Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41

I added this:

Users can create groups according to their interests or areas of expertise. It will appear in the search results of Facebook if the group is on public.

This is the source: [25] Would this be considered a reliable source? The author is Howard Greenstein. [26] Eivmeidwl (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this previous discussion which concludes that Mashable is not a reliable source has already been pointed out to you. I agree, simply based on the large number of errors and misinterpretations I have seen in it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would argue that for the basics of a service's functionality, there is no issue with using manual pages from the provider of the service itself. A primary source would be entirely appropriate if no further analysis is being done. Obviously, however, if no such page exists, this is a problem. LinaMishima (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In that archive from long ago there was no consensus about Mashable being an RS or not. Even if it's borderline, those are hardly extraordinary claims we're citing it for. But you should be able to find that information in other sources, in fact, the mainstream media never seems to stop yammering about Facebook. I agree with Lina that a primary source from Facebook itself should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will add primary sources from Facebook. [27] [28] Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A question about reliability for source 6 at Asian fetish: [29]

I think that an undergraduate's paper for some sort of research forum is not a reliable source. Even professors only count as reliable when they publish appropriately (academic press or peer-reviewed journal as opposed to blogs). I understand that universities should provide experience-building opportunities for undergraduates but this does not make them authorities on a subject. We do not have a Kripke here.

I'm not sure why there is a problem with removing the Maggie Chang source and corresponding claims. 76.226.139.221 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the forum page does not discuss the point, I assume there was some faculty review of the project proposals and final report. However it is not clear what standards they were judged at and as far as I can tell the student report has not been cited by any other book/article. So IMO this is a non-ideal source for wikipedia, but it can still provide a good entry point for literature search by wikipedia editors. Instead of citing the report directly, see if you can verify the cited claims using the bibliography in the paper; that is a better option than deleting the claims outright. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be okay as an external link, but not as a source.陣内_Jinnai 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Student research papers/essays fail both

Can you please give the details of the reference? LinaMishima (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight from Dissidia's talk page "Johnny Young Bosch and Stephanie Sheh were at Otakuthon 2009 back in Montreal. During the conference, somebody asked Stephanie if she was voicing Terra in Dissidia due to rumors. Stephanie, however, denied this rumor BUT Johnny confirmed his role as Firion for the game. I was there when this question was answered, I swear it, no jokes. The thing is, does having hearing a confirmation but not having any material is valable to update this page? (WebJiCi (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC))" Fractyl (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Random reports of what somebody claims they heard at a conference are in no way reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For future reference then, if it was heard firsthand and we can attribute it to a specific panel or event, and thus an exact place and time can be referenced, would it be appropriate?陣内_Jinnai 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am considering nominationg

1. megalithics.com defining the characteristics and location of the Severn-Cotswold group of cromlechs;
2. Neotomb for the orientations of Neolithic chambered tombs in Glamorgan and Gwent;
3. parc-le-breos.co.uk for details of the nearby river's effect on the cromlech and for excavation details;
4. stone-circles.org for details of a nearby stream and general information about the cromlech;
5. explore-gower.co.uk for details about Tooth Cave and Cat Hole Cave.

Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I can't get in to the first one due to browsing restrictions on the computer I'm using at the moment (probably not a good sign so far as reliability goes)
2. Number 2 seems to be self-published, so unless you can find evidence that the author should be regarded as an expert, this one's out.
3. The website of a local hotel doesn't seem to be the best thing to use for this sort of thing to me
4. Self-published again
5. Self-published

I suspect an FA reviewer would also have concerns about http://www.ukcaves.co.uk/onecave-tooth, this again seems to be self-published, though at least in this case there is a references page, which moves the site up a notch in credibility, though one of the references is to another site by the same author. http://www.encyclopædia.org/wiki/Cotswold-Severn also doesn't seem the best source, as another encyclopaedia it's a tertiary source, we prefer secondaries, and worse still, it's a wiki itself, anyone could edit the info. David Underdown (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Oh well, back to the drawing board (or rather, the Google Book search). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

... Or is it only enough to say that "Ambassador xxx in year xxx said that (...)"

Currently, the Gibraltar article has the following first sentence: "Gibraltar (pronounced

The citation refers to the following source: Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. p. 259.

The text says: “(…) in October 2001 (…)” “(…) on his annual address to the UN Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization) Committee (…)” “Caruana revealed that he had an ally in this regard within the UN itself. He referred to a paper written by the Chairman, Ambassador Donigi, in which he had proposed that a referendum should be held in Gibraltar on the question: “Should Gibraltar remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom?”. If Gibraltarians voted so to remain, Donigi argued that Gibraltar should no longer remain on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.”

(please notice that the UN as an organisation -not an individual UN official- regards the status of Gibraltar as "non self-governing" [30]pg.3)

I am not sure this third-hand transcription of a UN officer’s proposal for the text of a referendum is enough reference (although I will admit that it does indirectly refer to the current status of Gibraltar as a self-governing territory).

Maybe the article should only say that "Ambassador Donigi mentioned the current status of Gibraltar as self-governing in the proposed text for a referendum in 2001"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with one from the Encyclopædia Britannica. I'd also like to point out that it is misleading to represent the Special Committee on Decolonization's list as the official position of the UN, it is not. The only reason Gibraltar was ever included, was because it was listed by the UK. In any case, the UN has no power on the matter. RedCoat10 • talk 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – not an RS issue

The Gibraltar article (see above) says that "Gibraltar (pronounced

The current citation from the Encyclopedia Brittannica says that [31] "Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters but defense."

Other alternative sources are:

• The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [32] (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
• The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [33].
• The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [34] (page 4).
• The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[35]

Is it all right to not say "except..." in the text of the article when the source of the citation does?

Which source would be best to explain the nature of Gibraltar's government? (I think that the most accurate would be the country profiles from the UK FCO or the Report by the UK FCA, but I'm not sure).

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is you are moving this discussion all over wikipedia in the hope of finding support for your POV. Where to next ?? --Gibnews (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All self governing territories do not have complete control over external affairs, that is why they are self governing territories and not sovereign states. Further explanation on the division of powers can be found later on in the article, there is nothing wrong with saying it is a self governing

British overseas territory in the introduction, its perfectly clear and an explanation on powers can be found by reading the British overseas territories article. This debate is pointless, everyone on the talk page of the article has rejected your view its not self governing so you bring it to other places instead. :\ BritishWatcher (talk

) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer (which I know from the previous discussion). I will very much appreciate to hear some external opinions. Also, to be accurate, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has accepted my view and Narson is neutral. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you name any self governing territory that has complete control of its own affairs such as defence / foreign relations? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have already discussed about this, and there is no agreement. There is a wide variety of degrees of self-government (look at the FAC report that I link above, for example). I would like to have some external opinion, please, and see if we can find an idea for solving the current dispute. Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very true that there are a wide range of levels of self government, but no self governing territory has total control over its own affairs, otherwise it would be a sovereign state. I there for dont see the need to say "except... .. .. " in the first sentence. Its a self governing British overseas territory, thats all the info they need there. They can read further down the article about powers or on the British overseas territories article.. I dont see why there is a need for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no

consensus for change and we are not silencing the 'except' part: it appears in the 'Politics' section, which is reserved for a more comprehensive analysis of the nature of self-governance in Gibraltar. You have already had the external opinion of users over at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, all of whom did not agree with your proposed edits. You are also misusing this noticeboard - there is no doubt that the Encyclopædia Britannica is a reliable source. If you dispute the content it cites, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, namely Talk:Gibraltar. RedCoat10 • talk

13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I know there is no consensus (BTW you don't need to insert the link to that word!), that's exactly why I posted these questions! (as part of the dispute resolution process). I also know your position about this and that -so far- nobody in the NPOV noticeboard has expressed an opinion openly for or against either position. I only want to know 1) if other people think it's OK to silence the "except..." part in a citation in the same place where that citation has been inserted (the lead of the article, not 160 lines below!) and 2) which source do they think would be best for describing the nature of Gibraltar's Government. You don't want to know what other people think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RSN is not a part of the dispute resolution process. All we do here is discuss the reliability of sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really an RS issue, but a

Style

dispute over the best way to word the first sentence of the lede. I would actually remove the citation from the first sentence (thus removing the question of whether the sentence accurately reflects what the source says).

WP:Lead_section notes is that lede paragraps do not need to include any citations ... the idea being that the lede is simply a summary of the rest of the article. Any information contained in the lede should be discussed in more detail elsewhere in the article, and it is the details that should be properly sourced and cited. With this in mind... as long as the Gibraltar article discusses the nature of Gibraltar's self-governance (ie mentions that defence is an exception) somewhere in the article, it does not need to do so in the lede, and especially does not need to do so in the first sentence. Blueboar (talk

) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see that

WP:Lead Section

has changed a bit since I last looked at it. It used to clearly say that citations were not required in the lede. It now leaves it up to consensus. In any case, my point stands.

Pehaps a solution is to save the self-governing discussion for later in the lede... I don't actually see a need to mention the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing in the opening sentence. Styalisticly, the opening sentence should briefly and simply identify the topic of the article. You are answering the question: "What is Gibraltar?" And the answer to that is geographical: "Gibraltar is a peninsula at the mouth of the Mediterranian Sea." Once you have established that, you can mention its political status: "It is self-governing territory in all matters except defense (which is controled by the United Kingdom)." as a second sentence. Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that 1) this is not a RS issue 2) citations are not generally needed for the lede section 3) it would be inappropriate to expiate on the nature of Gibraltar's self-governance in the lede. However, I would be reluctant to omit mentioning Gibraltar's political status in the lede, not least because it would be unnecessary and less useful for the reader (I think most countries/nations begin with a political description). It would furthermore give the impression that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is somehow disputed which, unlike the Falkland Islands or Kosovo, it isn't. I also don't see why we ought to pander to the objections of one particular user (viz. User:Imalbornoz) who seeks to deliberately misrepresent the actual status of Gibraltar to push his own POV. RedCoat10 • talk 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Blueboar has the right idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is self-governing since the 2006 constitution but its something which upsets Spanish sensibilities as it invalidates the claim of it being 'a UK colony', and that is at the heart of this prolonged meandering debate. --Gibnews (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar has the right idea too. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am currently creating the article "Voices Carry (song)" in my sandbox. I found this website[36] that have the history behind the recording of 'Til Tuesday's first album,[37], and I am wondering if this could be consider a reliable source. Apparently "The Stero Society" is the indie label of Mike Thorne, the producer of the Voices Carry album released in 1985, he apparently wrote the article along with several others for his previous work, for example, Sex Pistols, Siouxsie and the Banshees and Soft Cell. And yes the website isn't very slick, but I think they made it this way because is economical and quicker to download than Rolling Stone, Billboard or another magazine. Thanks in advance. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's written by the producer, then it's a

WP:SPS that meets our requirements for RS, and it's OK to use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I have another question, what about this website: The Tripwire, originally I was planning to use it only to reference the cover by Carrie Underwood,[38] but I wonder if this could be used in the "Reception" section. Thanks. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1] is www.segerfile.com a reliable-enough source? it's being used in the "Influence" section. and is it accurate to use it to support the assertion that Little Richard was Seger's "first major rock & roll influence"? would it be more accurate/appropriate to report that as "one of Seger's first major r & r influences"?

2] similarly: is this tripod.com page a reliable source, and does it support the assertion (in that same section) that Little Richard was Angus Young's "first major rock & roll influence"?

3] is this nutsie.com page a reliable source? it's being used for two assertions in that same section - see Reference 53 (sorry, but that seems like the most efficient way to show what it's being used to support)

update: the bits i've crossed out have been removed from the article (at least for now), so instead i'll ask about this:

2] is it acceptable to use this "blog archive" as a source for the statement "Wilson Pickett said, 'Little Richard is the architect of Rock 'n' Roll'" (in that same section)?

thanks for any insights on any of the above

Nope... blogs are Self-Published sources (See

WP:SPS) and as such should only be used for statements as to the opinion of the blogger. And even then, their use is extremely limited. Blueboar (talk

) 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you kindly Blueboar - that's what i thought.

now that just leaves www.segerfile.com - does that site look reliable enough to support the assertion

Sssoul (talk

) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope... again, its an SPS (in this case a personal website).

Caveat - if either of the authors of these SPSs are published experts, then the websites definitely can be considered reliable for an attributed statement as to the opinion of the author. IE the article can say "According to Expert X "Little Richard was a huge influence on Music Star Y <cite to blog or personal webpage>". I don't know enough about the topic to know if either of these authors can be considered an expert. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thank you again - the www.segerfile.com page at least cites sources for (most of) the quotes from Seeger, so i reckon those sources are what we need to track down. thank you.

There seem to be a couple of users eg adding lots of stuff referenced to http://www.songfacts.com . I'm rather skeptical about the content of that site, it seems quite gossip-y. Thoughts? Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on the site suggests that it is at all reliable to be a source for an encyclopedia. Looks like a spammer. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on David Ogden Stiers contains the following passage: "In May 2009, it was reported by mainstream news sources that Stiers came out as gay, based on an interview published by the LGBT blog Gossip Boy" in the section "Personal life". Stiers has also been added to Category: Gay actors and Category:LGBT people from the United States on the same basis. There is a fair amount of talk page discussion about this (see here) but it seems to have devolved into actually contacting Stiers' publicist instead of examining the sourcing. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that www.gossipboy.com is a reliable source, the question is whether or not the republication in mainstream sources (attributed to the Gossip Boy blog) makes it acceptable for inclusion in a BLP. I believe it does not, but I don't intend to get involved in this since there's some blatant POV-pushing going on. Enjoy!

I am only posting this here since it was requested in the above section "Republication of unreliably sourced material", although it wasn't my intention to bring it here (and it probably belongs at the BLP noticeboard if anywhere). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source is really Stiers himself. Since Gossip Boy isn't reliable, we might wonder if they made the interview up, or adjusted his words in some way that was not accurate. The ABC and MSNBC articles show us how far to trust the interview, which is far enough for the sentence in Personal life, even though it is a BLP, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine Fisher here. If it's reliable enough that ABC and MSNBC are going to relay it, it's probably reliable in general. We should be cautious with BLP, but we shouldn't be overcautious. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can include a comment to the effect that a rumor was repeated by the mainstream media (ie we can report that the rumor exists) ... but for categorization we need to defer to Self-identification by the subject. Unless Stiers has definitively stated that he is Gay, we should not categorize him as such. And we definitely should not do so on the word of a gossip site. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We judge sources by their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One of the main ways to determine this reputation is to see if they are cited by other, established, mainstream reliable sources, such as ABC or MSNBC. It almost seems like the real problem here is the word 'gossip' in the url of the source. I don't see how the name of a source is in any way relevant to this guideline.

"Unless Stiers has definitively stated that he is Gay, we should not categorize him as such." - "GB: You are gay. Right, David? DOS: Yes, I am. Very proud to be so." sounds pretty definitive to me. Calling this a 'rumor' does not seem consistent with the facts. Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the word "gossip" in the blog's name certainly doesn't help to lend an air of credibility, but I don't think that's the issue. The blog does not appear to be high-profile, high-traffic, or widely referenced. It has an Alexa rank of 16,777,215. A Google news search turns up a grand total of 7 (seven) hits. Based on that, I can't see how this could possibly be considered a reliable source. Given that Stiers has never publicly said before or afterward that he was gay, why would anyone take an interview published in an unknown blog at face value? I think this situation is clearly, obviously, and unambiguously one where a single unreliable source has been given given undeserved credibility. Simply having been referenced (attributed) by mainstream news over this one interview does not magically lend it credibility. Without intending to be insulting to anyone here, I am appalled that there is even the suggestion that this is acceptable sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

High-profile, and high-traffic, Alexa rankings, and other irrelevancies are not part of our reliable source guideline. A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is. And citations to the site by MSNBC and ABC certainly do speak to that reputation. Further, despite some earlier characterizations, this is not a case of a reliable source repeating a rumor spread by a blog. It is an interview conducted by a website that was subsequently reported by sources that no one disputes are reliable. ABC and MSNBC both have an established editorial process, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and they put that reputation on the line when they reported this story. Dlabtot (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, since no one is really gonna dispute that ABC and MSNBC are reliable sources, especially for uncontroversial statements like "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ",[39] perhaps

WP:BLPN would be more appropriate for this query. Dlabtot (talk

) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The blog in question has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has a very small number of citations, and they seem to be related to this one interview. ABC and MSNBC have not claimed to have fact-checked or confirmed the information in the interview, they are merely repeating what was said and quite deliberately labeling the blog, not themselves, as the source. I agree that citations by reliable sources build the credibility of other sources, but this is a small low-traffic gossip and rumor blog, not the Southern Poverty Law Center. Here's a sample (from http://gossip-boy.com/More_Gossip_Boy.html):

WORDS OF THE DAY: LONNIE, LU, SYPHILITIC

(July 18, 2009) We're not going to tell you what Southeastern Oklahoma's dumbest dung pile did, we're just going to do our best to convey what degree of respect she holds in our minds. Ask Lonnie Lu Anderson if her racist redneck ass has seen any part of the world beyond sixth grade or Hazzard...er Pittsburgh County! Ask her if her family realizes it’s not the 1890’s and the savages don’t need beaten to death until they learn English and and fall to their knees to praise Jesus! And if you just want to travel to the Arson Capitol of the World and kick her teeth (both of them!!) down her throat, well that’s on you, but you’ll be eligible for our monthly Attaboy Award. Just be sure to tell her that next time they have a Fourth of July hot dog eating contest that her vajajay and brothers don’t qualify. LONNIE LU ANDERSON (918) 470-7895 (Well that’s what we’re thinking she looks like!) Lonnie Lu: the only whore in McAlester that the Death Roll boys said "Get that smelly fleabag bitch out of here! We ain't paying a Little Debbie Oatmeal Pie for that nasty cottage cheese dripping shit!!'". Stupid Lonnie Lu is in a county where the median income for a woman is $19,886, which is about three grand less than what an Oklahoma City 7/11 clerk makes, and she's worried about being overtaxed - those dern revenoo agents. God, do they go to the bowling allies and round the slop hoes up or something? All that money the state spent trying to educate Lonnie Lu those 5 1/2 years she spent in school could've been saved had they just tossed a stained mattress in the back of her brother's truck and let her get on with what life had in store for her. And let's not forget any time a country gal has two names that means her mother didn't know which of her own brothers the baby daddy was, so named future hare lip corrective surgery candidate after both. The next news item we pray comes out of McAlester is someone's 1970 Dodge Charger rear ended a short bus and introduced Lonnie Lu to the Krispy Kritters for Khrist revival. Finally, maybe Lonnie Lu wouldn't be so jealous of a truckload of Mexican workers were her own husband out on a job instead of at the trailer asking their 6-yr-old daughter for a lap dance. Dumb tax protesting bitch doesn't get that the city she lives in, McAlester, has two industries: corrections and military ammunitions. So just about everyone in town is sucking on the taxpayer teat at some level. When your mothers warn you about syphilitic whores who have lost their minds, you'll know who they're talking about from this point on.

To quote from

Wikipedia:BLP#Sources: "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". This is a single, unreliable source - mere reposting by reliable sources does not mean that there are multiple sources and it does not make the source any more reliable based on this single instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the bulk your comment is really on-topic. Let's get to brass tacks: Are you claiming that ABC News is not a reliable source in this instance? Are you claiming that their statement: "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ",[40] is not correct? Do you have some reason to believe that this story was not subject to ABC News' standard fact-checking and editorial process? Are you claiming that David Ogden Stiers did not give this interview, or that his words were fabricated or something? I'm having trouble understanding just what the objection is here. Dlabtot (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brass tacks or red herrings? ABC News is did not interview Stiers. MSNBC did not interview Stiers. An unreliable blog did. Since it is an unreliable source, I have my doubts about the interview (see the collapsed section above for a sample of the blog's content and make your own judgement). ABC News does not claim to have fact-checked the story and did not need to, since it merely republished it with attribution. On the ABC News site right now, they quote someone as saying "I remember one time being on a spaceship and standing there on the spaceship and the floor and the walls disappeared. And I was staring at the Earth". I don't think ABC News will stand by that as fact-checked, merely as a quotation, much the passage you posted above. Have you given up your claim that Gossip Boy is a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, since you failed to answer any of my questions, I'll assume it was because I asked too many at a time. Let me just ask one, and see if you are willing to give a straight answer.

Do you think that this statement by ABC News "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ",[41] is not correct? Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC News is quoting the interview with attribution. I am sure that Gossip Boy published that because I have seen it, but since it is not a reliable source and since Stiers has not publicly stated before or since that he was gay, there is reason to be wary of the actual content. In fact, asked if he were gay in relation to a gay-themed play that he was directing, Stiers stated that he wasn't. (I have no interest in whether or not Stiers is gay, I only mention it as a reason to doubt the veracity of the interview.) Is it correct? In some sense, yes, it is a correct reposting of what an unreliable source says, and attributed to them. Is it any more correct than the quote by the alien abductee I posted above? No. Does it make ABC News a source? No. Feel free to move on to your next question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC News did not say that gossipboy published it; ABC News said that DOS told it to gossipboy. So your statement that: I am sure that Gossip Boy published that is not actually an answer to the question:

Do you think that this statement by ABC News "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so." ",[42] is not correct?

I find such difficulties with simple discourse to be rather tedious. Could you please explain what the essence of the problem is here? ABC News and MSNBC clearly believe that David Ogden Stiers gave this interview. Do you disagree? Why? Do you or do you not believe that gossipboy fabricated this interview? Dlabtot (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to argue about why ABC News phrased it in the way that they did, since they are not the source. I believe we agree that the source -- the one and only source -- of this information is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter if I think the interview is genuine or fabricated - it is an unreliable source and therefore unsuitable for inclusion as a reference. Again, to restate the issue one more time - Does a reliable source reposting with attribution validate what an unreliable source has said? To me, the answer is clearly no. The reliable source is not taking responsibility for it. To you, the answer appears to be yes. Is that a fair assessment? This is the same issue I raised earlier as a hypothetical (exactly because I didn't want to get bogged down in arguments about David Ogden Stiers or reliability of a given source or specific wording in an article). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are simply unwilling to answer the question? I don't think we are having a constructive dialogue here. It may be difficult for you to accept, but it looks like the consensus is not the answer you were looking for. Dlabtot (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you given up your claim that Gossip Boy is a reliable source? This blatant and rather clumsy mischaracterization of my comment rather dims my hopes for a constructive dialogue here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a mischaracterization, but if you say it is now, then I guess I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I take it that we are agreed then that Gossip Boy is not a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have our rules for a reason: so that we don't make the decisions, and reliable sources do. Someone could say that Gossip Boy is reliable because they've followed them from their beginning, and they've never made a mistake. That wouldn't cut it, obviously. On the other hand, no one should be saying that Gossip Boy is obviously unreliable, and they fabricate their interviews, without RS backup. Both positions require an actual reliable source. We happen to have two. I do think that since it is a BLP, and it involves someone coming out, which is controversial, maybe we should double attribute. How about 'According to ABC News, in a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am [gay]. Very proud to be so."'? Mabye even 'According to ABC News and MSNBC..., if we want to be extra careful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed your comment while writing mine, somehow. Also, someone above thought that my initial comment meant that gossip boy is a RS. It is not an RS, or if it is, that's a whole other discussion. This info is hinging on ABC and MSNBC, and their use of gossip boy, not gossip boy itself. Do not, I repeat, do not just cite gossip boy for the info. Go with the two RSs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the initial post here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: It has been >3 months since MSNBC, ABC and The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on David Ogden Stiers' interview in which he is reported to have said that he is proud to be gay. Since then has Stiers disputed the claim, or have any of these sources published a correction? If yes, we should not include the claim per BLP. If there has been no retraction or dispute, what are we debating here ? Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be requiring denials before we evaluate the credibility of the sources. I'm actually more interested in the general case of unreliable information being republished (and attributed) by reliable sources, but I was asked to post a specific example and the earlier thread about the general case was somewhat petulantly closed because it dealt with hypotheticals. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, I'm genuinely confused: you are saying that we should arbitrarily dismiss the reporting of MSNBC, ABC, Philadelphia Inquirer (as well as these news websites [43], [44] ) even though there is no dispute regarding the information ?! Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is more or less what I'm suggesting, but it's not arbitrary. Since the original source is unreliable and there are no other sources, it fails to meet the sourcing standards outlined in

Wikipedia:BLP#Sources. There is a case to be made that the reporting about the interview in other sources is notable enough for inclusion, but no amount of attributed reposting (not reporting) in reliable sources makes the original source any more credible. Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We can report the information, because it has gone through an editorial process wherein editors at MSNBC, ABC et al have determined the source to be trustworthy enough (at least in this instance) to republish its reporting. Anonymous wikipedia editors are not competent to make this judgment by themselves, but editors at these news organizations are!

This is really a very common occurrence, where information is regarded as reliable after it has undergone editorial review by competent authorities. For example, a report posted by a university student on his webpage will (in general) not meet the

WP:RS standard. However after it has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal it is considered reliable,even though it is the exact same report attributed to the same student. I am sure you can construct other similar examples. Abecedare (talk

) 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, anonymous editors at WP (like you and I) routinely decide what is or isn't a reliable source, as I'm sure you must know. The "reputable journal" from your facile example suggests peer review or at least editorial oversight. This is neither a scientific essay nor hard news. It is essentially a fluff item, republished in the entertainment or gossip sections of newspaper and blog sites. Do you really think their editorial policies and practices are equivalent? Do you think that the editorial policies for those sections of the news are as stringent as, say, their political section? Do you think that their editorial policy on reposting something with attribution (and therefore lessened liability) is the same as it is for their own research? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point, we can say that editors in the know and who are uninvolved have deemed the sources reliable for the statements per our rules. That's pretty much the end of it as far as this noticeboard goes. Further discussion can take place on the article's talk page, or go to dispute resolution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited that article and I can't say I have ever had any involvement with the subject. I don't care if he's gay or if he's not. In what way am I involved? I tried to ask a hypothetical question to avoid getting entrapped by the details of any specific case, but I was rebuffed. I have yet to see a convincing argument about the transference of reliability to unreliable sources, but I seem to be encountering a number of roadblocks and red herrings in attempting to discuss it. Please bear with me, I am not intractable, but I do require some reasonable arguments to be convinced that I am wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple question: Is Gossip Boy a reliable source?

I really do apologise for dragging this out and I'm sure some editors will find it tedious, but I am astounded by the last two replies above ([45] & [46]) which seem to suggesting that the Gossip Boy blog is a reliable source. Just to be sure I'm not missing something, let me put it as simply as possible - is Gossip Boy considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't generally make blanket pronouncements like that. Rather, we look at specific citations, specific claims and try to come to a consensus as to whether a source is reliable for supporting that specific citation. However, when time after time, a source is shown to be reliable, it becomes natural to consider it 'generally reliable', although this does not override the necessity to judge each citation individually. I will say that since the only think I know about gossip-boy.com is that they were considered reliable enough in this instance to be cited by MSNBC and ABC, that does speak to their reliability. It certainly does help their reputation. However, even in the absence of conflicting evidence, this one bit of data would not be enough for me to consider them as 'generally reliable'. I would need more evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for that. Dlabtot (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that in a noticeboard full of discussions about whether or not individual sources are "reliable", you're suggesting that we don't do make such pronouncements. In any case, this has become pointless and it's unlikely that there will be any further useful discussion, so feel free to close this topic. Thanks to all who offered opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, If you look at the discussions on this noticeboard, you will notice a consistant refrain of comments saying "what is the context?" and "To answer your question we need to know the exact statement you want to use the source for?" etc. We can easily tell you if an individual source is reliable for a specific statement, but we are very reluctant to say that a particular source is always reliable or always unreliable. As for Gossip Boy... I would definitely say that most editors here would be reluctant to call any site with the word "gossip" in its title a reliable source... but, it really does depend on the specifics of how it is used in the article. It might be unreliable in one article, but perfectly reliable in another. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While some may still be idealistic about Wikipedia, the reality is that the editing environment is pretty contentious. Any broad statement we might make about sources would inevitably be misconstrued, misapplied, and mischaracterized. So it behooves us to make the narrowest judgments possible. Dlabtot (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear earlier. Gossip-Boy.com is not reliable. They have one reliable interview, as far as I know, and it's this DOS one, as shown reliable by MSNBC and whatnot. Do not confuse the reliability of the original GB interview with later reporting of it. Obama could give them an interview, and I wouldn't believe a word until other sources confirmed it. Then I would believe it. Just because I was skeptical about it at first, does not mean that I cannot be convinced by further evidence. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And, as I think about your question more, it may be a misunderstanding about sources that are "not reliable". "Not reliable" doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie. It just means we don't know if we can trust them, so we don't pass on the info. In this case, other sources have shown us that we can pass on this particular bit of info. If you're curious, citing some other page from GB and putting it in some biography will get a big no from this board (barring MSNBC or whoever reporting on it). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear earlier. Gossip-Boy.com is not reliable. I understand that is your position, my question is, Why? Why do you believe they are not reliable? Based on what evidence? We see that ABC and MSNBC considered them reliable enough to cite them. That is evidence of their reliability. What is the contrary evidence? Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I should say they're not a RS. We need more than a couple of sources believing an interview, which is different from an article. If more sources are found, they may be a RS in general, but it hasn't been shown yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

is http://www.genbeta.com/web/files-forever-nuevo-servicio-de-dreamhost enough to show notability for the "files forever" feature from the webhost

I don't think a single mention in a tech blog (of whatever language) is enough to establish notability. WP:NOTE requires substantive discussion by reliable third party sources that are independant of the topic. Blog postings are not usually considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Genbeta is considered notable enough to list on Google News, and they have an Alexa rank of 15K and change. There are a plenitude of other blogs out there I could have added, but this seemed to me to be roughly equivalent to linking to TechCrunch. Also, if a web host's new feature is interesting enough to cover in other languages, that seems to me to hint even more at notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

last I knew, listing a blog in google news doesn't make it reliable, techcrunch is irrelevant, OTHERBLOGSEXIST is invalid, and it's irrelevant what language it's published in as far as notabllity is concerned. Your reponse is puzzling. Perhaps you should step back from the article and gather your thoughts (posted by User:166.192.216.235)

This is actually a systematic problem in Tech related articles... the Tech world tends to announce and discuss new software (and even new hardware) in the bogsphere long before it gets mentioned by non-blog industry media sources... This lag time often makes it difficult to substantiate whether the new tech is notable or not. Since we don't consider most blogs to be reliable sources, we have to wait until the tech gets noticed and discussed by non-blog industry media. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem, that's a good thing. We are not a rumor blog. We are not for breaking news. We are for verifiable facts that can stand the test of time. What you see as a "systematic problem" is the entire POINT of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE simply doesn't apply in this case, because that refers to whether or not a subject is notable enough for a separate article, not individual items of content within an article. The issue is whether or not this tech blog is a reliable enough source to verify a brief description of a service offered by this notable company. The content is completely non-contentious with no extraordinary claims being made, so a cast-iron "BLP quality" source is completely unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk

) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• • so what is the consensus here? other than scjessey and sarekandvulcan, who have been edit warring to include the blog and section it advertises -- their stances are known. is this a reliable source in the way it's used? more input is requested for clarification. please view
    Dreamhost and say whether you think this is acceptable usage. Theserialcomma (talk
    ) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    This noticeboard is not the appropriate venue to be making false claims of edit warring against good faith editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't even come close to being reliable for establishing notability, and I can't see how anyone with a grasp of the concept that there is such a thing as a threshhold for notability could miss it. If this proves notability, then any old anything on the Internet would, and then there would be no notability policy in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, we are not using the source to establish notability. It is only being used to verify the existence of the service. Notability has absolutely nothing to do with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. As a preliminary, the language of a reference is irrelevant. For content in an article, the judgment of what is a Reliable source depends on the the type of article, and the type of material. Uncontroversial factual content about a product can certainly be taken from a reliable blog, the company's web site, or even an advertisement. If it is challenged that the material is not accurate, other sources must be presented. For many topics, even controversial judgments of opinion can be taken from reliable blogs--their authority is that of the blogger, who is frequently a well known commentator or industry expert. A blog is merely a form of publication, and blogs have variable standards of reliability--as do newspapers, magazines, and everything else; in some cases , something called a "blog" is in all other respects a formal publication- Furthermore, even with respect to notability, there have been topics at which coverage by well known bloggers considered authoritative has been accepted at AfD as showing notability--this is fairly common with respect to science fiction critics, and also in some fields of computer technology. Reliable|not reliable is a continuum, not a black|white distinction. (I am not familiar with this particular subject,so I am talking in general; but Google News is only a rough standard, especially for purposes of notability, as they include a good deal of straight public relations.) DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability vs. interesting enough to mention in article about notable company

I'm breaking this out to make sure it's clear. It's not a question of whether "Files Forever" is notable enough to have its own article, which it clearly isn't. The argument is being made that this feature isn't notable enough to even mention in the article. However, the Notability guideline clearly states "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Therefore, arguing that this section should be deleted because the source doesn't show notability is incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this feature was described on Icelands 38th most read tech BLOG!!!!!! and yes that little bit of text written there on that blog what 200 words surely establishes notability and such and "Interesting enough to mention in the article" well Now there is a way to decide if material is of sufficient encyclopedic value.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarek is spot on in drawing attention to the difference between WP:Notability and "interesting enough to mention in an article about a notable company". Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't (that is determined by whether it is discussed by an RS, whether discussing it would give the feature Undue weight in the article, and by consensus of editors). But let's try to avoid using the word notablility in this context. Perhaps "noteworthiness"? Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Those arguing that "interesting enough to mention in an article" is somehow different from notability are just plain wrong. There's a difference between notability enough to mention and notability enough to have its own article, yes, but without reliable sources something is just plain not notable enough for mention. Period. Any other interpretation throws the entire concept of an encyclopedia on its ear and will get this site mired in nonnotable trivia just because someone without any perspective wants to include something that otherwise does not fit. That's just wikilawyering to try to get what your want despite having nothing to support your side. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is for the article as a whole, so let's use the wording "important enough to include in the article" for facts. With that out of the way, I'm not too familiar with the source in question, but like a lot of similar sites that look bloggy but are published by an organization, I'd consider it a "weak secondary" source. Not strong enough to argue notability for an article or to base an entire section on, but OK to source a single sentence. Just cut it down to a single sentence, should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all saying the same thing in different words. This confusion is why I like to use "Notable" for "important enough to have an article" and "Noteworthy" for "important enough to mention in an article". I also draw a subtle distinction between notability and notoriety (which is a useful distinction when discussing NOTNEWS issues). Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor is trying to add large amounts of information to articles using sources I can't see passing

In the absence of indications that these are reliable sources, I would have to say that while interesting they do not qualify as reliable sources. Being listed as a cool or useful website in a regional magazine is not at all sufficient to establish reliability. They could be considered reliable if they were cited in academic works as sources, explicitly stated to be reputable sources in other high quality venues, or so on. Similarly, if they were clearly and explicitly written or edited by an established expert, they would qualify for limited use under

WP:SPS. I do not see them as fulfilling either of these requirements, or any other comparable measures of reliability. --Vassyana (talk

) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. I understand and share the editors frustration. There is a lot of info on topics like this one, but most of it isn't on sites that will pass RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, there are quite a few sources that examine gangs. There are even quite a number of scholarly sources, especially in the fields of sociology and criminology. A number of periodicals, especially newspapers, also provide a fair amount of coverage for the topic area. They may not be easily researched or found online, but by no means is there a shortage of sources. This is a topic area of extreme interest to a wide variety of professionals and there is a huge amount amount of published material to satisfy this interest. --Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have a lot of source material that would pass RS, but I have had the fight before about it being off-line and some didn't like it. Newspapers tend to focus on the present activities in their own communities, not so much from a historical perspective. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I understand about sometimes having to struggle over offline sources. A few editors will complain on the grounds that it is not easily accessible, etc. Unless the work is from a vanity publisher or other source of questionable reliability, the community (whether by noticeboard or RfC) will certainly support the use of offline sources (if it is necessary to demonstrate general/outside opinions about the matter). I have found that it is often helpful to point out that the vast majority of the best reliable sources (as defined at
  interlibrary loans, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, and topical WikiProjects. I hope this is helpful. If I can be of assistance at all, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk
  ) 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the offer and may take you up on it. One "battle" I fought was over a US DOJ publication that was not avialable online. I provided the product number and how to obtain the copy for free in the reference if anyone cared to obtain a copy to verify it themselves. I also volunteered to email a copy to an uninvolved admin to verify it if they wanted. A similar dispute is going on now for the article on the
  Eight Tray Gangster Crips where the author wants to use streetgangs.com as a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk
  ) 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee... I thought Big Brother was fiction... no? OK, seriously...

Essentially, yes... you are using a primary source (the TV show) to support a discriptive comment about itself. That is an appropriate use of the primary source (this is discussed at WP:NOR) and the show itself is a reliable source for what occured on the show. Please note, however, that the plot summary must be purely descriptive. Any analysis or conclusionary statements made about the show will need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot sections do need reliable sources. Anyone arguing otherwise is not following policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything needs a reliable source. Primary sources are acceptable for plot summaries, and summaries of reality shows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't. They are only acceptable for the most basic facts. Summaries include interpretations, and it's always an editor here using

original research -- which is forbidden, in case you forgot -- making those interpretations unless there is another reliable source being cited for those. We need real sources, not just what some nobody off the street thinks they saw, because otherwise what we get is confusion, speculation and nonsense. And, again, anyone arguing otherwise is not following policy... the fact that a nice mob of people who know nothing about how encyclopedias work are routinely violating policy does not mean that what they are doing is suddenly acceptable. DreamGuy (talk

) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why there would be an issue with the nominations table, as it is just a simple presentation of facts. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't more than 42,000 Google hits be used to prove common usage or perception? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teabagger&oldid=309117752 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astroturfing&action=history You might also want to read "Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate" http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html?iref=mpstoryview -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are not a good way to go. Use reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute going on over at the

The source cited is Blogspot. Whether it was Hitler, Einsten or Churchill writing, it should be removed unless a

WP:RS-passing source can be found. And even if there was, that man has not written anything for Torchwood, just Doctor Who, making his opinion rather irrelevant. Would the opinion of a bus driver be worthy in an article on a nationwide train strike? No. Out of interest, hat is the ratio of users wanting to keep the comments and those wanting them removed? DJ

01:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is not the appropriate test to apply here.) I would think that the appropriate test(s) would include the general reputation of the reviewer and the extent to which the review reflects a nonfringe opinion. The pertinent tests involve not Wikipedia policy but editorial judgment, and should be determined by consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go down that road. There isn't some exemption for 'reviews' because you think they are just opinions. Our guideline for reliable sources and our policy on verifiability apply to reviews as well as they do factual claims. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I think reviews are "just opinions." Reviews are "just opinions." Because they are "just opinions," they're self-authenticating. And reviews can't possibly be subject to

WP:V and be off limits for use in Wikipedia articles, because de gustibus non est disputandum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you declare what you think to be a fact doesn't make it so. A review is on the spectrum of 'author interpretation/creation' along with most works of non-fiction and journalism. If we adopt some sort of arbitrary distinction and say things like "the foundation is concrete" is a fact and "Michael Bay's movies are soulless" is an opinion, then there is not only a lot of room in between but the borders of our definitions are porous. Works of non-fiction present narratives, or at least dominant perspectives without (sometimes with) comment or explanation. Selection of sources, parsing of events and depiction of outcomes are all the product of the author. 'Factual' reports on the stock market crash of 1987 proceeded from the assumption/opinion that portfolio insurance exacerbated the crisis when evidence today suggests that it was not. Are the statements from sources (both named and unnamed) in those articles and reports opinions? Because they clearly aren't 'facts' in the sense that we would like. And their presentation is prejudicial toward a set of perspectives which are hidden to the reader. On the flip side, is Roger Ebert's review of a given film solely his opinion? Surely some pertinent "facts" from the film must surface during the review? The cast? The crew? Are those facts? Do we trust Ebert to relay them accurately? Are they elemental enough that trust is not required? What about scenes? Is the statement "the movie is too long by at least 20 minutes" just as much of an opinion as the statement "the lead actor and actress lacked chemistry together"? What if Roger Ebert writes a column in a magazine about lenses? Is that column a collection of his opinions about lenses? Is it a fact because it doesn't come under the 'review' umbra? Can it contain facts? I'm not asking these questions to batter you about the head and shoulders. I'm asking them to point out that we don't have a clear distinction between 'opinion' and fact'. And if we did it certainly wouldn't be one that says "factual claims need to meet RS but claims in reviews don't have to come from RS's". Protonk (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a self published source, and reliable as to

WP:V does not automatically exclude the information, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 04:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As the person who initially posted the quotes from Miles' review, I should probably explain. The tag underneath the critical reception bit said "in need of expansion". I'd just read the Miles essay, and thought it noteworthy as he's been so thoroughly critical of

Children of Earth has provoked this whole debate. Are we saying that when he gives a positive review it's the opinion of a drunken "nobody", but when he slags something off it's worthy of it's own exclusive section on the episode page? Sorry, for prolonguing this debate, I will understand if no-one can be bothered anymore. - 79.78.217.186 (User talk:79.78.217.186

) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his review has survived so far on another article page isn't really relevant to be honest. It just means that nobody has gotten round to removing it yet (perhaps because that article page got less traffic than the TW:COE one and therefore hasn't been help up to the same level of scrutiny). Miles' opinions, positive or negative, are totally irrelevant because (and I don't want to sound rude but its true) he's nobody important. The reception sections in articles are for professional critics, though we can occassionally include critiques from other sources (see my previous message above). However, Miles does not fall into either category. If there is indeed a review from him on the other article page you mention, then it should be removed. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

Are the Dutch Molendatabase website and the De Hollandsche Molens website considered to be Reliable sources? These have been questioned at

While that's certainly an important question that needs to be answered, an important follow-up is "Can you base an article entirely upon these two tertiary sources?" CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's easy: sure you can. If they're deemed reliable, such an article can stand. BTW, I believe in the reliability of De Hollandsche Molen; I need to look more carefully at the other. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked at nl:Overleg_Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Molenproject about these websites. User:Akoopal replied:-

"Moeilijke vraag. Van de Hollandse Molen ben ik zeker geneigd ja te zeggen, daar zit een professionele organisatie achter. De molendatabase is vrijwillig, er is echter wel een redactie dus niet iedereen kan er zomaar wat opzetten, en ik neem aan dat Leo dingen wel controleert. Maar het blijft een enkele vrijwilliger. Ik ben zelf wel geneigd er op af te gaan."

A rough translation is - difficult question. De Hollandse Molen I'd say yes because it's a professional organisation. The Molendatabase is run by a volunteer, it is editable but not just anyone can put anything up. I expect that info supplied is checked.

Hopefully this will help to confirm that the sources are good. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak Dutch. So I can only rely on imperfect internet translators. But, regarding Molendatabase, it does appear that you've failed to translate one important bit of

WP:SELFPUB? CzechOut ☎ | ✍

20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not a correct translation. That sentence says, "The molendatabase [that is, the other one, not the one run by De Hollandsche Molen--note the blue link!] is run by volunteers [or, information is added by volunteers], but there is an editorial staff so not everyone can just put anything on it, and I assume that Leo will check things." In English, you'd have a a comma after "redactie" (what you saw as a clause is a clause and a half), and "er is echter wel een redactie" means "there is, however, an editorial staff [or board]." Drmies (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay, that's helpful, then. So is that enough to satisfy you, or would you requrie more? See, they have an English translation of their own which I read some time ago, and I wasn't sure how to take it:

"The Dutch Windmill and Watermill Database is the complete collection of working wind- and watermills in the Netherlands. The database is mainly based on contributions by professionals involved in the operation and maintenance of Dutch mills and thus a unique monument reflecting the current knowlegde in this field of expertise. A staff of professional-level editors maintains the database on a daily basis. The Dutch Windmill Database was the first complete inventarisation of Dutch mills on the internet and was started by Bert Bulder in Augustus 1999. Editors are Bert Bulder, Leo Middelkoop, Rob Pols and Tim Dreesen. "

On the surface that looks good, but they're asserting their own "professional"-ness. What do we have to confirm that they are professionals, especially in light of this user's statement that they're run by volunteers? And what is a "professional mill spotter", anyway? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of proof that they'd published on the subject of mills in other third-party publications? And how do we know that "editor" doesn't mean there anymore than it does here at Wikipedia?

On the subject of my original question here, you said that it was "easy" to say an article could exist entirely on the basis of tertiary sources. Could you explain that a little more, please, especially in light of the policy:

WP:PSTS? Thanks for all your help :) CzechOut ☎ | ✍

21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This source gives an overview of the Molendatabase website. Bert Bulder and Leo Middelkoop would appear to be involved in windmill preservation. This may be the Rob Pols in question. Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All that's nice, but it doesn't establish anything about them as "professionals" in the sense that we require. As I understand Wikipedia policy, "professional" means, essentially, "professionally published". A guy running a nuclear power plant may indeed be an expert, but unless he's published in third party publications, his views couldn't be incorporated in the article,

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Besides, there's a real question as to whether someone who's a professional windmill preserver is the same thing as a professional windmill historian. Does a guy who knows precisely how to replace a 19th century stock really qualify as an expert on the fact that "the sails on the mill were rented from sailmaker Wouda of Meppel?" CzechOut ☎ | ✍

23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Messrs Bulder and Middelkoop would appear to be professional millwrights, which would also mean that they are likely to be experts on mills. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

CzechOut, sorry I couldn't respond earlier. I'll give you my verdict first. I have faith in

WP:PSTS to prevent me from saying so. If a topic is treated in, say, the Lexikon des Mittelalters and the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, and a WP article cites only those two, I'd like to meet the editor who can claim the topic is not notable. But that point is moot: I maintain that since most Dutch windmills are Rijksmonumenten they are therefore notable. National Historic Landmarks are notable, as far as I have been able to tell in AfD discussions and other places, and that should apply to foreign equivalents also. There may not be any policy that says so, but one should expect WP policy to cover everything. But by now we/I keep three strands going here--notability of this one windmill, reliability of these two databases, and reliance on tertiary sources. I say yes on all of them. Drmies (talk

) 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me for remaining skeptical. I suppose I wouldn't have spent so much time on this if I'd just given it a "good faith acceptance" of a non-English source. But "good faith" can't honestly be given if the sources fail cursory examination of the various sources. Given that the article currently cites Herb's Home Page in such a way that you would never know it was "Herb's Home Page", I think there's just cause to continue to proceed with caution and look for some other voices on this matter.

And indeed I hope you won't mind me waiting for others to comment before considering this closed. After all, Drmies, you are also a participant in the

T:DYK nomination discussion, and there appears to be some amount of prior and prejudicial contact between you and User:Mjroots (see User talk:Drmies#DYK & Sources and Template talk:Did you know#Candidate entries#Articles created/expanded on August 10#Jantina Hellingmolen, Aalden). I'm a little uncomfortable that you also created the De Hollandsche Molen

article here on the same day that you pointed out, above, that it was blue-linked. Seems hardly cricket to create an article about a contested site mid-discussion and then say, "See, we even have an article about them!" (I'm not suggesting that the article is non-notable, of course, or even that it shouldn't exist. Just that the timing's a bit suspect.)

Specifically, the central question for others to review now is whether this Mollendatabase is a legitimate source for their unsourced statement, "Between 1894 and 1911, the sails on the mill were rented from sailmaker Wouda of Meppel." CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We are agreed that the De Hollandsche Molens website is a RS. We have a non-involved editor (Akoopal) saying that the Molendatabase website is probably reliable enough. It is not an open wiki like Wikipedia. There is a group of editors responsible for maintaining the database. If you check an individual mills entry on each website you will see that there aren't any major differences between them, which should also be evidence that the Molendatabase is a reliable source.

As I stated in my message to Drmies, I felt it was a courtesy to inform him of the objections raised at

T:TDYK as I had mentioned him in my initial reply. Drmies approved the Jantina Hellingmolen article for DYK. This article used the same sources that Czechout deemed non-reliable. Mjroots (talk

) 09:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See

Fladrif (talk

) 19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What a bummer. Maybe I'll record all the stories he tells me down and publish them; this stuff is too good not to share some how.Wedgiey1 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That won't work either. See

Fladrif (talk

) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess local news papers are ok? Wedgiey1 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely

Fladrif (talk

) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Fladrif.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to these edits ([49] [50]), while doubly complicated with no citation, is Facebook a

I would go with practicality on this... go ahead and pull the informaton from facebook and leave it uncited. Birth dates are usually fairly non-controvercial and are unlikely to be challenged. If the date is challenged, then I would cite to facebook as an appropriate use of a SPS primary source. If the challenging editor comes back with a secondary source that has a different date, then use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, I'm the challenging editor.

According to Facebook, there're three separate pages claiming to be

=/\=

| 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather we didn't source a claim like that. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it meets SPS in some fashion, but I really think that this list ought to be much much shorter. There is a difference between a blog and a quasi-status message which makes it hard to use facebook than blogspot for a source. The content is instantly mutable without much warning (and is hard to archive), it is viewed differently by different sets of people (members, members in the same group, friends, etc.), content is fragmented between posts, updates, replies, messages, etc. We should use information from Facebook only when absolutely necessary (or when it is prudent, like S. Palin's facebook comment about death panels). Birth dates and stuff can be skipped, IMO. It's not critical to the biography and if it is really important, people will mention it in a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Given my reply above, do you have an opinion on this specific instance? —

=/\=

| 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the facebook page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, given your new information about the multiple facebook pages, you do have a solid reason to challenge the use of facebook in this particular article... even using it as an SPS. It would be wrong of us to guess which Bo Burnham on facebook corresponds to the one who is the topic of an article on Wikipedia. This might change if we can establish which is which. Blueboar (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did some research and poking around and here's what I came up with; mebbe you guys can help me figure out how to cite this. (a) Bo Burnham's official site (http://boburnham.com) links to his official

=/\=

| 06:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing why it is worth the bother. There is no real need to list his birthday on the wikipedia page, so I don't think we should have to go through the rigmarole of determining which facebook page is official just to

mirror it here. Protonk (talk

) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are going to continue to add it regardless of citing it or not. Wouldn't it be better to cite it (despite it's convoluted pedigree), than to revert editors and anons telling them ... what? That we could put it in, but we'd really rather they didn't? —

=/\=

| 09:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so that leads us to the next question... Is there really a need to cite this information? Is there a dispute as to when he was born? Why not simply leave it uncited? Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would http://www.election.gov.np/EN/ec/historical.php be considered a reliable source in an article about the commission? The basic case is an official website of a government(ish) entity reporting on that entity's history. Thoughts? Fleetflame 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, it's just not independent. So, it doesn't help with notability, and be careful of self promotion or leaving out unflattering info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, yes, I assumed all the rest of that. That helps, thanks! Fleetflame 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Use with caution, may be reliable. Nepal is having some politcal struggles right now. I'm assuming that's a government website. I'm actually travelling over there in a month, and here's what the Canadian gov't is telling travellers right now:

"Following an intense period of unrest and armed conflict, the political and security situation remains fragile and volatile...widespread disruptions in Kathmandu since the Prime Minister resigned on May 4, 2009. Due to political instability...Nepal’s political situation is extremely fragile and has undergone significant change in the last several years...Tensions between rival political groups remain high and travellers should be aware that violence has occurred in the past...OFFICIAL REGISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: We offer a registration service for all Canadians travelling..." (snipped for brevity)

It isn't sounding quite like the government there is in the best, most reliable, frame of mind at the moment... Also, would count as self-published I'd think. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 –  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please ref: Article =

I would like to ask if it would be appropriate to cite the following website, http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/rajneesh.html, which holds a quotation that is also in the Osho article in

Also, please consider two more websites as possible reliable sources for the same quotation: http://www.sannyasnews.org/latest/archives/27 and http://www.rebelliousspirit.com/osho-webzine/1476/show/sharing

The quotation is as follows:

I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world.

— Anthony Thompson

I should also note that there has been a lively discussion on this page before I realized that it was the incorrect place to ask about sources.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fail. None of the reasons for inclusion make any argument to dismiss the valid reasons for keeping it out. Not RS, not a notable source, not an expert, no corroborating works referencing anything else from this "qualified" source, inability to find anything else from this "expert" even in spanish. On a sidenote, there seems to be a reasonably high quality of sources throughout the rest of the Osho article, this source seems even less worthy when compared to those already included (Which has no bearing on my opinion if it's RS or not, just an observation). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your decision, Maelefique, and I thank all for your input! I've searched and searched for a better source, and none seems to be available. So this issue is resolved. Best of everything to you and yours!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments would be helpful on the reliability of the source, Beacon Light of the Himalayas [52] being cited on the Transcendental Meditation article [53], 5th paragraph.

• Fundamental points about the source include:

The source was published as a souvenir, probably by the individual running the week long “conference “ at which Maharishi Mahesh Yogi spoke. The source seems to be a transcript. Part of the book 18 of 170 pages are stated to be a transcript of Maharishi’s words. The rest of the book is made up of addresses, pictures, and pages in Hindi or Sanskrit.

• Those supporting the books’ reliability say it can be used because the book in mentioned in other sources as a transcript of Maharishi’s words, verifying that the words are the Maharishi's. [54] [55][56].As well, the book itself attributes 17 pages of text to Maharishi.

• Objections to the book's reliability include, the publishing record of the book:

From

WP:Reliable Sources

Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process… How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

The book was published by the organizer of the conference, not a publishing house, so is self published. There was no “reliable publication process”.

And again from Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made….

The book is being used in the Transcendental Meditation article but Transcendental Mediation is never mentioned in the book. Concerns are that, by relying on other sources to support the assertion that parts of the book are Maharishi's words, and therefore by extension must be about the TM technique,

• Extended discussion is here.[57](olive (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I disagree about the OR assertion. The topic of a source will not always be identifiable by specific keywords, especially for religious and spiritual teachings. For example, the third epistle of John the Prebyster makes no mention of "Jesus", "Christ", "Christian", "Christianity" or any other such explicit keywords, but it is unquestionably a Christian text (as part of the standard biblical canon). If a number of reliable sources make it clear that a source is regarding a particular topic, we should accept that the source is about a particular topic. To argue against the body of reliable sources is OR, not accepting their report. (That is not to say that we should report grossly inaccurate information, obvious misstatements, aberrant tiny minority views, or anything of the like. However, such concerns do not appear to be the case here.)

That all said, a source such as this should only be used as supplementary and complimentary material. For example,it would be appropriately used to provide illustrative quotations to accompany material cited to reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. As another example, it would be suitable as a secondary citation to accompany a main citation to a reliable source discussing the material. Overemphasizing such material, citing it to highlight aspects not highlighted by secondary reliable sources, using it to push points not represented in other reliables, and similar usage almost assuredly runs into the territory of

Yes, I agree that you have identified the salient point about this source. As shown on the TM Talk page olive linked to above, multiple reliable, independent secondary sources identify "Beacon Light" as the Maharishi's first published book on Transcendental Meditation. So, there isn't any legitimate question that the words attributed to the Maharishi aren't the Maharishi's or that it isn't about TM (although he hadn't invented the term just yet). The book appears on its face to be a compilation of documents from the Maharishi's "Spiritual Renewal" conference in October 1955 at Kerala, including transcripts of speeches delivered by the Maharishi, published and printed by the organizer of the conference. To argue about it being "Self-published" misses the point entirely, as self-published sources certainly can be used in Wikipedia, with limitations. It is best characterized as a Primary Source, and as such certainly can be used in a Wikipedia article, subject to the various policies on the limited use of Primary Sources. A short quote or two can hardly be regarded as giving the source undue weight, as it is hardly the sole or even primary source for the article, particularly for an article as extensively footnoted as the one in question.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree then that this source should as Vassyana says be only used a s supplementary and complimentary material. I don't necessarily agree with how Fladrif interprets that, but we can deal with that with in more discussion on the TM page. Thanks for the input both. I think we have more clarity on the subject.(olive (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to see if any other uninvolved editors have any thoughts or comments on this question.

Fladrif (talk

) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

What constitutes an uninvolved editor? I have been working on other parts of the Transcendental Meditation article and have come here because of Olive’s note at the end of the talk page asking for more editors’ comments. The last sentence of Vassyana above is the one most relevant and applicable to the reference being discussed. If one reads the scientific articles, press articles, and other literature about this meditation technique, including the later writings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, it is clear that the quotes drawn from Beacon Light of the Himalayas are not consistent with the current writings on the topic. Furthermore, I recall having seen somewhere a quote or passage from the Maharishi in which he states explicitly that his intention in reviving and refining the Transcendental Meditation technique was to remove it from any religious or ritualistic context and place it in a scientific one. He even refers to the technique itself as being “scientific and systematic.” So, even though in the early period when the technique was still being formulated, and especially in the context of a “conference of spiritual luminaries,” expressions of the sort that were drawn from this book may have come from him, these expressions do not reflect the subsequent evolution of the technique nor of the philosophical context in which it came to be presented. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors are editors who haven't been editing the TM-related pages. The whole point of this exercise was not to move the discussion from the TM pages to here, it was to get the perspective of other editors not involved with those particular pages.

Fladrif (talk

) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a primary source, and the assessment of its reliability and what is the most appropriate way of using it or not using it should be governed by the way it has been cited in secondary sources. So it is probably inappropriate to quote passages from it that have not been quoted in secondary sources, unless such passages chime in very well and merely illustrate points made in secondary sources already. The book should not be used to introduce new points or analyses that are not present in secondary literature. JN466 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that is an acccurate reading of

WP:PRIMARY

on the limitations on the use of primary sources. A simple and short quote, without attempting to analyze the statement, is a permitted use of a primary source:

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Fladrif (talk

) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon now Fladrif you commented here. Its fine for ChemProf to add information On the source, and sure more uninvolved editors would be nice.(olive (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

I was just answering the question about what I meant by "uninvolved editors". I obviously don't have any problem with any editor posting their opinions on these questions, whether or not they've been editing the TM articles. I was just hoping that more univolved editors would give us their thoughts, which was the whole point of this exercise.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, Fladrif. I agree that opinions of some different editors are what we are after here. And thanks to JN, who makes another good point. None of the literature on the Transcendental Meditation technique that I have seen ever refers to the Beacon Light book. It is obviously not part of the current discussion of the technique or the philosophy underlying it. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's relevant. A number of reliable secondary sources identify this book as the Maharishi's first published work on TM. Other sources on the 'net, which I freely admit are not reliable sources under Wiki policies for purposes of sourcing an article, claim that the TM Org has attempted for 40 some years to supress this book [58] not because it is not party of the philosophy underlyhing it, but because it IS he philosophy underlying it, and disclosure of the true underlying philosophy would presumably undermine the marketing plan by contradicting everything the TM Org presently claims. I have no way of assessing whether that is true or not. But it is every bit as plausible an explanation as yours is.

Fladrif (talk

) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I guess we will agree to disagree on this one. I find the above comment of JN to be quite in line not only with WP rules but also with the cannons of scientific discourse. Maybe you will counter that this WP article is not scientific discourse. I would claim that, given the nature of many of the disagreements that arise in these pages, the article would benefit from a more scientific treatment. The reference you give to prove that the goal of Maharishi over the years was to suppress the "true nature" of the technique he was teaching is about as far from a scientific treatment (and WP rules) as one can get. To me it represents nothing more significant than the rantings of one or more persons who have become fanatically displeased with what they perceive is Maharishi's teaching and who want to do all they can to discredit it, whether their claims have any reliable backing or not. If this is the type of sources you want to believe in, you have the right. But this does not represent a rational direction for a dispassionate treatment of a topic that is meaningful and useful to the lives of millions of people. Is it possible that we can take a more dispassionate attitude toward the article and try to report it the way the vast majority of practitioners and teachers of the technique see it? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So far there seems to be a general consensus developing with Vassyana, JN466, Olive and Chem that BLH, is a primary source. I agree and would take this conclusion a step further and say that there is serious question as to whether or not this self published document applies at all to the article on Transcendental Meditation where it is currently cited and quoted three times. Only 18 of the 170 pages of the document are attributed to the Maharishi. Nowhere in the document is TM or Transcendental Meditation mentioned. Not even one time. Instead it describes itself on the cover page as a souvenier of an event on the "easy methods of Spiritual Sadhana". The cover page reads as follows:

• Beacon Light of the Himalayas, The Dawn of a Happy New Era In the Field of Spritual Practices, Mind Control, Peace and Atmananda, Through simple and easy methods of Spiritual Sadhana, propounded by Maharishi Bala Brahmanchari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj of Uttar Kasi, Himalayas. Souvenier of the Great Spiritual Development Conference of Kerala, October, 1955

To say that "Spiritual Sadhana" (which contains multiple undefined "spritual practices") is the same as Transcendental Meditation, is a big stretch. I would also note that only the first source(78)cited by Olive in her opening remarks says that BLH is the Maharishi's first book on TM and contains the translation of a lecture given in Hindi. Second source (79) is simple a footnote acknowledging Mahesh as the author. The third source (80) says the book is a commemorative publication created by the organizers of the event and that Sadhana refers to "the spiritual practices and disciplines that lead to Atmananda". I would further note that all three of these citations are from books on New Religious Movements and these assertions are limited to that particular point of view and are not widely held.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple independent, reliable sources say this is MMY's first book on TM.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been covered here before but I would appreciate some advice on the acceptability of using subscription services, especially ones which have to also be searched, as sources for references. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, subscription services? If you mean like the NY or LA Times, where you have to buy an article, it is perfectly acceptable, after all, it can always be verified by other means (say, going and looking through microfilm).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. If such sources are acceptable then how should they be referenced in articles - in other words, what details should / need to be included. Just a link to the LA Times website doesn't seem acceptable to me. Afterwriting (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite the original article title, author (if known), publication and date. Cites don't need URLs. They are handy, but unnecessary. In this case you can provide a link to the subscription service so that those who do have it can go there quickly, but it isn't needed.DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out the way I've done it in Checkers speech, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to stem from a discussion at Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See my response here. Links to subscription services are provided as courtesy links to help readers locate the full article, but URLs are not required-- sources do not have to be available online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem, or proscription against, using sources whose access is limited to paid subscribers, as long as they otherwise meet

Exactly. My current FAC,

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, I went to three archives for materials, such as newspaper clippings from obscure newspapers that are mostly out of business. I would suspect that very few FA's contain only free web stuff.--Wehwalt (talk

) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles

Resolved

Hi, user LeadSongDog, a guy that "deal with transformers routinely"

• Just as a pointer to past related discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Comments_by_an_expert_in_a_.22letter_to_the_editor.22_pure_opinion_Vs_plausible_expert_opinion_and_fact., Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Reliability_of_Articles.2C_Commentaries.2C_etc._that_appear_in_a_Scientific_Journal., Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior if I understand the question properly. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably similar but we are talking about a medical and health-related Wikipedia article, that has specific reliability guidelines

wording and absence of definite conclusions (it doesn't even has a summary or section) and he also goes beyond the topic it was supposed to comment (associated risk of occupational exposure), theorizing about causation and ideal studies.--Nutriveg (talk

) 18:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to ask at WT:MEDRS. My second is to determine whether or not the person quoted is an 'expert' as it were on these sorts of things and if he is, include his comments in the article as his opinion. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if he is an expert, it would be difficult to determine that. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? profile, work page, publication list, pub list from scholar including who cites whom. Doesn't seem that hard to take a stab at what his field of expertise is and what kind of work he has done. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He is an expert but

WP:MEDRS

predicts the inclusion of "expert committee reports or opinions" not of a single expert commentary.

And his opinions aren't conclusive, at the same time he criticize the methodology, "I doubt that these pooled effect estimates are meaningful and they should be considered with caution.", later, when talking about "causation" he agrees with association " the majority of studies in the meta-analysis suggested an association. (...) Since completion of García's literature search (...) only one small case–control study did not. It is hard to believe that these associations are entirely due to bias."

And his later study concludes, talking about causation, "The results of our study support the hypothesis that magnetic field exposure plays a role in the etiology of Alzheimer’s disease"[60]--Nutriveg (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read MEDRS the same way you do. I also don't really see how the nature of his critique precludes its use as an RS. If he doesn't make conclusive statements then we don't use his words to support a conclusive claim. We can use his words to support a claim that the studies he is commenting on should be treated with caution. Invited commentary from field experts plays an important role in scientific discourse. So long as the journal inviting the commentary is reputable and the commentary comes from an expert, we should include it,

insofar as good judgment would allow. Protonk (talk

) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He critizes the methodology, not the conclusion: "association", which he supports. He recommends caution for the "causation" "because of the lack of known biologic mechanisms". The text in dispute is about "association".--Nutriveg (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What does that have to do with this noticeboard? the actual dispute over the text is a matter for the talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you said: "We can use his words to support a claim that the studies he is commenting on should be treated with caution." I don't see that so clear, exactly because of the nature of the source: "a commentary", that makes no conclusion.

WP:MEDRS

is not just about what, but also about how, like "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source", "Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors" and "expert committee reports or opinions, (...) are weaker evidence than the scientific studies themselves".

So I don't see why/how we should cite a commentary at all, because commentaries aren't organized as articles, with clear conclusions, so the conclusions we can take out of them are merely interpretative and bias to decontextualization, which disrespects

WP:MEDRS overall principles.--Nutriveg (talk

) 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I think we are talking past each other. I'm pretty sure that MEDRS doesn't mandate a format for sourcing. I'm also absolutely sure that this isn't a primary source. I'm perfectly willing to concede that our articles shouldn't weight claims supported by this source as strongly as claims supported by stronger secondary sources (i.e. peer reviewed studies) but that has more to do with the mechanism of selection and fact checking than structure. But let's do this. Your stance on the subject is clear. My stance on the subject is clear. Let's let some other folks either here on RS/N or involved with the dispute weigh in and we'll see how the discussion moves along. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the issue here is one that stems from two different ways of approaching a claim. One way to approach a claim is to attempt an experiment/observation/test to try to falsify or confirm the claim. This is generally what has happened with regards to EMF safety concerns with mixed results. Alternatively, one can make mechanistic arguments for or against a claim and dismiss/accept the claim out of hand. This is done in the case of, for example, the claim that exposure to outer space is deadly. We pretty much accept this as fact even though no randomized control studies of this environment have been done. In the case of EMF-safety concerns these two groups essentially talk right past each other. The clinical trial group cares not about the mechanism and the mechanism group cares not about the clinical trials. Which group is right? In my book they probably both deserve equal hearing. This is my own editorial opinion, but I think it reasonable. MEDRS is slanted towards clinical trials research because that's the most common research available in the medical community. But mechanistic arguments are also valid and valuable, even if they are relied on less and do not feature as prominently at MEDRS. I say give them equal say. In this case, I think the "commentary" is actually just as good as the clinical trial.

I see no "mechanism group" here but both accepting "occupational association" and the commentary discussing causation and more detailed research in order to get closer to it. But you made your point about the use of the "commentary" as a source.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit, but it is well-acknowledged that EMF-paranoia has some very strident proponents who are not, shall we say,

talk

) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's just talk about the reliability of that source "commentary" for now. You're reading way of the lines, the majority of the studies support the association and no one is discussing causation. Roosli makes no "mechanistic" study until what I know. His commentary, but not his last "peer reviewed scientific article", is being pushed as POV denying occupational association. But his commentary doesn't state that or have that purpose. That's the problem with commentaries, they don't provide a clear conclusion (nor are peer reviewed) so they leave space for interpretation (

WP:MEDRS.--Nutriveg (talk

) 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no mechanism then there is no relevant association. If the opinion of the author is that studies are problematic and he is taking the tack because the associations have relevant weaknesses or problematic priors, then it is reasonable to use such commentaries in our articles. This perspective is wholly different from simple correlative studies and should be treated as such.

talk

) 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that a commentary is non peer-reviewed (only editorially) and therefore a less perfect source per MEDRS it is of course relevant since it directly talks about an specific article that is wanted to use as a source and as such it should be noted in the article. However this article only adds to other articles that are being provided in the talk page that point towards a much less consensus among experts that Nutriveg is willing to admit. Specifically he/she has one time and another tried to dismish

PMID 18805878 as a source. I will like to ask for comment here about this specific source since from my point of view is of similar quality to the meta-analysis he provides; but with opposite conclusions. The commentary on the meta-analysis is just another indication that conclusions of the the meta-analysis should be taken with great care and that there is truly no agreement on the effect of electromagnetic fields. Bests.--Garrondo (talk

) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry people are discussing their own opinion about the subject and making interpretations of that commentary instead of evaluating if a source of that kind, that talk about generalities and makes no clear conclusions is a reliable source for a medical article by

WP:OR

) from such commentaries, since they don't follow the language, rigor and structure of scientific articles. Since I'll assume the opinions here are not biased towards that specific subject.

Taking this commentary as an example one may similarly include in a Wikipedia article that veterinarian's psychological sanity is affected by "ready access to drugs, social and professional isolation, subconscious acceptance of euthanasia as a treatment option, rising client expectations and financial pressures."[62].

Garrondo, while as well talking about "causation", now brings another source we had previously discussed about being reliable for medical articles. He supports that a review (Kheifets,2008) that assumes to supposedly review "any health issue" which the leading author "consults with

WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field". If consensus agree with that, that's open another precedent for similar advocates (industry or fringe) making general conclusions.[63]--Nutriveg (talk

) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kheifets article I have already said in the AD talk page that its article has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and that means that experts in the field (not you or me who are not) have considered that it was reliable, it had no important technical fallouts and was in summary a good review of the existing literature. This is what truly converts an author into an expert: if a reputable peer reviewed journal decides an article is suitable, then we should not be the ones crying aloud that the author has no knowledge on the field or has a COI. We are not the ones to decide that, but true experts (reviewers). Deciding that from your point of view an article is not suitable is

WP:OR since you are implying to be above the peer review proccess of an specific journal: what you are truly saying is something like I do not really care about what experts think about this article or author: I believe it has no value. (Just as a secondary note: I have never talked about "causation" No epidemiological study will ever bring conclusions on causes and I really do not know where did I gave you the impression to be talking about causes.) --Garrondo (talk

) 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

On causation you've brought "there is truly no agreement on the effect of electromagnetic fields".

About the expertise,

WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field". If your argument was true the last part should be omitted. As I've said before I don't see how to prove expertise in "any health issue" and to my knowledge Kheifets is an expert in "issues of interest to the electric power industry in the USA".--Nutriveg (talk

) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the fundamental issue is being skirted here: the difference between a medical study and a scientific evaluation of a claim. I read the commentary as being an excellent source of giving an alternative opinion about a series of medical studies that are of a controversial and dubious nature. We can complain about the supposed motivations of each of these camps arguing about the safety of EMF, but it all boils down to ultimately two different means of analysis. I, personally, do not think the commentary's analysis is any less powerful or deserves any less

talk

) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Treat similar to self-published This is a commentary, which is the academic equivalent of a long
  WP:SPS. However, there's absolutely no peer-review involved. This means: Yes, you can use it for any statement that is directly made in the letter; No, it's not the single most stellar source for most purposes; and Yes, you need to explicitly attribute the views directly to the author. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  To be fair, there is some peer review involved here. The writer was not just given a blank slate and a blanket permission to write whatever he wanted to. The editor and perhaps even the reviewers of the article were given a bit of editorial control over his commentary.

  talk

  ) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Please cite the source.

"The International Journal of Epidemiology is produced six times a year and publishes original work, reviews, articles of interest and letters in the fields of research and teaching epidemiology."[64] "Letters intended for publication should be marked 'For Publication'". The criteria doesn't seem to be much different of regular letters.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote you give does not seem to contradict what I was saying.

talk

) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how " the reviewers of the article were given a bit of editorial control over his commentary" since letters don't follow the same review process, where the articles are submitted and available online for review trough the reviewing tool.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because the letters don't follow the same review process doesn't mean that there is zero editorial control. "A bit of editorial control" need not exclusively entail submission and availability "online for review trough the reviewing tool". There are other ways to exert editorial control.

talk

) 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Treat as reliable for narrow statements of how the paper has been received by the wider community and statements of the author's opinion. Anything cited to commentary should be explicitly attributed. Whether the source should be used is beyond the remit of this board, but with an article on or over the bleeding edge it seems appropriate to include the commentary. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Usability of Keiffets review