman, is a widely known and respected journalist. It's as reliable as the New York Times. LK (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or another regarding this particular journal, but I would be curious as to whether or not it meets RS standards. The journal's old dedicated webpage can be found here, the publisher's current homepage here. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at their editorial review board, they seem a legitimate academic journal and therefore reliable. They claim a strict peer review process, similar to other academic journals. LK (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, a strong no. They hold a very strong POV and intent (as seen from their history), which is to help remove people from groups they see as 'cults'. They are not a neutral source. Priyanath ^talk 19:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral... we need to be neutral in how we present what they say. I would call the review Reliable for attributed statements of opinion... perhpaps not reliable for statements fact. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar has a very good point here. I doubt very seriously if any of the academic journals regarding religious matters published by schools affiliated with that religion are what anyone would call "neutral". I doubt very seriously we'll ever see an expose on the current pope published first in a Catholic publication, or for that matter a detailed overview of Shinto theology, for instance. While I can and do acknowledge that it is often the case that specific journals use some subjective criteria in determining whether they will publish it, that is not quite the same thing as saying that their reliability as per

WP:RS is necessarily absent. John Carter (talk

) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• RS. The Cultic Studies Review is quite well represented in google books and google scholar. Editorial board has broadened in recent years and includes some respected scholars like Eileen Barker, Janja Lalich and Stephen A. Kent. JN466 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lupe (August 5, 2009). "EXCLUSIVE: Will and Jada Fire Head of Their School".
  Radar Online
  . Radar Online, LLC. Retrieved 2009-08-05.

Possible source for use to update article

) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an online gossip magazine - very low level reliability, I would say. What "fact" is being supported by this? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No facts are yet being supported, as the source has yet to be used. However if this is the consensus, then the source will not be used. It would have been used presumably to update information on in the article

New Village Academy on its recent change in leadership - changes not yet reported on in any other secondary sources. Cirt (talk

) 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here, in the limited case being made for use. The linked news piece doesn't appear to be making fringe, hoax, or otherwise outlandish claims. The issue about Radar Online being an "online gossip magazine" isn't particularly compelling (even

WP:OR anyway, as long as no corroborating evidence for the argument is given). The real issue is in establishing Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources. Even without usage by other sources, Radar online could still be used as long as judicious care is taken to make clear what is being referenced and that the referencing is not "out in left field", so to speak (primarily by using them to attempt to establish fring or hoax theories).
— Ω (talk

) 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to Wikepedia articles, not to comments on noticeboards. Anyhow, another Hollywood Gossip magazine regards it as a gossip site [38], as does MyFoxPhilly [39], the LA Times suggests that it is a gossip site [40] (and that it is owned by the same people as the National Enquirer), Reuters reports a company executive as saying "I firmly believe that Radar's blend of timely celebrity news coupled with a focus on pop culture..." [41]

. It looks like, smells like and is a gossip site and thus of litle or no relevance. I didn't need to find those cites as I used my editorial skills and judgement after looking at the RadarOnline site to decide.

"Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." If people only took the time to read

WP:RS

many of teh questions on this board would not need to be asked.

The fact that other more reputable news organisations have not reported this "fact" is likely that they have not been able to corroborate it. That is where the "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." bit of the criteruia comes in. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The only aspect that I am disputing is the "and thus of litle or no relevance." portion. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Radar Online, Enquirer, or any other tabloid rag would be useful as a general source. They can (and should) be used, where appropriate, for what they actually do report: "gossip". I'm suggesting that, just as with news opinion pieces and "social networking" content (blogs, Youtube, tweets, etc...), that those sources are useful within the limited scope of what they are generally acknowledged to have expertise on (which is celebrity gossip, in this instance). You established their limited reliability yourself with: Reuters reports a company executive as saying "I firmly believe that Radar's blend of timely celebrity news coupled with a focus on pop culture..." [42]. So, their useful for celebrity gossip and (American, or Western) pop culture references. Of course, the appropriateness of including celebrity gossip and pop culture references is another matter entirely, but that's a content issue which is best addressed at the article level. The important issue is that we're not applying an

WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias in any manner, here.
— Ω (talk

) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Has Radar changed recently? While they always had a pop-culture focus, they were more like Rolling Stone or maybe the old Spy magazine, and they did run some investigative stories. I remember some debate on how to attribute their article about the

Perverted Justice group ( of Dateline NBC fame ). Anyway, while they seem to have more of a celebrity focus now, I would say they are reliable enough for non-extraordinary information about a school. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Now several other secondary news sources are reporting on this same information originally reported on in the

) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Also, note that the attribution of Radar online effectively established their reliability as well. Just keep in mind what I was saying above, that heir reliability is limited to the subject matter that they actually cover (Celebrity gossip and pop-culture)
— Ω (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: New exclusive information from

Radar Online [46]. Would this be acceptable to update the article with as well? Cirt (talk

) 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, as long as the additions that are made can be directly supported by the article. Questions this specific are probably best asked on the article talk page, however.
— Ω (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Nation

I am seeking input as to if The Nation, Is a relaible source on "Birthers" On the Barack Obama Citezenship Theories page.It seems a tad rabid and leftleaning , and to have a clear agenda. Any comments would be appreciated.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Nation is a left-leaning periodical, no doubt. But it is a reliable source as to facts and to what left-wing people believe. Ngchen (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's a reliable source. It is left-leaning politically. I'm not sure if there is any reliable metric with which to measure whether it's a "tad rabid"; thankfully, however, rabidity is not a standard for sources on Wikipedia ;) csloat (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you offer an opinion as to if the source is being properlly used at the above referenced article?Particularly here [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz#Commentary_and_criticism] . It appears to be an opinion piece.Is News Max a RS by our standards?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, Newsmax could be cited in an article if we keep in mind they have a right-wing viewpoint and if their information is relevant to the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP says that the nation's blog (or any blog, even that run by a news organization or some otherwise reliable source) can't be used for BLPs. It can be taken out from the Orly Taitz article. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no Orly Taitz article. Looks like there was a delete+redirect, but that name isn't mentioned in the Nation article anyway. I'm guessing that was a mis-paste resulting from the browser following a redirect. We're interested in the Controversies section of the Obama conspiracies article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that. Striking some of the above. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A reputation for being left-leaning does not disqualify a source as reliable. A reputation for being inaccurate, or a reputation for a sloppy editing process, does. Of course, opinion needs to be cited as the opinion of the author, no matter what the source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

THe problem is that it is a quotaion from the Nation´s blog : [47] . I thought blogs were the antithesis os

WP:RS. Has anyone checked the source in question?--Die4Dixie (talk

) 20:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, your designation of "blog" is somewhat deceptive, as it implies that

WP:RS is an entirely separate issue, and should be judged on its own merits, not on a vis-à-vis comparative basis.   Redthoreau (talk

)RT 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There used to be some blurb in RS or V explaining that a weblog maintained by a news organization wasn't considered as bad as a self-published blog. basically stating that the format for publication is not what matters. I can't seem to find that now, but I still feel a blog under the Nation's umbra, written by identified reporters, can be considered in the same vein as a nation article. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When "blogs" are mentioned in policy that usually means personal blogs. If it's a newspaper column that's styled as a "blog" on the newspaper's website, then it's not really a blog by WP standards. If on the other hand this was the "comments" section of an online news story that's a very different matter.

But RS is more of a minimum standard to see if a source is usable at all for the topic. There's also the question, especially if it's an opinion piece, on whether this is a notable opinion or does this really shed any light on the subject? That particular article looks like a big bowl of partisan word salad, and I'm having a hard time seeing what it could possibly be a citation for. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions about appropriateness for a specific article should be worked out on the article talk pages though, not here.
— Ω (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of overlap. Many sources are RS for one topic, say pop culture, but not for another topic, say medicine. If it's purely a debate over undue weight of one source over another, I'd also prefer that be hashed out on the article talk pages. But I also know that particular article could use help from neutral parties. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Among "left wing" periodicals, the nation is probably the most reliable. It's been around since the civil war, has won plenty of awards, and presents complex issues in long form articles (thus retaining content). I don't know if I would call it 'rabid'--it doesn't seem to require too much common sense to note that birthers are crazy. Source seems fine to me, though there are better sources out there for the birther mess. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the blog post in question? It may meet RS, but it doesn't exactly strike me as the heir to a century-and-a-half legacy of distilling complex issues. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have. It's the boilerplate liberal complaint about republican identity politics subsuming their base. Leaving aside the fact that a line can be drawn from Johnson to Nixon to Atwater to the modern movement conservatives, it doesn't really offer anything new. My point that it is reliable enough to be included doesn't extend to the more narrow claim that they are the best source on the topic. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are our personal opinions about the content of the periodical (or the beliefs of certain groups of people, such as the "birthers") actually relevant to a discussion about source reliability in any way?
— Ω (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, sure. Our policy says they aren't, but that is because our policy is insane. Editor interpretation of sources is the elephant in the room of RS. For most subjects there are a multiplicity of sources from which to choose. In selecting one from many, we attempt to pick

representative sources. Even when picking multiple sources, there are still editor decisions made in constructing a 'median source' (so to speak). My opinion (and if need be I can back it up w/ some sourcing) about the source matters, even though our policies swear up and down that they do not. Protonk (talk

) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions about "rabidity" or whatever else notwithstanding, as editors we're not supposed to make value judgments (sort of like the way that journalists are supposed to behave). The point being, I don't see an issue with how it is being used in the article which is linked to above. It's clear that the quote is an opinion, not a bald statement of fact. The assertion offered is that The Nation claims that "birthers" are conspiracy nuts. It's not asserting that Wikipedia is claiming that "birthers" are conspiracy nuts, which would be an issue.
— Ω (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this particular Nation post is little more than a rant, and it may not be appropriate to use as the lead paragraph in the controversy and criticism section. If this was an article about some obscure topic and that was the only criticism available, then I'd say use it. But there's Avogadro's number of articles written about "Birthers" and their opinions. Some of them are going to be serious and scholarly. Why lead with this one? (here is the edit in question). Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the ref doesn't deserve to anchor a big quote at the top of that section. I tried to remove the quote but was reverted. It's a good reminder of why I don't like editing controversial topic areas, I guess. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like one particular editor is reverting everybody who tries to take this quote out. Doesn't 3RR apply, or is that for only edit wars between two participants? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, in the spirit of accuracy, it is the opposite of your assertion and

WP:RS in all instances.   Redthoreau (talk

)RT 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

i´´l not remove it or reinsert the context. It seems like WIkipedia´s purpose is being subverted here by some editors with their

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues. Perhaps this isn´t the best place for this. I would like to know if not identifying the huge quote bomb as an excerpt from their blog attempts to give it the same creedence that their news articles are due?--Die4Dixie (talk

) 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to keep the discussion about the quote out of this noticeboard. It's not really germane. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm being a bit bold and archiving this discussion. It's clear to me that further talk on this subject should occur on the Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page, rather then taking place here.

The discussion's only been going for a few hours, and there are still RS-related points that can be debated on this issue. Actually, its very often that issues brought here are not a bright line is the source generally reliable or not, but whether it is reliable for the way it is used in a particular article. I'd like the debate to remain open until a consensus is reached. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that we're giving too much prominence to something which is not our best source. It's much worse than I'd thought when looking at the diff. It's not the lead paragraph of the section, but a sort of super-lead which shows up in its own highlighted box, the only such box in the article, and it's paired up with a photograph from an unrelated event in a way that could be read as defamatory to the people in the photo.

Essentially, it is putting the editorial on the front page. It's giving great prominence to an essay that, citing only opinion, links "Birthers" with all sorts of other views, including despicable ones such as Holocaust denial. Even the very title of the essay, "The Birthers of a Nation", is a not-so-subtle reference to the Klan-themed 1915 movie The Birth of a Nation.

Now, I'm always explaining to people on this noticeboard that sources can be RS for some topics but not others, and how sources which fall at the borders of RS may be suitable for minor details but not for extraordinary claims. For instance, a celebrity magazine may be an RS for an article about a movie but not an article about medicine.

The blog section of The Nation may be an RS for various issues, but perhaps we should examine whether it's earned a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, for extraordinary claims about paleoconservative topics such as the "Birther" movement. This sort of spin is exactly what we should be keeping out of Wikipedia, unless we were writing a section on inflammatory things written in The Nation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the article is bereft of hard facts and long on rhetoric. Sure, it doesn't belong in the article (as an editorial opinion). Sure, 'blogs' of mainstream newspapers and magazines represent spaces where reporters are free from relatively strict editorial control (for a good example, look at the Atlantic Monthly's blogs). All of those things are true and all of them coalesce to make this blog post a remarkably poor source for the matter at hand (to say nothing of the fact that there is no paucity of sources). But let's straighten some things out:

The 'article' is not describing a tea circle. The birther movement represents dozens of different constituencies and ideas, but some of those constituencies are motivated by the history described in that articles and some of the ideas are odious.

While the nation article is fact-light, there isn't a shortage of serious scholarship tracing the lines of racial antagonism in the republican party and the far right. These aren't extraordinary claims.

Making the 'out of its scope' argument (celeb rag for medical issues, etc.) won't fly here. The republican party and the right wing are well within the scope of the nation, just as they would be within the scope of TNR, the Atlantic or the New Yorker.

How much left is an RS issue? Protonk (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(referring specifically to the question "How much left is an RS issue?") Nothing, in my opinion. This is looking to me like a

forum shopping incident, at this point.
— Ω (talk

) 07:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• To D4D, mostly. I understand your frustration. the procedure does say come here when use of a source is in question due to reliability. However, this happens to be one of those cases where the source may be reliable (i.e. the reporter blog on the Nation), but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Specifically, you are unlikely to see us disallow the blog's use in the article from RS/N. Nor are we going to demand that it be included. That sort of 'nether' state is not an uncommon outcome here at RS/N, because we don't want to get dragged into the particulars on each article. We just want to establish known facts about the source, the subject and the claim and be done. If we try to hard to hash out questions of
  weight, scope and summary here, we risk becoming another venue for talk page disputes. Protonk (talk
  ) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Docklands_Light_Railway_electric_multiple_unit

Can you check this article and list which is an acceptable source and which is not. And can you help me find more "acceptable sources". --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi - this board is for asking about RS, you may get help in finding RS at the projects Trains and London Transport. I have had a look at the cited sources:=.

• Transport for London is a primary source - OK for information about itself
• Taylor Woodrow is a primary source - OK for information about itself
• Milesfaster is a Hotel booking site not an RS, except about the hotel booking services it offers.
• Pictures are not RS
• The Trams is a personal web site, no evidence of fact checking or relaibility. If it is cited by reliable sources, e.g. railway media as an RS it may be OK
• Railway technology looks like it may be OK
• The Railway Centre is likely OK, would be good to have more infor on editorial policy, fact checking, etc.
• Bombadier is a primary source - OK for information about itself
• Skyscaper city is a forum / bulletin board - defeinitely not RS.

What you need are more good secondary sources - eg Railway Industry press and media, also mainstream press. At the moment a lot of information is cited from primary sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

I've edited the

flight 77

page citing previously reliable sources:

1) Goldberg et al. (Title: Pentagon 9/11) for the crash section

2) David Ray Griffin (Title: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited) for the conspiracy section

Yet "VegitaU" reverted my edits saying [48]:

David Ray Griffin is a noted conspiracy theorist and his fringe views are not citable as reliable sources.

---

However, this is patently untrue because DRG is cited in the main

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

page.

He also reverted my edits citing Goldberg apparently unwittingly, though his book is cited on

Flight 77

page numerous times.

I wrote this on VegitaU's talk page and undid his revert, but this was immediately undid by "A Quest For Knowledge" who said:

Removed 9/11 "truther" spam

---

He did not even read my response on Vegita's talk page or he would know I also cited Goldberg.

Is the use of DRG as a source "spam" on the main article as well?97.104.226.129 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at what was added, and I've got to say that you are putting in material that is not needed in this article. (see

WP:FRINGE). You've also brought this to the wrong board. Irbisgreif (talk

) 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No the issue was specifically about whether David Ray Griffin was a reliable source. If you are suggesting that my edits are giving "undue weight" to a theory then I would be happy to discuss it in a relevant noticeboard. Again, I point to the

9/11 Conspiracy Theories main article which copiously cites DRG. This means DRG is a reliable source in regard to 9/11 conspiracy theories, no?97.104.226.129 (talk

) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, coverage of 9/11 conspiracies isn't needed on the main pages. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will reference this if someone tries to revert the edit. There was already a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main article, so if you argue that it isn't needed you'll have to put forth your argument on the talk page.ArXivist (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. A source can be reliable in one article, but not in another. Mr. Griffin may be considered a reliable source in an article that is about his conspriacy theories... but in another article he probably is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the section of the

No original research policy dealing with primary sources. In brief, it is almost always preferable to base articles on how the topic has been treated elsewhere rather than rely on your own interpretation of the primary sources. I expect that the spam comment stemmed from a perception that your inclusion of this source would result more in increased exposure for DRG than improvement to the article. Using sources discussing what impact it has had on the larger discourse would obviate this problem. - 2/0 (cont.

) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Frommers as a reliable source?

Hello. Is Frommer's series of guidebooks a reliable source? I haven't really seen anything that tells about guidebooks. Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to say yes (based on personal knowledge), but their own article does not assert their reliability. It certainly could, and should, so I've added a couple of {{Citation needed}} tags where a good citation will establish their reliability.
— Ω (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable. Messes up geography, basic history and places $200 a lunch outfits on the "moderate" list. YMMV.

NVO (talk

) 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Looked again and it's far worse... stay away. Perhaps none of their editors actually saw the cities they "cover", even on photographs.

Example 1 (Vienna). "In 1896 young Otto Wagner (1841-1918)"

Example 2 (Moscow). "towering tented spires of the 16-th century

NVO (talk

) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Frommers has shown up on RS/N before. Consensus is that it varies. For tour 'guidy' things, they are ok (like NVO says, your mileage may vary). NVO points out above that they are occasionally inaccurate. In my opinion, there are better sources out there, especially for big cities. but if it between leaving a contentious claim unsourced and sourcing it to Frommers, I would say that we are better off sourcing it to frommers. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is

talk

) 05:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Frommer's is not a reliable source on anything.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Doug. Any archaeological/historical information—if it's correct—appearing in Frommer's must (by definition) appear in some other more reliable source that's closer to the actual research/scholarship, since at most Frommer's only conveys 3rd-hand info of this type. At best it can only be a stop-gap measure to cite Frommer's for info like this, there's any number of readily accessible (even via googlebooks) actual archaeological sources that wld be preferable to use. Particularly on a prominent site like Tiwanaku.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it a little bit (one of the fun things about editing WP is learning about obscure topics like this)...according to The Aymara of South America by James Eagen "Archaeologists aren't sure whether or not the ancient Aymara had a written language." I'd not use Frommer's, in this instance, and would hesitate to use Frommer's at all. Dlabtot (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

I am wondering if this is a reliable source==>[49]. It is written by 2 authors, one who has a PhD, and another who is a PhD candidate. It also has inline citations and many sources. Can it be considered a reliable, academic source?--Edward130603 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does it come from? Where are these two researchers based? Under what subject did they present this paper at "the Annual Conference of The American Family Foundation (April 28-29, 2000) in Seattle, WA"? As I mentioned on the FG talk page, there is a list of references, but I can't say if they sufficiently support the conclusions in the paper. Mostly because I don't read chinese. :) PerEdman (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, in what context do you wish to use it. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I plan to (hopefully) use it on the

Academic views on Falun Gong (which will probably be renamed soon).--Edward130603 (talk

) 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the questions I think are relevant to consider: Was it published in an academic publication? Are they experts on Falun Gong? Is the American Family Foundation an academic forum? Is the work based on fieldwork or extensive research, or is it a summary of their own thoughts about the subject? Were it published in a reliable source, has the work be superseded by later research? Is this something that two guys with PhDs got together in their spare time and wrote, on their own? The corollary question is, has it gone through a peer-review process?

The answers appear to be: It hasn't been published in an academic publication; they are not experts on Falun Gong (one has a PhD in biochem); an AFF meeting is not an academic forum; the publication is essentially a summary of these two guys' thoughts on the subject, with the only references regarding Falun Gong all being to either Chinese-state media or other AFF associates; their work has been superseded by later academic fieldwork and research by tenured professors; their work has not been peer reviewed.

Please indicate whether any part of the second paragraph is inaccurate.--Asdfg12345 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph doesn't give many claims. It is merely introducing the topic and saying that they will analyze FLG.--Edward130603 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. You were talking about your 2nd paragraph right? Fang Zhouzi is a known dissident.

Fangzhouzi/Fangshimin is the President of New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, a non-profit organization promoting Chinese culture to the general public. Deng zixian is a graduate student of the Department of Political Science of the University of North Texas. They have also written letters to the editors of the Washington Post and NY Times regarding FLG. Is that enough for their paper to be considered a reliable, academic source?--Edward130603 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion, take ten zillion

Is Kalman et al (2008) a secondary or a primary source? 99.60.0.185 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter... Primary vs. Secondary has nothing to do with reliability. There are reliable Primary sources and reliable Secondary sources (just as there are unreliable sources that fall into each category). The question that should be asked is "is the source reliable?" And to answer that, we would need to know which article is it being cited in, and what statement in that article it is supporting. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's for

WP:SECONDARY source for supporting the last sentence of its abstract? How about the sources discussed at [50] and [51] -- are those relable peer-reviewed secondary sources for the purposes of that article? 99.27.133.58 (talk

) 05:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just a note. If people are intending to quote a paper like that using only the abstract, then they are in the wrong. Editing an article like cold fusion demands that we understand the source, not just determine if we can use the words presented in the source. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see a lot of conversation in those links where people assume that Springer or Elsiever as a publisher == academic press. That's not a very good assuption, especially given the recent press about elsiever and some other "academic" publishers printing sham journals. I'm not qualified to say whether or not some physics article has been published in a reliable venue. The journal the linked pdf is published in is The European Physical Journal - Applied Physics,the doi is 10.1051/epjap:2008167. As far as I can tell, this looks to be reputable, but that claim is very tentative. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source at Rebecca Quick

The last couple days, me and a few editors have been in disagreement over a particular source at Rebecca Quick in regards to her marital life. This is the source in question, http://www.cedarrun.org/newsletter/Spring03.pdf, a newsletter from a wildlife refuge organization. I opposed having this source listed because of the fact that it’s a company newsletter, and that they are not always good and reliable sources. And the information about Quick in that newsletter is way too small, and that small information did not focus whatsoever on the main argument, her marriage life. The newsletter ONLY said that Quick was just simply an auctioneer at an event, and a picture was taken of her and her family which included her NOW ex-husband. However, it does not say “ex-husband” in that newsletter. Keep in mind, this is a six-years-old newsletter, nothing current. Therefore, anybody who views this particular source will be under the false impression that the guy standing next to Quick in that picture is still her current husband. There are other sources than this newsletter attached to the Rebecca Quick article which does put some emphasis on Quick’s marriage life that are more current, adequate, proper, acceptable and reliable than this newsletter. A few editors agreed with this reasoning. However, there are two to three who editors say otherwise, and they had improperly issued warnings to me saying that they are administrators when they are really not, and that if I don’t stop, they will block me. I request at a real neutral-third party Wikipedia administrator examine this. Because the last thing I want to resort to is a civil unrest which might engage in an unwanted edit-war between me and opposing parties. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's now sourced to Page Six of the New York Post. That's a bit shaky.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the Rebecca Quick's discussion page, I don't oppose your suggestion of removing every information about her marital status altogether. True, the Page Six of the New York Post is a gossip page, and would not be a good thing to attach as a source. But as far as all of us can find, that's the most credible of all the sources out there, surely more credible than that newsletter. I'll leave it up to the administators at the BLP Noticeboard to make the final call. If that's deemed unacceptable, then maybe perhaps we should carry with your initial suggestion and exclude all of Quick's marital information on her article. KeltieMartinFan (talk)

Here's a better source to resolve this: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01252009/business/fuld_hides_home_151983.htm

162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Source or spam?

Is http://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Multivitamin_Multimineral_Supplements/multivitamins/ a reliable source, or a spam link that tries to get money out of visitors? It has just been added to multivitamin as the sole source for a section. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with spam, but I'd accept arguments to the contrary. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

About.com news articles

Is About.com a reliable source? Specifically, can I use this article Profile of Economist Paul Krugman, by Deborah White of About.com, as a tertiary source in the article about Paul Krugman concerning what about him is notable? LK (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Found this from the archives. It appears that the signed articles from About.com are reliable. LK (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. About.com is reliable... That said, most of the material in About.com is taken directly from other sources... and best practice is to follow the chain back to the original, by reading and then citing those other sources (or, alternatively, citing the other sources but listing About.com as a convenience link as per

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). However, in this case the material is original to About,com. As such can and should be cited to About (with attribution to the staffer who wrote it). It is more of a citation formatting issue, and not really a reliability issue. (An important exception to all of this is when About.com takes its material from Wikipedia. That material should not be used here)Blueboar (talk

) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the inconsistency of quality at about.com that troubles me. Some areas seem authoritative while others seem like little more than random essays. They don't seem to have a consistent editorial standard across their various websites and therefore I think they fail the "reliable publication process" part of the guideline. I wouldn't use it in an article I was editing. Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that About.com is not the most reliable of source. The question is whether it is so bad that we can call it unreliable. I don't think it is. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for reasonable people to disagree. Dlabtot (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Frank W Sweet a reliable source?

The author in question is used as a source for a number of articles: [52]. This is in fact one of our editors,

talk

) 09:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

More info please... What subjects does he write about, and are the Wikipedia articles in question on those subjects? Are his works being used for controvercial statements of fact, something not controvercial, his opinion, or what? If he was adding his own work, I would say that we have a potential for COI here, but the seriousness depends on the details. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot on race, but the first issue is that he is self-published surely? I know it doesn't mean he can't be used at all, but given he has no academic publications, no PhD so far as I can see. At

talk

) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely looks iffy... OK, one final question... What can you tell us about Backintyme publishing? I do see they list him on their website as one of the few authors they publish, but is there any further connection between them (in other words, what makes you say his books are self-published?) Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this page [54] and this page [55].

talk

) 05:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that substantiates self-publication. In which case, the citations to his work should at minimum be revised per WP:SPS, and a much closer scrutiny should be given to any statements that he himself added and cited to his own work. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking into this a bit more, I get no hits on Google Scholar for either Sweet or his works (but perhaps my input is faulty, it would be nice if someone double checked). How accepted is his scholarship? Would his conclusions be considered Fringe? etc. (in other words... perhaps we should remove him completely) Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is MovieTome.com a reliable source or not?

Is there a list of "acceptable" sources for

WP:BLP articles anywhere? If so, can someone please leave me a note on my talk page? I see an astounding number of articles sourced to MovieTome and I don't feel its a credible publication that should be cited in any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. Again, PLEASE follow up with me or copy me on my talk page as I don't check this noticeboard often. JBsupreme (talk

) 08:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society'

An IP has described their conferences as 'notoriously bogus', and is challenging the use of their papers as sources on Talk:Topological computing. Anyone an expert on computing, 'topological' or otherwise, who can pass an opinion? ninety:one 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Using unpublished conference talks is a bad idea in general, these have little editorial review and no formal peer review. I'd say you'd be best to stick to the actual scientific literature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This AFD may be of interest and to the point; particularly DGG's comment. --Slp1 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ?

2006 Alaya Rahm's Failed Superior Court LawSuit on Sathya Sai Baba, BBC and Seduced Documentary:

• The Pioneer reported that Alaya Rahm filed a sexual abuse allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba in the 'Superior Court of California' on January 6, 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Sathya Sai Baba was accused by Alaya Rahm of sexual abuse from 1995 - 1999.
• The trial was set for April 28, 2006. In the following trial's thorough investigation it was found that Alaya Rahm and his family members had praised Sathya Sai Baba in number of recorded retreats and conferences during the years '1995 - 1999' contradicting Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse claims
• In the trial Alaya Rahm admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005 when he made those sexual abuse allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in BBC, Seduced documentary interviews and in the Daily Telegraph.
• Alaya Rahm self dismissed the case on April 7th 2006 when witness 'Mr Lewis Kreydick' filed his testimonies. He was the one who brought Alaya Rahm's tickets to India and had also accompanied him to India to visit Sathya Sai Baba. Alaya Rahm had a personal, close and confidential relationship with Kreydick from 1995 to 1997. Alaya Rahm had spoken about his positive experiences with Sathya Sai Baba and no incident about any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.

2006 Superior Court Verdict:

• Alaya Rahm allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba society was dismissed as “with prejudice” and is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata. That means Alaya Rahm cannot fail another lawsuit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India. Pretty much the trial found Alaya Rahm guilty of making those false allegations. Sathya Sai Baba name was cleared.
• Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed law suit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/
• Daily Pioneer article link: http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html

Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentary and Daily Telegraph based on Alaya Rahm Allegations:

• In June of 2004 7 months before the actual Supreme Court case BBC produced the documentary 'Secret Swami' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. In the documentary BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of sexual abuse allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims.
• Alaya Rahms allegations were also published in Britain by (The Daily Telegraph). The BBC documentary was also broadcast in Australia and by the CBC in Canada.
• Based on Alaya Rahm allegations Seduced By Sai Baba, was produced by Denmark's national television and radio broadcaster Danish radio. It was aired in Denmark, Australia and Norway.
• BBC Full Transcript: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt
• BBC Secret Swami links:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm,
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3791921.stm,

Here's the Problem:

• In wikipedia - Sathya Sai Baba is strongly criticized and accused of Sexual abuse based on the 2004 BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph.
• All these accusations were made based on Alaya Rahm's allegations and interviews to these documentaries.
• The Pioneer also reported that no alleged person has ever filed a police or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India for alleged improprieties.

Solution

• Shouldn't the Superior Court of California verdict on Alaya Rahm case in 2006 a more reliable source than 2004 BBC, Seduced TV documentaries and Daily Telegraph article?
• Can the criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations be removed from the article since Alaya Rahm was found guilty?
• In fairness to Sathya Sai Baba can the article be corrected as per the Superior Court of California verdict?.

Please do reply. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the sources deeply enough, but have a few comments and questions:

1. The case you refer to was filed in the Orange county superior court, not the California supreme court. County superior courts are the lowest level trial courts, while the State Supreme Court is the highest (as far as state law goes).
2. The Daily Pioneer article you link to is a opinion column by Sandhya Jain and not a news report. As such, it is a reliable source only for the columnist's views and not for facts.
3. You mention several reputed sources that pre-date the end of the trial: BBC documentary, the Denmark national television documentary (link ?), some Daily Telegraph article (link ?). Are there any third party sources (besides the court document hosted by Sai Baba's website) that post-date the trial ?
4. In particular is there any reliable source that says that "Alaya Rahm was found guilty" ? I find this contention odd because I haven't heard of the plaintiffs being found guilty at trials, but possibly there were counter-suits which you have not mentioned. Can you clarify ?

Finally, note that this board is mainly for determining whether a specified source can be considered reliable for a given statement. Broader and more complicated issues are better handled at the article talk page or through

RFC's. Abecedare (talk

) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy:

• I corrected the Court Name. A Superior court is not exactly a lower court. The Superior Court of California in Orange County has handled several high profile cases. They have unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. I don't see why their verdict should be treated lesser than any other court verdict.
• Was there a real case by Alaya Rahm on Sathya Sai Society in the Superior Court of California? Yes.

Proof of the 2006 Alaya Rahm civil case from the Superior Court Of California Website:

• Case No. Case Title Case Type Filing Date Category
• 05CC01931 RAHM VS BABA PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER 01/06/2005 CIVIL
• Case Link: https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.

• Did Alaya Rahm self dismiss the allegation case in the middle of the trial?: Yes

• The trial would have continued if Alaya Rahm did not self dismiss the case himself after the Sathya Sai Society produced a strong case of evidence bringing witness - 'Mr Lewis Kreydick'.

• What was the Verdict on the case: The case was dismissed by the court as “with prejudice”.

• What does that mean: With in legal civil procedure - Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment in a civil case. The dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff in this case Alaya Rahm "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over.

• Can Alaya Rahm file another lawsuit in an other court on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India: No.Under the international doctrine of res judicata he cannot do that.
• Did the trial find any wrong doing by Sathya Sai Baba: No

• Did Sathya Sai Society was asked by the judge to offer any Monetary or other compenstions to Alaya Rahm: No

• The verdict was pretty much in favor of Sathya Sai Baba if otherwise Alaya Rahm would have received monetary compensations from the Sathya Sai Baba Society or the right to refile the case in another court of law.

BBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba based on Alaya Rahm :

• The Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentaries did not do a thorough research on the allegations. They strongly criticized Sathya Sai baba on 'Sexual abuse allegation charges' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. However the following 2006 'Superior Court California Alaya Rahm trial' did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.
• It is definitely a
  WP:BLP
  violation to accuse Sathya Sai Baba of a crime he was never proved to have commited based on TV documentaries.
• The strong criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations should be removed from the article to fix the
  WP:BLP
  violations.

This is more complicated sourcing issue I don't think it could be resolved in the talk page. That's the reason I am asking help here in the reliable source noticeboard.

Wikipedia lays great emphasis on the Biography of Living Person article. I think this

WP:BLP

violation in the article has to be corrected.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, My points numbered 1 and 2 in the earlier posts were just factual comments for your information. Can you address my questions about sources in points 3 and 4 ? Specifically:

• Can you provide links (if available) to the Danish documentary and the Dail Telegraph article ?
• Is there any secondary source (besides the Pioneer opinion column) that post-dates the case ?

Lets try to simply list and analyze the reliability of sources on this board. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedare that this is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. At a simple level, both sources (BBC as well as the court verdict) can be considered reliable. The BBC source for saying that there are allegations of sexual abuse and the court verdict for saying that, at least in the case of Alaya Rahm, these allegations were found to be untrue. Assuming, of course, that the two sources use more or less the language that I'm using. I think this is more a matter of what it is appropriate to say on a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true".
• The case is listed as a "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" case on the court website and is a civil case; I am not sure whether the alleged sexual abuse was even the (direct) subject in the case.

The above two points demonstrate why it is a bad idea for us to try and interpret primary legal documents (which we haven't even seen!). I would advice against mentioning the case or its dismissal in any article, unless we have a reliable secondary source talking about it. Note that the BBC documentary pre-dates the filing of the lawsuit and I don't think it mentions the case at all (please correct me if I am wrong on the last point; I haven't read through the transcript or watched the documentary).

As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much

WP:NPOVN board. Abecedare (talk

) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided the actual court documents from Superior Court of California website. I don't see what more evidence I can provide? The problem is during the 2004 BBC documentary Alaya Rahm case was not analyzed in depth. Based on Alaya Rahm's and his family interviews BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of 'Sexual Abuse allegations'. It even went further questioning the political leaders in India 'Why no action was taken on Sathya Sai Baba'.
• As I mentioned above in the 2006 trial in Superior Court Of California - Alaya Rahm was found to be making those allegations using illegal Drugs and he self-dismissed the case. Sathya Sai Baba was not proved to have commited any wrongdoings in the trial. My point is its seems baised and unfair to continue accusing some one of serious sexual abuse allegations based on an old outdated documentary and inspite of Sathya Sai Baba being cleared by Superior Court of California. In the article there is whole paragraph citing BBC and other TV documentaries allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims. Can this be removed? Radiantenergy (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman ^Talk

20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jehochman, The Superior Court of California trial and the verdict was covered in detail by an article in the 'Daily Pioneer' Newspaper. Here is the link to the article from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. I have given more information about this newspaper.
• Daily Pioneer Newspaper: "The Pioneer" - a well established Newspaper. Its been online since 10th May 1999. The daily Pioneer has epaper link: http://epaper.dailypioneer.com/Thepioneer/Pioneer/2009/04/14/index.shtml. The daily Pioneer website has 63,460 page views in the past 3 months. As per the traffic statistics this epaper is linked in 612 websites. Can the Pioneer article be considered as a secondary source to the trial?.
• Other than the original court documents about 'Alaya Rahm's Case' and the daily Pioneer article dealing with the trial there are no other secondary sources.

Court Documents:

Links to Alaya Rahm's case from the Superior Court of California Website:

• https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.
• Link with the Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed allegation lawsuit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/

• Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly (not necessarily the hyperbole though) since you also have the court dismissal as a reference. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary? If they were central to the documentary, then my blp monitor says that it is better not to use the material at all. If not, then it depends. The issue of centrality would, unfortunately, seem to require a reliable source of its own and, I assume, that this documentary and the Alaya Rahm case are not the only accusations of sexual misconduct on the part of the baba. But, in general, I suggest erring on the side of not including inflammatory material in a blp. (Note: The court case would, IMO, be ok if it's language was very specific, as in the allegations were found to be untrue. I realize on rereading that this is unlikely since the case was withdrawn.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the Pioneer column is a reliable source for anything beyond the facts that a case was filed and a case was dismissed (for which the OC Superior court website suffices anyway). A reading through Sandhya Jain's columns is worthwhile; for example in the latest column US unequal to India, she writes

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

This is an apparent reference to

Voting_Rights_Act#Periodic_renewal

, but not only is the presentation biased, even the basic facts are wrong!

We should remember that BLP applies not only to the subject of the article but also to other individuals including, Alaya Rahm. I concur that this is a subject better suited for the BLPN board, but at this board we should be clear that the Daily Pioneer column is not a reliable source for anything beyond the columnist's views. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Other article: I think the other article is referencing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. The Law outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. Initially there were objection to its renewal by Republicans in 2006. But President George W. Bush signed the 25 year extension on it.

I was surprised when I came across this article about Criticism of the BBC -'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC'. BBC has been criticized for its bias on 'Racism', 'Alleged Anti and Pro Israeli Bias', 'Alleged Anti-American Bias' and other biases. The article also said that In January 2005, the BBC aired the Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against the Christian religion. The whole article deals with the complaints about BBC. I agree with RegentsPark. I think Daily Pioneer Sathya Sai Baba article is reliably sourced and can be used as the secondary source for the trial. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy to RegentsPark Question:

Hi RegentsPark. You had asked the following question. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary?

• Alaya Rahm allegations was the central / core theme in the BBC documentory. That's the main part of the problem using the 2004 outdated BBC documentary. I have attached the BBC full transcript below. BBC documentary included interviews with Alaya Rahm and his parents and questions to the Sathya Sai officials - Dr Michael Goldstein and Isaac Tigrett about the Alaya Rahm allegations. It also includes the questions to political leaders like Dr Murli Manohar Joshi and their response to these allegations.
• Here's the full version of the BBC transcript : http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt.
• My answer to your next question is that I am only interested in removing the strong BBC and other TV documentaries criticism on Sathya Sai Baba which were based on 'Alaya Rahm allegations'. Leaving it in the article is definitely unfair to Sathya Sai Baba and WP:BLP violation.
• Based on the Superior Court verdict which is more reliable source its better to decide if we can get rid of the outdated BBC and other TV documentary which were solely based on Alaya Rahm allegations.
• I don't see the reason why the same issue has to be taken to another discussion forum in wikipedia. We may go through the same cycle again and again unable to conclude on this issue.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be taken to the BLP noticeboard because there is a line being drawn here between when allegations become notable enough to be included in a blp and when they should be excluded. That is a question that is not easy to answer here. My core responses are the same as before. Both the BBC documentary, as well as the court case are reliable provided they make clear statements. The daily pioneer article is likely reliable for asserting that the case was withdrawn, especially considering that you have the judgement as a source as well. So, what we have are allegations that have not been proved. Whether these allegations cross the notability threshold is probably better addressed on the BLP noticeboard where you'll get a much better idea of where the line should be drawn. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath ^talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath ^talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ? -- we don't weigh sources against each other. Rather, when reliable sources conflict, we report the conflict, according to our

WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk

) 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to weigh sources against each other rather the above discussion is about fixing WP:BLP issues in the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would refer you to: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted the question. Many very experienced wikipedians shared their perspective in the above discussion. I don't see the need any more to take it to

WP:BLP noticeboard. We can mark this discussion as resolved. Radiantenergy (talk

) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTYhoi

This is ridiculous. The court case was self-dismissed, so this does not suddenly make the information from the BBC unreliable. Andries (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) First of all the case was self-dismissed by Alaya Rahm and second of all the reputability of the Daily Pioneer can not be compared to that of the BBC and third the disagreeing sources should be used to describe the controversy, not to tone it down or omit it. Fourth, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not on primary sources, like court documents. Andries (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

People here have no right to interpret controversial primary source material, because Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. And they are likely to make mistake if they interpret controversial primary source material. For example, I do not think that the verdict is about the same issue, so I have a contrarian interpretation. How can the verdict say anything about the veracity of the allegations if the case is self-dismissed? There may be thousands of reasons for a self-dismissal. Andries (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The documentary by the BBC is not made obsolete by the court case: the court case made no verdict about the veracity of the allegations voiced by Alaya Rahm. Andries (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)]

Andries, This case was discussed by very experienced wikipedians. I am wondering why you are writing in this forum being a banned editor from the Sathya Sai Baba article for

WP:COI. Why did you remove the 'Resolved' tag? Radiantenergy (talk

) 15:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth On Line

Resolved

China Youth Daily's online version has posted an interview with controversial American politician and self-styled economist Lyndon LaRouche. "现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药———专访美国著名经济学家林登·拉鲁什"[56] Some editors would like to use the biographical sketch that precedes the interview as a source for a variety of assertions about LaRouche. (No one is seeking to use the actual interview as a source - just the biographical sketch.) I have two concerns. One is that we are relying on a Google translation of the interview.[57] The second is that the biographical sketch appears to repeat claims LaRouche makes about himself, which leads me to believe that it may have simply been copied from a LaRouche press release or official biography rather than representing actual reprting by the source. While this publication has a large circulation (they claim 1 million copies are distributed daily), it is far away from the centers of LaRouche's activities and I don't think this is the best source for the notability of his views. Using a Chinese source for an American politician seems like a stretch. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese media have taken a very active interest in LaRouche for some time. One noteworthy case is this interview in multiple installments that appeared four years ago in the China Peoples' Daily. Therefore I don't see anything strange about press coverage of LaRouche in China, or Russia, or any of the other locations that have been brought up for dispute. It should also be noted that Will has been quite enthusiastic about using British and Australian sources which are highly critical of LaRouche. Instead of questioning the motives of the China Youth Daily, we should simply discuss whether it is a reliable source. The translation question is a separate issue which would be best solved by soliciting the help of a Chinese speaker. --

talk

) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "enthusiasitic" about any source, and please don't make personal remarks. Translation is an important issue until we get a reliable translation. But the more important issue is whether a biographical sketch in these circumstances is a suitable source for the purposes it's being used.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally watch CCTV9. "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" That's not the way I would characterize Chinese state media. Dlabtot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :It is not such a simple matter as "Chinese state media." China Youth Daily is known both for high standards of journalism,[58] but also taking a rather defiant attitude toward state authorities, as in the case of the "

Coleacanth (talk

) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

One would have thought that if LaRouche is such a well known person - and these facts about his biography are so well known then the editors in question should find not only have little difficulty in finding English language sources to cite but multiple such sources.

:::You would think so, wouldn't you? LaRouche's main profession is that of economist, and while you can find extensive coverage of his economic theories and forecasts in South America, China, Russia, Europe, and elsewhere, it is conspicuously absent from English language sources. --

Coleacanth (talk

) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and unless one believes in conspiracy theories - and I am sure there are no WIKI editors typing here today, tinfoil hat in place - it suggests that to include it unreliable. By the way, I am - in "Europe" and until today, had not even heard of the person. However, if the details suggested can be found in the British press for example - then there would be no difficulty finding them :-)

:::::Sorry, no, but try the Italian or Danish press. --

Coleacanth (talk

) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My Italian is appalling. However, the Danish press often also print English additions - as indeed do the German and Italian quality press on occasion. Perhaps this is the solution? The7thdr (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

From the link provided by Coleacanth:

• China Youth Daily has been publishing since 1951. Distributed nationwide, it has always had a large reader base because universities and high schools were forced to subscribe. ... China Youth Daily is controlled by the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League. [61]

So it does appear to be an organ of the

Communist Party of China. Is this a source that we tend to respect for their adherence to accuracy? Leatherstocking asks us to ignore the possible motives a Chinese Communist newspaper would have for writing a puff piece on LaRouche (while attacking the motives of editors here). But LaRouche's movement has been very supportive of the Chinese government,[62] especially in defending it against the accusations of the theft of nuclear weapons technology contained in the "Cox Report".[63] Regarding Coleacanth's suggestion that LaRouche's economic theories and forecasts have received "extensive coverage" on four continents but not in the U.S., I think that is unproven. Passing references, perhaps, but not extensive coverage. In fact, his numerous predictions have been reported in the U.S. press over the years. All through the '70s papers reported how he and his followers were predicting imminent nuclear holocaust, and in the 1980s they reported the predictions of epidemics that would destroy civilization and for decades they've reported the predictions of impending economic depressions that will be worse than anything since the 14th century. In 1992, for example, the press reported his statement that the U.S. economy was in the midst of such a depression. There has been plenty of coverage of LaRouche's economic, political, and scientific forecasts in the U.S. press.   Will Beback  talk

  21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

:Red-baiting, or any other sort of ideological litmus test, is inappropriate here. It opens the door to any number of debates, such as whether the American press, which dutifully repeated the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" hoax, can be considered reliable sources. Let me correct what I said about coverage of LaRouche's economic ideas in other press: there have been references to specific proposals, but this is the first coverage I have seen that gives an in-depth explanation of his more general theories, which is important because the article in question is

Coleacanth (talk

) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just rhetoric. It isn't "red baiting" to point out that the Chinese state media and especially the Communist Party news sources are not know for neutral, reliable reporting. It's a problem common to authoritation governments of various politicla tendencies. Their circulation figures are less impressive once we learn that schools and colleges are forced to subscribe to it, and it reminds us that this is a product of an regime run by a single party. The Chinese ruling party can't be unhappy with the LaRouche movement's depiction of the Tibet situation as a power-play by Britain to destabilize China.[64][65][66][67] According to LaRouche, "Nobody can honestly deny the Dalai Lama's Nazi connections..."[68] So building up LaRouche builds up a major supporter in the U.S.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it looks like the Chinese are promoting LaRouche's views on economics, not his views on Tibet. And using your reasoning, all the negative coverage of LaRouche in the American press becomes suspect because LaRouche opposed the Iraq War and other aspects of American foreign policy. Before pointing the accusing finger at the Chinese press, we would do well do examine our own.[69][70][71] --

talk

) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• CRITICS OF THE Iraq war are outraged over the revelation that the U.S. military has been paying millions of dollars to plant pro-American, Pentagon-written propaganda articles in Iraqi newspapers and to buy off Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.

OK, so we won't use any Iraqi newspapers as sources. This appears to be a red herring.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This whole sub-thread is entirely off-topic. We don't judge sources based on what they say - that would require us to be arbiters of Truth™ - nor are circulation figures in any way relevant; we judge them based on their reputation in other RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand this discussion. if the information is "correct" then it will be cited many sources surely? It is after all very general. If it is not cited in English anywhere then it must cast doubt upon its reliability - or at least accuracy. The7thdr (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Would

WP:NONENG be of value here? The7thdr (talk

) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available.

There are literally hundreds of newspaper articles in English about Lyndon LaRouche from publications across the political spectrum from at least four countries. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have considered LaRouche's economic theories or forecasts to be important enough to devote more than a few sentences to them. There are many books that have a chpater or so on LaRouche, but like the newspapers they devote very little space to describing his economic views. I'm not aware of any book on economics in English that devotes any space at all to him or his theories. So I do't think it's a matter of there being a lack of "English equivalents". This is a case where a state-owned publication is giving accolades to a friend of the regime.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia's structure doesn't allow us to grade reliable sources on their quality. Either a source is reliable, and can be used, or it isn't. This Chinese newspaper is a reliable source and can be used. It's up to the reader to decide for themselves its credibility, which they are able to do because the source of the information is right there in the article. I support China Youth On Line as a reliable source in this situation. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This Chinese newspaper is a reliable source and can be used - why? what leads you to believe that it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability? Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that for most publications out there? Newspapers and publishing companies get taken to court for libel all the time, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Remember, our pillar is verifiability, not truth. Determining the sure truth, because we're only allowed to use secondary sources, is beyond our ability. We set a reasonable standard for reliable sources, ensuring that the information is verifiable, and then leave it up to the reader to decide how true it is, based on their own judgment of the sources used. A major newspaper, whether from a democratic or totalitarian society, is a reliable source. The millions of people in China (and many outside of China) get their news from their China's newspapers. Those newspapers meet our standard of reliable source. If you want to make sure that the reader knows where this information is coming from, simply state in the text, "The China Youth On Line states that as a youth LaRouche was involved with..." (or whatever it's saying about his bio). Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you believe it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability based on no evidence whatsoever? We do actually have a

reliable source guideline that we use to inform our judgements. It doesn't list being 'a major newspaper' as a valid criteria for judging reliability. Dlabtot (talk

) 00:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cla68, I believe you are very mistaken when you write that a source is either reliable or not. Sources vary in reliability from one to another, and also depeding on context:

• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.
  WP:V
• How reliable a source is depends on context.
  WP:RS
• Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).
  WP:BLP

So there is certainly a sliding scale of reliability. In the context of an American politician, a Chinese Communist Party publicaiton is not a mainstream newspaper, and may even count as a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In China a newspaper such as this is a mainstream publication. I can't read Chinese very well (Japanese and Chinese share many similar kanji), but I sometimes look through Chinese newspapers that I encounter here in Japan. It's obvious that they contain some propaganda, but they also contain real news, especially about stuff that is going on in China, which is why I look at them. If the Communist newspaper information is contradicted by other sources, simply give both in the article, "The Chinese Communist Youth Daily says that LaRouche did... but the NYTimes says that there is no record that he ever did anything like that." or something like that. That will allow the reader to make up their own mind as to what is true or not. If LaRouche, for whatever reason, gets more favorable press in China, then that's good for us becaue it helps give us a broader perspective on LaRouche's influence on our global society. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This and xinhua are reliable. If they're contradicited, include both. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What basis do you have for saying it is reliable, and how does Cla68 know that this is a mainstream newspaper in China?   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all this is really necessary -- the CYD is not actually being used as a source for LaRouche's ideas, which are abundantly available in primary sources. It is being used to confirm the notability of LaRouche's ideas on economics, and ironically enough, I believe that Will's protests that the government of China is making an intervention to boost LaRouche's economic theories is itself a demonstration of their notability. Will had proposed that text in the

talk

) 05:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Until we know what the articles say about the theories, we can't tell if they are just mentioning them or are actually discussing them. After all, the article isn't about them, they're just included in the short biographical sketch at the beginning.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Leatherstocking that this source helps confirm the notability of LaRouche's platform. By the way, if you need someone who can understand written Chinese to confirm what the article says, post a request

here and/or here. Cla68 (talk

) 06:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire article devoted to the LaRouche platform. If we can ever find a reliable translation of this article, we can see what they say, It probably isn't much, since it's so short. Also, I have a question for you above - how do you know this is a mainstream paper in China?   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::According to the Asia Leadership Fellow Program[72] "Media summary- China," Three most influential media from their type were selected: China Central Television(TV), People’s Daily Online (network), China Youth Daily (newspaper), and the period of focus was from Oct. 2002 to Mar. 2003... China Youth Daily (CYD) is one of the most influential newspapers in contemporary China with a circulation of 800,000 (readership, which is much more, is not officially recorded). A market research report by China Statistical Bureau ranks CYD in third place on the reading rate among the national daily papers. I think this qualifies it as "mainstream." I have placed notices on the bulliten boards that Cla68 provided, asking Chinese speakers to check the accurary of the LaRouche PAC translation of the the China Youth Daily article (translation is here.) --

Coleacanth (talk

) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a full translation of the source here, will update later on the rest of the article finished. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The English source is roughly accurate, aside from few word choices between my translation and the on on the web. (You say strong point, I say market, but its all about everyone sell China stuff, etc.) Jim101 (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's 'mainstream' but where in our policies or guidelines does it say that being 'mainstream' is part of the criteria for reliable sources? A mainstream newspaper that has a reputation for inaccuracy is not a reliable source. 'Mainstreamness' is totally irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the factual accuracy of this source, my experiences with

Chinese economy, I don't see conflict of interests or NPOV problems here. Jim101 (talk

) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the current dispute, I suggest use this arbitration case as a reference on how to treat mainland Chinese sources. Jim101 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for putting in that work on the translation. And thanks to Coleacanth for finding that market research report. While the China Youth Daily editor admits that he sometimes has to follow the state line, the report writers seem to vouch for the paper being an important newspaper in China. I suppose even propaganda from a major country represents a significant point of view, even if we treat it as a primary source. Dlabtot is concerned that we are not in a position to judge whether the paper has a reputation for reliability, which is different from being popularity or even mainstream. Jim101 suggests that the paper doesn't have a conflict of interest writing about LaRouche, but he is a loud defender in the U.S. of some of the government's most unpopular policies , so the government has at least an indirect motive for writing positive articles about him. Cla68 indicated above that he thought it would be OK to use if fully attributed with any relevant conflict explained. To resolve this question, I suggest that we use the source with care and attribution, employing Jim's translation.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Branding the press of another country as "propaganda" is inappropriate. I have no doubt that the American press are considered propaganda in other parts of the world, and that you would object if Wikipedia adopted that attitude. --

Coleacanth (talk

) 06:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"

Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee which discusses the department that determines the content of the China Youth Daily and every other newspaper printed in China. There are many admirable qualities to the Chinese government, I'm sure, but a free press is not one of them.   Will Beback  talk

  06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::And as I mentioned before, the same arguments can be made against the U.S. media. See

Coleacanth (talk

) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments could be made, but only by deliberately conflating systemic bias with direct government censorship. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One more note on Chinese sources...if the article is written in Chinese, the censors believes that only Chinese will read it, and no foreigners will read it — the reverse can be said for English articles written by Chinese media. You can see this in places such as

Xinhua news reports, where the same news story has completely different contents between translations. What this means is that this article was for Chinese citizens only. Within China and from the Chinese and the Communist's point of view, it does not matter which side LaRouche is rooting for in the US or the world as long as he is white, famous and not a killer/rapist. That is my arguement for no conflict of interests for the Chinese censor. Jim101 (talk

) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

China's media is reliable like other countries media. Named writers, with editorial oversight, and giant corporations behind them; done. Lots of RSs are biased (FOX news, etc.) and we can't pick and choose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked you before, but you didn't respond: How do you know they are reliable? In the U.S., if a publication is erroneous it is likely to be lampooned by other media, and subject to libel suits. What happens when a Chinese Communist Party newspaper writes an inaccurate story? At the risk of proving Godwin's Law, do we consider the state media of Nazi Germany to have been a reliable source for any and all topics? Or do we pick and choose?   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I cant believe what I read "China's media is reliable like other countries media"...um, ok, since when? We have routinely talked about on here, and with exception of the few rightwing nuts, have always agreed that FOX news was NOT reliable by itself if not backed by other actually reliable sources, especially relating to politics. Same goes for China's media, and in China's media its not "giant corporations behind them", well kinda the problem is that they are backed by the LARGEST of the giant corporations in China, the Chinese government itself! Any country without freedom of the press and an independant media does not get its media the benefit of the doubt and declared reliable. Comparing Chinese media to Fox is correct, they both arent reliable. So Peregrine Fisher you were half correct in your post, but yes we can pick and choose, that's kinda the purpose of the consensus based discussion on this noticeboard. When China allows me to Google info on the Tiananmen Massacre when I'm in their country then we can allow their media some good-faith. When a country that has two cartoon cop-like characters pop up when you are surfing the internet with names that pretty much translate into the English slang of "po-po" (for police) that "remind" you of what you can and cant surf and censor you and watch what you do, we have a responsibility not to trust their state-run and state-censored "media" outlets. As Will Beback pointed out, what's next, Hitler Youth press releases taken at face value? We always on Wikipedia pick and choose what is acceptable. There arent just big categories and that as long as you fit in a category with a source that is reliable the you are reliable too.Camelbinky (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting off topic here, this is not a place to debate truthiness of sources or waging counter-propaganda war against China. Wikipedia is suppose to be apolitical. Debating the source's reliability should not involve the evilness of Communism or truthfulness of certain organizations. All sources in the entire world have major factual and bias problems if put in the wrong context.

Let's look at this problem point by point:

• It is reasonable to assume the this source represent the opinion of most people in China.
• Lyndon LaRouche hasn't condemn this source — meaning LaRouche confirmed that this is an exclusive interviews, and he believe it have no major factual problems. His followers has already picked up this piece to endorse their own views.

So this source means that it is a major viewpoint of the Chinese people about LaRouche that is endorsed by both LaRouche and his followers. Thus if this piece is used in this context, then it is a reliable source. Jim101 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is totally contrary to our policies and guidelines. Sources aren't judged to be reliable based on the viewpoints they express. Sources are judged to be reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese state-run media has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No. Yes we decide if sources are reliable based on viewpoints because if they have viewpoints they arent being unbiased. We dont let in Fox News commentaries like Glenn Beck and CNN commentaries from Lou Dobbs, we dont let in soft news as sources for news like The Daily Show. This has nothing to do with counter propaganda. The entire purpose of judging a source reliable or not IS based on the source's "truthfullness", if a source is recognized internationally as untrustworthy, biased, and propaganda then it is not reliable. The US media has its faults, but it isnt owned by the state and its faults are individual to each independant media outlet, even Fox news is not owned by the state. Fox news is not a reliable source. Why should Chinese state media be reliable? If Chinese media is propaganda, and it is, then it is not reliable. This is not the place to try and be politically correct and think you are being sensitive in international affairs. It is simply not reliable. Where do you get off saying "it is reasonable to assume the source represents the opinion of most people in China"? Did you do a poll? And if so, who cares? Even if the majority of the people on the entire planet agree with something that doesnt make a source reliable. This is no different than a source from Nazi Germany, which we would not accept as reliable. That's all, there is no other discussion needed. Stop trying to change the subject to seem like those who oppose you are simply anti-communists. You are throwing out a "red herring" ironically. It's not reliable. So stop, you arent being sensitive, your being ridiculous. BTW, I'm actually a big supporter of Communism, what China has is not communism.Camelbinky (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...someone who is overly senstive accuse me of being senitive.

• On truth, please read Wikipedia:Truth.
• My point is to take this topic away from talking about politics because it is all smokes and mirrors, and here you are dragging the topic right back into that direction. Do I care about how red China is? No I do not. All I care about whether this source is used properly.
• "It is reasonable to assume the source represents the opinion of most people in China"? Dude, those newspapers/media control people's opinion in China, do I need to do a poll?
• Did you even read my point about context? If this source is used to show "major viewpoint of the Chinese people about LaRouche that is endorsed by both LaRouche and his followers", then it is reliable.

Since the biggest problem with this source is its connection with the Communist party, may I remind people that everything published in China will pass through a censor process with the Communist party. Do we need to ban everything published in China on Wikipedia because Communist party is all propaganda with poor reputation on fact checking? Not counting elinimate much of WikiProject China, this kind of black-and-white solution does not help to build Wikipedia. That is why I emphasize in this case it is better to cite this source in the correct context rather than censor it out. Jim101 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to handle this is to view the China Youth Daily website as a reliable source for their opinion, which is going to be consistent with the Chinese Communist Party view of the subject. NPOV says we should include all significant points of view, and this probably qualifies. However we can avoid treating it as a source for facts by fully attributing assertions sourced from it. Something like, "According to the Communist Youth League of China's newspaper, the China Youth Daily, LaRouche supports the American style capitalist economy." Would that be acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::No, that's not acceptable. We have three editors here who actually have some first-hand familiarity with the Asian press, Peregrine Fisher, Cla68 and Jim101, and they all confirm that the China Youth Daily has a good reputation. The elaborate statement about it being "the

Coleacanth (talk

) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically I did not say

common sense test...if Lyndon LaRouche did not cry bloody murder about this newspaper damaging his reputation, with his followers using this piece like crazy, what are the chances that it is not reliable? Jim101 (talk

) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with it being used as a source talking about what it asserts. You cant use it as a source asserting a definitive fact (unless you back it up with a reliable source that concurs). Jim101 is correct about its reputation on politically sensitive issues. And yes, I have first-hand familiarity with the Asian press too btw, so how is Peregrine Fisher, Cla68, and Jim101's opinions have more weight than mine when I say NO IT DOES NOT HAVE A RELIABLE REPUTATION. Perhaps you didnt understand me when I mentioned how the internet looks and works in China, or you thought I was blowing it out my ass. I'm sorry, did I waste that money in college taking courses regarding China when I was getting my bachelor's in Political Science minor in History, and that semester abroad in China, and then now getting my masters and focusing on comparative politics so others could claim to know more than me? If I weigh in on a subject, its because I know about it, I dont weigh into topics I dont know about. So if I'm commenting, assume I know what I'm talking about instead of saying others are experts and I need to defer to them.Camelbinky (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Coleocanth, I don't think that attributing the viewpoint to this source is a problem. Let me remind you that LaRouche accounts has repeatedly demanded that assertions from Dennis King's mainstream biography always be attributed to him, and that's a far more reliable source than this. The China Youth Daily is certainly going to be used for the article since it's the only third-party, secondary source we have for many concepts it will be the sole source for them. If the ideas are notable they'll have been discussed in such sources and this it. Also, I don't think that anyone here has suggested we shouldn't attribute their views. Cla68 directly said we should. I don't see where Peregrine Fisher has said he has first-hand knowledge, in fact he hasn't really said why he thinks this is a reliable source, except that it has editors. Based on the number of errors in this article alone, it's not clear that we can really view it as reliable for facts, but it certainly usable for its own opinion. @Jim101, the movement has been "using this piece like crazy", posting a fuill translation plus another article about the article. It makes extraordinary claims about the subject, and it certainly doesn't count as an highly reliable source, as required per

WP:REDFLAG. Again, I'm sure it's fine as a source for the views of its organization. @Camelbinky, I agree that it is not a suitable source for definitive facts, especially those that do not appear in any other publication. It appears that you have more expertise in this matter than most of us do.   Will Beback  talk

  07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of order -- Coleacanth didn't say that attribution was a problem. He specifically said he was OK with it. What he objected to was identifying the paper as a Communist front, which makes plenty of sense, because even in this day and age that would be prejudicial. We attribute opinions to Dennis King, as well we should, but we don't identify him as a front for Richard Mellon Scaife or whoever it was that allegedly financed his book. --

talk

) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using the word "front". We can work out the details of the attribution on the article talk page. As for who owns the paper, the Wikipedia articles begins, "The China Youth Daily is the official newspaper of Communist Youth League of China..." That should be mentioned for readers who aren't familiar with Chinese media.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth On Line - break

This discussion has engendered some of the most absurd arguments I have ever seen on the reliable sources noticeboard, including:

1. A source is reliable if it is a mainstream newspaper.
2. A source is reliable if it expresses the viewpoint of a large number of people.
3. A source is reliable if it publishes something about Lyndon LaRouche, and he doesn't complain.
4. Pervasive, direct government censorship of media in China is somehow equivalent to alleged systemic bias in Western media.
5. Editors who believe that China Youth Daily does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are exhibiting anti-Communist bias.
6. Editors who believe that China Youth Daily does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are attempting to be arbiters of truth.

Give me a break! Dlabtot (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The

Coleacanth (talk

) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you linked you'll see that the people responsible for the Freezing Point incident were fired. So the editorial staff of today isn't the same as was involved in that incident. The fate of those staffers most likely provided an example for those left behind. And let's not muddy the waters by making accusations of bias on the part of mainstream U.S. papers, which is not what we're talking about here.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Coleacanth provided evidence that China Youth Daily has as history of bucking the party officials. And as I pointed out early on in the conversation, the use of the China Youth Daily as a source is to establish notability -- for an explanation of LaRouche's ideas, we can use LaRouche's own writings (always the safest course of action with a controversial person.) If the government of China is conducting a campaign to promote LaRouchian economics, that makes it all the more notable. China is not a small county. --

talk

) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee...way to "

harmonize

" my point.

Pervasive, direct government censorship of media in China is somehow equivalent to alleged systemic bias in Western media. - Except my real point is that using Wikipedia to wage war against "pervasive, direct government censorship of media in China" is in someway committing systemic bias. I merely asking people to step back before that happens, and you say I'm ridiculous. Jim101 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, regarding your first point... "Mainstream" newspapers are considered reliable sources, so I don't see anything absurd in that argument. Or have I misunderstood your point. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to the part of our policies or guidelines where it says that or something like it. Dlabtot (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... try: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok, the word is used, but I still think it is absurd to argue that a publication's status as 'mainstream' trumps its reputation. Especially when it is 'mainstream' because of a government decree. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Using our Godwinesque argument from above, would a "mainstream" newspaper from Nazi Germany be a reliable source because it meets that qualification? Is the North Korea's most popular newspaper reliable simply because it's well-read? The National Enquirer has a circulation in the U.S. as large as China Daily Youth's in China, (and that's paid circulation, as opposed to the ofrced subscriptiosn to CYD), does that make the Enquirer a reliable source? One of the essential tests of a source is whether it has a repuation for reliability, and we don't know that about this newspaper. The article itself seems to promote some fringe concepts, so reliability is not a given.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are really debating whether China Daily Youth should be considered "mainstream". I don't know enough about that to judge... All I am saying is that if you define it as such, then it should be considered reliable. Now... this does not mean that a non-mainstream news source is automatically unreliable. I would agree that a Nazi newspaper should not be considered "mainstream"... and generally would not reliable for many statements of fact (it would be reliable for some facts... such as the fact that Hitler visited a certain city on a specific day and was presented with a gold watch, or something like that)... however I would definitely consider it reliable for statements about Nazi viewpoint, and for historiographical statements about how the Nazis presented the news. As for the National Enquirer... I would consider that even less reliable, but again context is everything and even the NE is reliable for some statements (such as what was printed in the NE on a given day). Reliability is not a clear cut, black and white issue. A given source can reliable for some things, and not reliable for others. Few sources are 100% reliable, or 100% unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This source is being used for interpretive assertions, such as that LaRouche has made a certain number of correct predictions. That is a fringe viewpoint, because most mainstream sources don't say anything like that. So again, I'm saying that the CYD is reliable as a source for its own views, which we can use so long as they are fully attributed. It just isn't a source known for reliability and which isn't adequate to support exceptional claims, execept when presented as their opinion.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::You asked that I not "muddy the water" by raising the issue of the reliability of Western media, and here you are, saying that the CYD is unreliable because it is contradicted by Western media. Please name the Western media sources which contradict what the CYD is saying, so we can evaluate your claim. --

Coleacanth (talk

) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "contradicted". I said that mainstream press in other countries doesn't include the assertions made by the CYD. For example, who else asserts that LaRouche supports the "American style capitalist economy"? Who else says that the "'LaRouche movement' and the [Executive] Information Review magazine have had significant impacts on both politic and academia circles through out the US and the world."? Or this: "Since the 50's, LaRouche gave 9 predictions for the US and the world economy, and all predictions was vindicated by history, such as the 1973 US recession and the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis." What mainstream source says LaRouche has made only nine economic predictions, and that they've all come true? These assertions are so unusual that they are virtually fringe beliefs. As I've written before, the Communist Youth Leagues' viewpoint on LaRouche is probalby significant, and I don't mind including it so long as it is fully attributed.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder -- the name of the source is "China Youth Daily," not "Communist Youth League." And, it doesn't appear to me that you have answered Coleacanth's question. Saying that the CYD covered a story that the American press didn't cover doesn't necessarily make CYD unreliable. If there are American press that contradict CYD's account, that would be of some interest. --

talk

) 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar addresses the matter of contradictions below. To restate it, probaby not as well, fringe theories often go unreported. If LaRouche claimed he could fly, and the CYD confirmed it, it'd be unreasonable to ask for sources that say he can't actually fly for us to view it as a fringe theory. Regarding his predictions, many of them have been reported in the Western press. Just recently I read one from the 1970s that said nuclear armeggedon was going to occur within two weeks, but I doubt we can find find a source that explictly says he was wrong. In every one of his eight campaigns for president he predicted economic collapse if he wasn't elected. We can compile a list of them. They have not gone unreported.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Will here... LaRouche is definitely considered Fringe by the majority of mainstream media outlets (western and non-western). And the typical response to Fringe topics by mainstream media is to ignore it. The fact CDY doesn't ignore him does not make him any less Fringe... it simply make him notable Fringe. Now... notable Fringe topics may be discussed in Wikipedia (See:

WP:FRINGE), but how we do so is important. We do not want to give the Fringe topic more legitimacy than it deserves. Will's comments on attribution are therefore apt. Blueboar (talk

) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:::This resembles the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" aphorism. LaRouche, a dissident figure in the US, is ignored or parodied in the US media, while his views as an economist are given great weight in the media of China (and Russia.) Compare the Dalai Lama, who is lionized in the American media and revered by many Hollywood stars, but I suspect that in Chine he is treated as a fringe figure who is "not qualified for talking about human rights."[73] The tendency here at Wikipedia is to be Anglocentric and discount any media source that does not conform to the Anglocentric point of view. --

Coleacanth (talk

) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why it is important to note both viewpoints, and discuss who says what with attribution. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that a clear consensus among editors who commented here who do not normally edit the LaRouche articles (like me), and from someone knowledgeable on Chinese culture and media (thanks Jim101), is that it's ok to use the Chinese source in the context presented. I hope that any further questions about using People's Republic of China media in this or other topics can reference this thread if any questions arise. So, as far as this forum is concerned, I think you have a green light on the source. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus. I see a marginal agreement to use the source with care if fully attributed. A couple of editors are disputing its use in any form. And whatever we've worked out here does not automatically apply to other Chinese media, any more than we can treat American media as a single entity.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I doubt we will ever come to a clear consense due to

systematic bias

. As long as China remains a partisan topic, no matter how careful we anaylze/cite Chinese publications, there will always be people disputing.

I cited this arbitration case about Chinese sources as a tie breaker just in case. The main point about that case is that it is possible that the current dispute is more about contents than about reliable sources. Jim101 (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Very astute observation, Jim. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would those who support using this Chinese "media" source as a reliable soure STOP SAYING THOSE WHO KNOW ABOUT CHINESE CULTURE THINK IT IS OK you are being wrong and spreading your own propoganda. As I explained several times before, I have been to China, I have a degree in Political Science, and my focus in my master's program in Political Science is on comparative politics. I know about China, I've been in their culture. I do not agree it is a mainstream reliable source. Any media from a country that censors its media and OWNS the outlet is not independent and allowed to speak its mind. There is no free speach or free press in China, that is a fact, you can not say that is Western opinion. It is fact. The proponents of using that source need to stop spouting off saying that those who know about China support this use of "media", BECAUSE I DONT.Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would advise you that since you are taking a partisan stance towards the issue, and it would be best for you to take a step back before engage in heated exchange.
• Now as for the charge of spread propoganda, personally it is hard for me to do. My grandfather fought in the Korean War and branded as a traitor for taking a wrong turn. My other grandfather is a corrupt official who swindle food supply during the Great Leap Forward. My mom never had any high school education due to the Cultural Revolution and now jobless. My father just recently disowned his parents for his disillusion on Maoism...please, I'm politely asking you to be considerate.
• As for the charge that I don't understand Chinese culture/politic. I lived in China for 15 years and joined various Communist organizations and involved in its propoganda process. I think I know what I'm talking about by recalling back to those experiences.
• As for my opinion overruling yours, I never says anything like that in this disscussion. I don't believe my opinion is better than yours, but your belief that your opinion should overrule others is disconcerting.
• Finally, since your biggest point in your argument is that propoganda should not belong on Wikipedia, that is a content argument, not a RS argument. An RS argument is that the current source is unverifiable, and while I do agree that normally China Youth Daily is unverifiable, in this case the content of the piece has been verified by the LaRouche supporters in the States. Jim101 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That point about verification is complicated. Some of what the paper prints are extraordinary assertions primarily found in LaRouche literature, such as the claim that he and his movement are influential or that he has achieved 100% accuracy in his predictions. So in practice it is the China Youth Daily that is confirming the LaRouche version of his personal history and importance. Since some of LaRouche's theories haven't appeared in any other 3rd party source this article is being used to show that otherwise non-notable ideas are worth hundreds of words because they are referred to in passing in this interview. That's quite a burden on a single, rather short article. Aside from the Communist Party propaganda issues and aside from the LaRouche promotion aspects, this source is also problematic in part because of the language issue. This article is apparently a summary of an interview that was presumably conducted in English, then was translated into Chinese, and now has to be translated back into English. We're not even sure what some phrases mean, and can only guess. As I've said before, the Communist Party has a notable point of view, and this paper is a reliable source for it. So long as we use it carefully and with full attribution I think it will be OK. But we shouldn't use it as a justification for writing thousands of words based only on it and LaRouche-movement sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that everyone agreed on the point that this paper is a reliable source for the Communist Party's view, but the current dispute, as I see it, is whether Communist Party's view should appear on Wikipedia. But that is a content/NPOV/fringe dispute, not a RS dispute. Jim101 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser and behavioral evidence have revealed thatColeacanth is a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky, and so I've crossed out his comments here.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone's grandfather or father fighting a war or dying in China, while sad, has no bearing or relevancy on anyone's knowledge or expertise in Chinese media reliability. I respect that yes, you do have experience and knowledge to share and it is good that Jim is in this discussion. What I got upset about is that multiple times now the side promoting the use of the Chinese media outlet has stated that those who know about Chinese culture are in support of its use. That is not true. It muddies the water and makes those new to the discussion think that those who know about China all support it. I do not support it. My credentials are good and my knowledge firm. I do agree with Jim101 that this is more of a NPOV/fringe dispute and less of a RS dispute. How about in any article the caveat is put that "According to xx media the Communist Party believes yy" obviously that is a very simplified sentence with no details. Any mention of "facts" put forth must be labelled as coming from that source in the prose of the article and not just in a footnote, and it must be made clear to the reader this is not necessarily an accepted fact. It's like trying to use Rush Limbaugh as a source for a news event, or frankly for anything he says, that just wouldnt be wise. Though personally I'd consider him a reliable source on anything to do with oxycotin. :-)Camelbinky (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus is that with that type of attribution, a citation could be used. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)