Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 42

It is best practice to avoid heavily relying on court decisions, laws, treaties, and other such documents. They are most appropriately used as accompanying material to other reliable sources. The Toronto Star is a highly reputable newspaper, so it is an appropriate reliable source. The court cases could be used in a secondary footnote referring readers to the decisions in the context of the Star article. That said, while it is strongly implied that the Hells Angels are a criminal organization under the Canadian legal system, using the court case and Star article to make the full assertion seems to go beyond what the sources present. Especially for such a controversial assertion as labelling a group as a criminal organization, the sources used to support the claim should be very explicit about the point. Editors should also exercise due diligence to ensure that such an opinion is not a tiny minority view. Additionally, navigation templates, categories, and similar tools should represent the mainstream or at least majority view of the subject. --Vassyana (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We can report what a court judgment says, but we cannot endorse their conclusion as factual. This is simple, basic encyclopedia writing, and I'm surprised there's any question about it here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't think raising the question was frivilous. The original question leads back to a wider debate, one that may be more difficult to answer. We have

Mara Salvatrucha uses it with the source being a news article citing the FBI (which some editors in other debates on the issue have argued is not a reliable source since they would be biased). Anyway, I think this more narrow issue has been concluded. The most we can do with a court case, no matter the type and level of court, is say Court X says Y rather than Y is a fact. Singularity42 (talk

) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All material needs interpretation, selection, and fair quoting, and appropriate use, primary as well as secondary. The standard taxonomy of sources is a crude approximation, the various parts of a court judgment have different weight and significance. What the Toronto Star or any newspaper, magazine, legal book, or scholarly article reports of a court judgment may or may not be correct-- by unconscious or deliberate misunderstanding, error, bias, or even manipulation. No work is beyond question. The court may decide correctly, and the newspaper get it wrong, or may decide incorrectly, and the newspaper follow it. The Star does not decide who is a criminal. For the other example, Time's republication of the Unabomber's manifesto is not a secondary source, in any taxonomy; it is the reprinting of a primary source. Time's discussion of what it said and meant is a secondary source. DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just to address the question about court documents in policy terms, per
  WP:WELLKNOWN. JN466
  15:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be consensus though that

Insider201283 (talk

) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a bunch of historical documents there [8]. These documents are primary sources, and, by formal criteria, they are the Russian equivalent of the Avalon project [9]. Can anyone comment on how trustworthy these documents are? Can they be used as reliable primary sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable as such: internal government reports. "Officer X reported to general Y that..." does not mean that the facts reported occured exactly as reported, or even that they ever occured at all. Even assuming good faith on behalf of NKVD, it was 1940 -
  NVO (talk
  ) 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See comment here (Russian). The documents have been intentionally selected to justify the

Occupation of Baltic States, but the documents themselves seem to be authentic.Biophys (talk

) 14:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be a resolution of Europarliament, or similar institution, considered a primary or secondary source? More concretely, I am interested is the statements from this resolution [10]. Does it add something new to our understanding of those time events, or this resolution just shows a point of view of present day's politicians on the Molotov Ribbentrop pact? In other words, does the opinion of politicians have the same weight as the opinion of professional historians?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I depends on how it's being used.陣内_Jinnai 05:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be if it was used directly as a reference and included any self made up commentary. However Reuters and BBC who discuss the resolution are secondary sources. Please see Russia scolds OSCE for equating Hitler and Stalin and Resolution on Stalin riles Russia.--Termer (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary source... but that does not mean it is not reliable. It can be used as a citation for a purely discriptive statement as to what is contained in the resolution itself (best done as a direct quote). However, care must be taken... it should not be used for analytical or conclusionary statements. For example, if you want to discuss what the resolution means, you need a secondary source such as the reuters article. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A fairly new website at [11] is being used/substituted for a source for biblical texts. Here is where they describe themselves. The site wants donations, Twitter followers, etc. I'm not sure about it and although I've removed it a couple of times as promotional I'd like other opinions.

I'd say we should stick with free sources for the Bible, that don't carry strings. Has anyone checked to see if there are COI concerns about the editors who are replacing the refs?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The site seems to be run by a ministry in Zionsville Indiana, but I don't see a reason that would immediately discount it. Despite it's attempts at what looks like a fairly complete set of references (you can choose from 12 different major versions of the Bible), I would be hard-pressed to believe that it would be the only source available for anything Bible-based, but the passages it quotes do seem accurate. On the whole, I don't see why this isn't a viable source, although, as I said, on something like this where there is so much material available, I would think there would always be a more accessible source that could be used. I also don't see where it engages in any research, it looks more like a nicely laid-out quote machine. If that's the case, any Bible would be a better source. Since it's reliability can be confirmed easily for quotations, I would say this could be a reliable source, unless someone can prove otherwise. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliability is somewhat less of an issue here than the self-promotion aspects. We should really consolidate all Biblical text links to a standard source -- surely Wikisource would have Biblical texts, and there's no need to go to mom and pop Bible site if we have an official Wikimedia Foundation option. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Something to remember here... there isn't one single "biblical text"... there a many (KJV, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard, etc. etc.). Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all fully aware of that. Any reference to a Biblical text should state which version is being referred to.DreamGuy (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If you read the posts, I think they indicated we were all aware of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In interpretation of

Such publications as which to source which articles to cite what text? Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I stress that I do not watch porn nor read adult magazines, and am trying to follow guideline as closely as possible in several AfD discussons: [12], [13], [14]. An experienced editor has taken an interest in numerous adult-related BLPs and has nominated many for deletion [15]. I feel that

WP:GNG since reliable sources must be consdered in context to what is being sourced. I am of the thought that such publications should, under WP:RS, be accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to the sourcing of articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry. MichaelQSchmidt (talk

) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler are all reliable sources. Playboy is just below peer reviewed journals and books, in a lot of cases. Hustler isn't great for politics, but it's just fine for adult entertainment. Penthouse is in-between, I think (not entirely sure, I think it's going down and Hustler is going up). The problem with Lilly Ann, and articles like that, is that it's a pictorial and not a normal article. The subject of a pictorial is kinda like an author. It's kinda by them as opposed to about them. If it meets PORN or whatever, that's fine, but I'm not sure that a pictorial really meets the independent part of the GNG. Finding sources is difficult for that kind of stuff. Not sure where to look. If it's an article and not a pictorial, then it's just fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I think, however, that we can safely say that the Penthouse Forum section of that magazine should NOT be considered reliable for statements of fact! Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the forums and letters sections of such are not RS, and if a pictorial spread is accompanied by an article about the subject, that should be suitable toward meeting GNG. I agree that pictures alone do not do it. I needed assurance that I was not reading guideline incorectly. And I found the discussions about

WP:BIO are not intended to prevent determining notability through other applicable guidelines. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk

) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I look at "sub-criteria", like WP:PORNBIO as specific ones tailors to those areas. In some cases, they allow in people who would otherwise fail GNG. On the flip side, I see them as over-riding GNG in a way. If specific guidelines were needed for an area, then why shouldn't we go with them? Is an actress that made 35 non-notable straight to DVD pornos notable because of the number? Is a guest spread (no pun intended) in Hustler (with a circulation of under 500,000) or Penthouse (with a circulation of under 350,000)as notable as Playboy with a circulation of over 3 million? If showing up in Penthouse or Hustler in notable, then a guest model in FHM (circulation 700,000), Maxim (2.5 million) or Sports Illustrated (3 million a week) should be a shoe-in. I am perfectly content with the PORNBIO criteria and use it as a default. It is a very easy criteria to meet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are biographies such as this at Hustler.com a reliable source, and if so, can they be used to establish notability? Are they independant of the subject seeing as the models work for the magazine? Epbr123 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not in terms of establishing notability. The biography is not independent from her paid photoshoot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensible. "Articles" might establish notability per

WP:V, would not of itself confer notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk

) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry but until it can be demonstrated that these publications have the same degree of fact checking and/or peer review (and I don't mean that kind of review thank you) as a broadsheet newspaper or even a red top I'm flatly not buying into the concept that an editorial in playboy or penthouse can be considered sourcing to establish notability under N or BIO. Personally, I find redtops to be unreliable in many cases so adult mags? No. I don't think so. I'm sure I'm not alone in taking this view.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  09:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• With respects Spartaz, does your comment indicate then that you do not fully aprove of how
  common sense to accept that Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler would be both authoritative and knowledgable on adult entertainment subjects, as that is their field of expertise. Without my researching years of archived dicussions, I believe the accepting of certain adult magazines as reliable in context to an adult subject, have already been disussed multiple times, and that consensus had been reached. No doubt it was acrimonious. MichaelQSchmidt (talk
  ) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note On his talk page Spartaz indicates that I asked the question about Realiable Sources at the wrong venue.[20] So I have copied the entire discussion to Wikipedia talk:Reliable_sources#Adult industry. Further coments may be made there. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's either mistaken or you are misinterpreting him. Discussion of what does or doesn't constitute a reliable source goes here. Discussion of the RS guideline happens at WT:RS. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Exact quotation of the Spartaz comment: "I'm not seeing an established consensus at the discussion you are pointing to but any consensus needs to be reached at WP:RS as that is the relevant guideline. Has that happened?" I do not know any other way to interpret it other than he does not see a consensus being created here and that he feels one needs to be reached at over at
  WP:RS. MichaelQSchmidt (talk
  ) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to feel that the content of the profile matters. Playboy is host to a great deal of excellent articles (cue joke about not reading it for the pictures), but we can't immediately compare any given article with the interviews and other accoutrement to a paid photoshoot. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would really be skeptical of treating Hustler as a reliable source, even for the description of the models. It's been years since I've read one (and there isn't a Dutch language edition, so I can't run down to the store and buy one), but if memory serves, there's a disclaimer that the model biographies are fictional. I would be fairly cautious of Penthouse on that topic as well. In both cases, I would be more inclined to rely on their articles on politics and history than their articles on the adult industry.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think KWW's about right, except there's a difference between a (theoretical) article on the adult industry, and their model bios. I think the bio's are made up. IIRC they have likes and dislikes that so sexually oriented, it's almost a joke. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yet another example of why there is no point in trying to make general statements about what is or is not a reliable source. We can only deal in specific citations. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • True, but I must say that Playboy is considered very reliable. They do in depth analysis on stuff that goes way deeper than Time or Newsweek, and their interviews are considered just about the best in the industry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • While a bio might be quite imaginative and not generally considered as reliable (case by case need be considered), I feel each source must be measured for what it says, how it says it, and what it is being used to cite. If a sentence in a wikipedia article states someone appeared as a Playboy or Penthouse centerfold, the picture should be reasonable
      WP:V of the fact of being the centerfold. In depth articles (and these publications do have them) need be themselves considered on a case by case basis. A blanket dismissal of them all as unreliable "skin mags" seems a bit of a narrow interpretation. That's why I came here for clarification. MichaelQSchmidt (talk
      ) 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are serious

WP:RS problems throughout this article. As to your specific question, a footnote making an unsubstantiated claim is not a reliable source. If there were a reliable source that explicitly stated that Liberia contained several ethnic states under centralized leadership, then the inference that it met the definition "several ethnic states under centralized leadership" would be justified. That's not the case now. Rvcx (talk

) 14:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What other RS problems do you see? There are also edit warring, or potential edit warring, problems there.

talk

) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that most of the countries on the list don't have any supporting references whatsoever, the page is incredibly sketchy about what an "African empire" is. For those countries that do have references to books, is the country listed because the source expressly lays out the conditions of the definition used, or just because the author uses the word "empire" under a completely different interpretation? My view is that a complete rewrite of the lede to introduce a list of entities that have been referred to as empires under some definition---then you can simply go for use of the word "empire" in any reliable source. Rvcx (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I firmly agree with Rvcx statement above. I tried a little rewrite of the lead in hopes of fixing the dispute. any comments suggestions are welcome and NEEDED. If I had more help with the article, it would be better sourced. however I'm kinda stretched thin. The vast majority of empires on the page are referenced as empires on their own pages (Mali, Songhai, Kanem bornu, etc). I didn't think they needed the extra citation, but seeing as how [List of empires]] is cited on every line, i'm beginning to come around to the idea. Liberia fit the definition cuz it is undisputable that several different ethnic groups lived under the Liberian government (no ethnic group in the whole country constitutes anything near a majority). plus, the state was ruled over by a minority similar in comparison to how the british were minorities in their own empire and the spanish were minorities in their own empire (one small group ruling over many). That was my logic in including it; however, i will remove it per your reasoning if I can get some consensus from Dougweller.Scott Free (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Liberia referred to as an empire, have you? If you can find reliable sources stating it's one, I'd be surprised, but that would be the only way something should go in the article.

talk

) 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok. i'll remove it. what about orange free state? i've never read anything referring to it as an empire (tho i think it kinda fits the definition). It has sources.Scott Free (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article may not need to mention definitions at all. As for OFS and SAR, there are lots of references to their imperialist nature. However, editors must remember that use of the term empire is not necessarily straightforward. Take for example the French empire. After 1870, France no longer termed itself an empire, but was officially a republic. In 1946, the colonial empire was formally renamed the 'French Union'. But it was one of the largest empires in history. Yet notwithstanding the name change, according to Wikipedia 'France unsuccessfully fought bitter wars in the 1950s and early 1960s to keep its empire intact. However, I am puzzled as to why Dougweller has brought the discussion here, rather than challenge my sources in detail on the article's talk page.Ackees (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article suffers from not having a clearly defined scope... So far, you have all been focused on the word Empire... but when we say "African" do we mean empires of African origin, or are we including Empires of non-African orgigin that contain territory in Africa? Do we mean empires completely within Africa, empires mostly within Africa, or any empire that includes even a tiny bit of territory in Africa? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Amazon.com considered a reliable source for the following sentence in the Cape Feare article: "The episode was selected for release in a 1997 video collection of selected episodes titled: The Simpsons: Springfield Murder Mysteries."? (comments can be left here or at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cape Feare/archive1) Thanks, Theleftorium 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Iffy... too many open questions... Was the episode released in other collections? Was the collection released at times in different formats? And of course, is this really important enough to include in the article in the first place (ie is it trivia)? Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, but it doesn't effect notability. Whether to include it is an editorial decision. Normally we don't use all the Amazon product info we can, but it may be useful on occasion, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, see Cape_Feare#Merchandising. Theleftorium 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... If it were up to me, I would cut that entire section ... but to answr the question, I think that Amazon is fine in this instance. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would cut out all articles on individual episodes of TV shows. But failing that Amazon is perfectly fine to show that something is available for sale in a certain format or packaging. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I too would prefer seeing expanded season articles before individual episode articles are created but that is neither here nor there. Does FOX have any video/DVD release info available online? Barring that, Amazon seems like a great source for this claim. You could also just cite the video box/DVD case (copyright date, UPC, etc.) as a primary source for the claim that the collections do, in fact, exist. The argument promulgated

L0b0t (talk

) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Fox doesn't have any VHS/DVD information website. Thank you for the answers! Theleftorium 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#nurse nayirah. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On the nurse nayirah page commodore sloat is persistantly using editorials as reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309265055&oldid=309254335 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make false statements. On that very page, the anon ip is disruptively deleting well sourced information and personally attacking me on the talk page. csloat (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No opinion as of yet, but ".<ref>See, for example, Michael Kunczik..." seems a bit odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{EC}Deception on Capitol Hill is an opinion piece and is only reliable for statements of opinion, not fact. You will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect. If you have any doubts on whether a particular source is reliable and reliable for what, please post specific questions on the

WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest is right about opinion pieces. They need to be attributed. It's not that hard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• While this particular Youtube video looks legit, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards of
  WP:RS and should be removed from the article. See if you can find some coverage on a major news site, such as BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk
  ) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• CONGRESSMAN SAYS GIRL WAS CREDIBLE is a reliable source but be careful. Some of the reporting is done with inline attribution (i.e. "According to Tom Lantos,..."). If the New York Times felt the need to use inline attribution, we should probably, too.
• Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts. As before, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect.
• Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities; Retracted Testimony appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts. Again, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are three more sources which (at quick glance) appear to be reliable for statements of fact that you can use in the article:

• MIDEAST - Kuwait Story of Babies Removed From Incubators Refuses to Die
• In war, some facts less factual
• United we are strong, united we will win A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

During the discussion here [21] I have been repeatedly requested me to provide an additional proof of reliability of the Beloff's work published in a peer reviewed journal. I tried to explain him that in that case the very name of a publisher warrants reliability of this source, however, he maintains that the proof is needed. A simple scholar.google.com search [22] demonstrates that Beloff's "The foreign policy of Soviet Russia" has been cited 37 times. In addition, he authored about a hundred of books and articles, and, based on the scholar.google.com search I estimate his H-factor to be around 18. Without any doubts, it demonstrates Beloff's prominence and notability.
In connection to that, my question is, am I obliged to do such a search every time I am requested to do that, or the burden of proof rests with those who decided to question the reliability of some publication in reputable peer-reviewed journal?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just authorlinked many of the books cited at that article. It's a simple step that avoids the need for lengthy debate in many such cases. A word to the wise.LeadSongDog come howl 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since WP is not a source for itself, authorlinking is not a solution (although, by itself, your job is definitely an improvement).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

authorlinking just points out which sources are notable and allows easy verification/ It isn't a matter of being a source on itself. If someone wants to check up on the author, they can head to their wikipedia page and read what cited sources there have to say about him/her. The short answer to your big question is, "no". Peer reviewed sources do not necessarily need to undergo voir dire. If you have two peer reviewed sources which conflict, then yes, you may be forced to get into a discussion about which claims are more reliable or which bit of evidence more substantive. I will offer a caveat. It doesn't happen much in the humanities, but there are some cases of faux peer reviewed journals in the sciences or the medical world--journals which are shams for drug companies or lone researchers. Any serious claim that an ostensibly peer reviewed journal is one of those sham journals should be investigated. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Protonk for your comment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources for the current self-governing level of Gibraltar. They seem to define a variety of perimeters:

The current citation, from the Encyclopedia Brittannica, says that [23] "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” [24] (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” [25].
• 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." [26] (page 4).
• The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[27]
• A UN report says that “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.3” [28] (pg. 3)

I think that probably the most accurate source is the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, as the Governor of Gibraltar reports to its Secretary of State. But I'm not sure if it would be a primary source. What do you think would be the best source?

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the UN report, due to independence from the subject. It is of course an issue of weight, rather than reliability.

Taemyr (talk

) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif (talk

) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times does this have to come up at one forum or another, how many threads need to be started, before someone brings up

WP:FORUMSHOP? This is the fifth different thread and the third different forum where the OP has brought this up. There's clearly no consensus on talk for the change the OP wants (if anything there's consensus for the status quo) - can we move on? Pfainuk talk

19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also finding it hard to follow the discussion. Last time I checked the discussion was taking place a couple of threads above and

WP:MULTI, but these threads are still popping up left right and centre. RedCoat10 • talk

20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that this is the 3rd thread started by this editor on this page? Previous threads acknowledged the sources as reliable and the comments in the lead acceptable given the status was amplified in the article. Is the intention to ask repeatedly in different ways to get an answer he feels is favourable. Justin talk 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a very interesting decision to take about which source to use in order to describe the Government status of Gibraltar, and that's independent of any dispute we may have. Two editors want to include more detail in the lead, others (you three plus other 3) think it's OK to leave the detail in the Politics section, and one is neutral. In any case, we have to use the best possible source, either for the lead or for the Politics section.

The interesting thing is that there is a variety of usually reliable sources that deal with this issue, but they say different things. And we have to a) choose only one as the most reliable one or b) reflect some of them (as this is a more technical and not a POV issue, I don't think this is called for -just my opinion). The sources are:

Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters except in …

Which alternative should we use?

This is not an easy issue, and I am sure that any help will be welcome. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are on the wrong track by asking which view to discuss...

WP:NPOV tells us that when reliable sources disagree, we should discuss all significant view points. This obviously can not be done in the lede, but it can be summarized by a statement that informs the reader that the extent of its self-governing status is disputed. Suggest something like: "Gibraltar is considered Self-governing, but sources disagree as to the extent" for the lede, with further discussion and details explained later in the article. Blueboar (talk

) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely what the article does already. As you state all significant view points should be discussed; they are. The thing is the self-governing status of Gibraltar isn't disputed. The UN applies a somewhat arcane definition of what constitutes self-government. The UN definition is:

• A sovereign state
• An integral part of a sovereign state
• A state in free association with a sovereign state

Gibraltar is none of the above but then this is not what people would consider when you talk about self-government. The stated policy of HMG is to devolve Government of British Overseas Territories as far as is practical. Its further complicated by the rather arcane ways in a constitutional monarchy reserves what are basically theoretical powers and what are actual powers. So while in theory the Governor retains the power to appoint public officials, in practical terms he is responsible as the Queen's representative for the appointment of democratically elected officials. Internal security is theoretically the prerogative of the Governor, in practise he appoints a Police Authority based on the recommendations of the Gibraltar Government.

The question posed here is misleading, its not that the sources disagree. In fact they don't, its just that they are covering the same subject from different perspectives and applying different definitions of what constitutes self-government. Its comparing apples and oranges.

The BBC statement that Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters except defence and foreign relations is reasonably accurate. The UK Government is notionally responsible for the defence and foreign relations of Gibraltar. But there even that is not entirely accurate, since the Government of Gibraltar has reprsented itself at the UN Decolonization Committee (I use the past tense as the GoG has chosen to cease attending dismissing the annual meetings as a waste of time).

But the lede actually says self-governing British Overseas Territory. As its written it implies internal self-government, were we talking about a nation state the term self-governing would be superfluous since states are by defintion self-governing. So the lede already conveys that the self-government is internal self-government. The possibility of adding internal to the lede was considered on the Talk Page but generally dismissed by most as superfluous.

Just to re-iterate, the lede as currently written is an accurate reflection of the status of Gibraltar. It doesn't contradict any of the sources and the article reflects the differing views of the status of Gibraltar.

Nevertheless thank you for your input, hopefully an objective third party observation might make this editor understand the points raised elsewhere. This has already been extensively discussed on the talk page. Justin talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Question, are there British Overseas Territories that are not self-governing? Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't, except where the territories are remote with only a transient scientific or military population eg South Georgia. All of the populated BOT are self-governing, the policy of HMG is to devolve Government as much as possible. Obviously this varies according to the population, eg the Pitcairn Islands have an island council, whereas Bermuda has a Parliament. Justin talk 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Or BOTs where self governance has been suspended (I forget where it occured recently, somewhere in the Windies I think) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands, corruption is the issue. And you're right it was suspended last week. Justin talk 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it, that Wikipedia should describe the event as a "suspension of self-government".[38] RedCoat10 • talk 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironic indeed. Justin talk 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I don't see the need to mention that Gibraltar is self-governing in the lede at all... the self-governance is part of being a BOT (or at least is the norm for BOTs)... just say it is a BOT without the qualifier that it is self-governing and discuss what that means in terms of governance later. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The need to mention it is promoted by the assumption in many quarters that BOT is just another name for a colony. Its a completely different arrangement, its also the case that the self-governing status of Gibraltar and other BOT has altered over time. The latest constitutional arrangements were made in 2006; full self-government of Gibraltar being delayed by the dispute with Spain. Justin talk 07:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On its own, 'British Overseas Territory' could well imply a political status akin to that enjoyed by

French Overseas Territories which are integral parts of France. BOTs, in contrast, are not part of the United Kingdom. RedCoat10 • talk

09:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For the details of the Politics section (much less disputed): I am afraid that if we explain all of the sources, it is going to look like a mess... Could we assign priority to some source and then say something like "other sources vary in their interpretation of the matters where the Governement of Gibraltar has responsability..." What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you have an example of a similar article with such variety of views from relevant sources and how it got solved -in the detailed part of the article? Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Would someone independent of the discussion please consider closing this. This is the RS noticeboard and not the place to discuss the lede of an article - that is what Talk:Gibraltar is for. The sources used in the article are reliable; even the OP doesn't dispute that. Further discussion is not going to be productive; the OP has already had the answer that all sources should be appropriately represented and they are. He is still asking for a judgement on which source to use; notably the Politics section of the article already represents the spread of opinion. Thank you. Justin talk 09:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any spread of opinion in the Politics section of the article, so I think the point raised is still interesting for editors of that article.

I think it would be very interesting if we could have an external opinion on how to solve in the Politics section the apparent conflict of views between BBC, CIA, Enc. Britannica, UN, UK Foreign Office, Government of Gibraltar, ... without making the Politics section a mess.

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What it looks like to be is that the EB and the BBC ares proven to be unreliable sources in this particular--they summarized too briefly. The official statement of the two governments involved is the best source. The CIA is probably interpreting that the UK will ensure financial stability though they have no obligation to do so. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, according to the United Nations, Gibraltar has no self-government in either public services, internal security, defense or foreign affairs. It is therefore a region or colony of Great Britain. What's more, Gibraltar is on the

UN list of non-self-governing territories. Period. It is therefore a non-self governing territory. End of discussion. Some editors should stop obstructing verifiable information like this. JCRB (talk

) 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Named authors, recognition within the field (like an article about them in some rs about photography saying how awesome they are or some award for their work), evidence of fact checking or editorial control and/or hiring experts within the field to do reviews. That's the basic idea. You can probably convince folks that they are reliable if they consistently produce better/more in depth reviews of products than flagship magazines, even if you can't produce evidence of editorial control. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Ok. This is the old "just because everyone knows it's true doesn't mean it's reliable" problem. The sites will definitely fall into the latter category...there isn't any editorial control, because most of the time it's just one guy writing the reviews...where that guy is very well-regarded among photographers but doesn't necessarily have the backing of, say, a magazine. Either that will have to do, or there are going to be a lot of photography-related stubs :) Thanks for the advice.

talk

) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Backing of a magazine" is a catch-22: step up on the reliability scale, step it up twice, and still "the guy" is the mag, and the mag (hardcopy or web) reputation relies on one person only. Magazine shell itself isn't worth much.

NVO (talk

) 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DPReview is notable enough to have its own article here and lists both authors and their credentials [40]. The reviews editor is a published author [41] and I'd be inclined to say it was the most citable web-based source per WP:RS. There are also some very credible self-published authors out there; Luminous-landscape.com is pretty well respected (and frequently cited) but the author's credentials probably don't cut it. I often wonder whether, as web-based sources "mature", they become more "reliable". Reichmann's certainly been round the block a few times :-) --mikaul^talk

22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in the opinion of uninvolved editors (please) who consider themselves to be experienced and knowledgeable on what constitutes an WP:RS. Specifically, it has been argued that the this newspaper "blurb" / biography is actually a WP:SPS and therefore not WP:RS. The biography is presented in the third person at the newspaper where the subject is a journalist. I would argue that all that matters is that the newspaper was happy to publish it, authorship is attributed formally to the newspaper, and nowhere to Solomon; it is therefore a WP:RS. Other editors have argued, on the contrary, that these sorts of biographies are "typically" written by the subject, and are therefore WP:SPS. I would like to use the biography to establish the fact that Solomon is an environmentalist (all those given above by Michael were also rejected for various reasons...). Many thanks in advance. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS, this does not seem to be a WP:SPS and seems that the newspaper has published this piece of information., most of the newspapers have a small writeup about the author which is not WP:SPS always! --

talk

) 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not call it an independent source - generally speaking we don't consider employers independent of their employees, and to the extent LS is a columnist for the Financial Post he an employee. But I would call it a reliable source. I would choose not to use peacock terms (especially "leading") that are sourced from non-independent sources. In business PR, leading is an expected adjective, because nobody ever wants to buy from a supplier that isn't leading - and it is never defined in what way the supplier leads. But frankly, I can't believe that anyone would dispute in good faith that he is an environmentalist that is just too obviously true to be subject to serious dispute.

GRBerry

20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not an SPS ... for it to be self-published it would have to be an autobiography, written by Solomon. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, it *is* an auto biography, not a biography. who do you think wrote it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it labeled 'Biography' instead of 'Autobiography'? lol Dlabtot (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@Dl: because on very very rare occasions, newspapers have been known to not be 100% accurate? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL - I see, it's simply 'wrong' because you say so. Look, I understand that it can be frustrating when the overwhelming consensus is so clearly against you, but it is something we all must learm to deal with occasionally if we want to edit Wikipedia. 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it was written by a staffer at the financialpost.com (and not by Mr. Solomon himself) Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is written in 3rd person and not in 1st person. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is the convention for such blurbs - no matter who writes them. (just as it is in Who's who - which is also written by the subject). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps... but see my comment below. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Effectively a SPS. It is safe to assume that even the Notional Past would fact check the bioblurb, but it is clearly against their financial interest to present a balanced POV about a columnist. And if there's anything Conrad Black understands, it's that his newspapers are in business to make money.LeadSongDog come howl 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Conrad Black hasn't had any part in the ownership of the National Post since 2001. Risker (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to change a corporate culture? It's nearly impossible.LeadSongDog come howl 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:SPS? No. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 23:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... the publisher is the National Post (even if it was authored by Solomon). So unless Solomon runs the National Post, it isn't self-published. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as stated below, Alex didn't write it up correctly. The sticking point here is: That while the National Post may be an RS for some things, not all things in the National Post are reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"not all things in the National Post are reliable" - And you know which is which how? Are we expected to simply take your word that it is unreliable in this case? --GoRight (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read what i wrote again: There exists a subset Y of text in NP that is not RS. For instance: Opinion columns for instance belong in the 2nd category for anything other than the authors opinion, letter columns are completely unreliable as RS's etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But the biography in question is none of those things. --GoRight (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The question/write-up by Alex is not entirely correct. There has been no statement that the bio is an SPS - but instead that it is very likely to be written by the subject himself, without much editorial oversight, and thus is not an RS, and equivalent to an SPS. As has been said above, these kinds of blurbs are typically full of peacock terms. The major trouble with the information that Alex wants to extract here: that Solomon is an environmentalist, is that it is (so far) devoid of any mention in reliable sources. We do have a opinion sources that say this, but they are singularly from one side of the political spectrum. Thus the problems with the blurb. As a comment to GBerry: If it is so obvious that Solomon is an environmentalist (even without the "one of Canada's leading" part), why is it so hard to reference/find a reliable source to document it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting conundrum - how to refer, briefly, to a person who was amongst the founders of Energy Probe (an anti-nuclear group well known in Canada), the World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth Canada, and Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. We could call him a founding member of multiple environmentally-oriented organizations...or we could use shorthand and call him an environmentalist. Risker (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@KDP - (a) Is the biography in question attributed to Solomon as the author, or is it published merely under the newspaper's auspices/label? (b) Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Solomon is the author, or is that all conjecture on your part? (c) Can you point me to the section of the policy that discusses this SPS "equivalence" of which you speak? --GoRight (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight the bio is attributed to no one at all so your question is without relevance. Now all that i'm saying here is: It is not unusual for such blurbs to be written by the subject him/herself. Can i say that this is the case here? No. Can i say that this isn't the case here? No. Do such blurbs have the usual editorial oversight from newspapers as journalistic articles? The answer is: No. (and the point in case is from the same newspaper NP, where

Timothy Ball's blurb was incorrect for years - same type of column/blurb). --Kim D. Petersen (talk

) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No there's absolutely no indication whatsoever or any evidence at all pointing towards the idea that it is very likely to be written by the subject himself, without much editorial oversight. Frankly, it is an absurd suggestion, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Absurd? Hardly. In the very same newspaper

Timothy Ball for years claimed in his blurb that he had been a professor for >30 years - despite it being completely impossible considering his background. Shows you a bit about the level of editorial oversight that such blurbs are subject to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk

) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Compare this SPS at Energy Probe. Clearly the man is not shy about blowing his own horn. The Financial Post bioblurb is a verbatim clone.LeadSongDog come howl 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you made the assumption that the bio at the Financial Post was copied from energy.probeinternational.org instead of the other way around. Could you say? Dlabtot (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

He's shown as "admin" on the Energy Probe site. I did make the small assumption that if he, as admin, posted that text he would know who had authored it. I also assumed that he wouldn't lift it from the FP without attribution unless it was his own work. In any case, it matters little which came first.LeadSongDog come howl 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is this all about calling him an environmentalist so that we can squeeeeezzzeeee in the line "environmentalist XYZ thinks global warming is a sham"? Protonk (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that translate to: "Honey, I think I'm gonna be sick?"  :>) Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Uh. Ok. Still looks like that to me. If that makes me the bad guy, oh well. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah. I think this focus on the term runs both ways. Thatcher made a perceptive comment about it at AN: "This is...a particularly idiotic form of edit war, since it relies on both sides heavily relying on the fallacy appeal to authority...What difference does it make in reality if American Spectator calls Solomon an environmentalist? None, of course. His claims and writings stand or fall on their merits. But you folks are fighting over a label because you perceive that the label conveys more authority than his actual writings. I've seen a lot of fighting over labels and appeals to authority on the ethnic geopolitical disputes. Funny to see it here among a bunch of scientists." Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

        Actually, I can't speak for anyone else but this is not why I am fighting over this label. I don't believe that the label conveys any sort of special status to the man at all. For some people "environmentalist" is a badge of honor, and for others it is a pejorative.

        I just think that it is an accurate and verifiable label that concisely describes one aspect of the subject of the BLP and I object to having it removed simply because Solomon's detractors happen to think (presumably) that it casts him in some sort of positive light. --GoRight (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network's website removed their School Rumble page and unfortunatly it's in flash so archive.org could not archive it. I'm wanting to know if I can use these previews on youtube to cite that there was an Italian release.陣内_Jinnai 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they're copy vios, so we can't link to them. I don't think we've ever come up with a solution for dead links that aren't archived. We're basically screwed at that point. Notable thing become non-notable and all sorts of problems. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just google for -- "School Rumble" Italy -- then pick any of the Anime News Network pages that credit the voice actors who dub it into Italian. The less controversial a claim is, particularly when it doesn't involve any BLP matters of substance, the more leeway you have to use a source that requires a tiny bit of inferencing, especially for a claim that lost a reliable source. Then ask on the Italian Wikipedia for help finding an Italian-language source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can verify there is an italian translation for the series still, but results from google do cannot verify it with

reliable sources that it was shown on Cartoon Network. I was planning on bringing the article to FAC after a copyedit.陣内_Jinnai

03:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Judgements on Fiorina's tenure at HP are mixed. While Fiorina's 2000 bid to acquire EDS was abandoned, HP did go on to purchase the company in 2008; this was cited by Loren Steffy of the New York Times as evidence that Fiorina "had the right strategy" and that "after eight years, HP has come around to her thinking."

Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure. ^[2][3]

CNBC is reliabel, and so was portfolio in its time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A valid criticism was raised when the original link went dead (which I believe happened just recently, long after the controversy began); otherwise I can see no other editors who express such an opinion. Notability is not at issue on this notice board, but the EDS mentions is far far less notable than the fact that when respected business journalists try to think of the worst CEOs ever the name Fiorina springs to mind. "Worst of all time" lists don't crop up often, but of course she was also named among the worst CEOs when she still was a CEO. I'd support incorporating that commentary into the same passage, but then that is also beyond the scope of this discussion. Rvcx (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That link is a blog, written by a columnist (not for his actual publication, however), and his opinion received no secondary coverage. Let me reiterate, this time from

wp:rs itself: An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. A photo caption in a defunct publication and a columnist publishing in a blog, neither receiving any secondary coverage for their opinion, simply do not meet that criteria. user:J aka justen (talk

) 17:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing a key part of what Rvcx posted: "these sources are not being used to establish the fact that Fiorina was one of the worst CEOs in history; only that there has been significant criticism of her tenure as CEO." Given that CNBC, MSNBC, and other

reliable sources have made note of said criticism, the controversy itself has become both significant and reliably sourced. //Blaxthos ( t / c

) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One poor source and one blog do not "significant criticism" make. And the prose proposed is not that "There was criticism of Fiorina during and following her tenure" or something of that sort (which I would agree with and support the inclusion of, with sourcing). The prose he wants included is that she was non-notably "named" one of "the worst American chief executive officers ever" in a photo caption, the sort of opinion that is squarely proscribed by

wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk

) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

CNBC is an unquestionably reliable source, as is MSNBC. Also, the "photo caption" is a misnomer, as each "photo" is actually an element of the entire list. That the list includes photos doesn't change that she was a member of the entire list... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undeniably a reliable source. Assertions to the contrary stretch
  WP:BLPN, not here. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• You know, reporting that Portfolio listed her among the worst american CEO's (in a truly awful listcrufty article embodying the worst elements of "get it out the door" and "fill up column inches") isn't defamatory or indecent. If this were a list of 'best CEOs" we wouldn't be having this discussion. As far as I'm concerned we have one thing to sort out. Was this blog content or (nominally) an article? If it was a blog (even run by Conde Nast) then BLP is quite specific, we can't use it. If it wasn't, then what's the problem? Protonk (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this is the basis of the problem. Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The first page of the feature[43] does not include a byline, and even explicitly states "Ranking by Portfolio.com". This list is obviously fully endorsed as an editorial view of a respected business news organization. Rvcx (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't an endorsement. Portfolio.com had a syndication agreement for its blog content with CNBC.com. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As Dlabtot pointed out, it may (arguably, in my opinion) be a reliable source. As he also pointed out, this is more of a

wp:blp issue, since that policy doesn't merely require a reliable source, it requires a "high quality" source. I reviewed the original "content" on Portfolio.com when it was still up, and it consisted of a photo caption. I don't think a photo caption in a "get it out the door" tombstone edition of a defunct publication meets that requirement. As an administrator pointed out on the talk page for the article, it's trying to "back up a battleship claim with rowboats." My sentiments exactly. user:J aka justen (talk

) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to portfolio, while they were in business, they hired some excellent editors and writers (Felix Salmon among them, one of the best writers on the financial crisis). I'm not sure how they blew through 100 millions dollars in short order, there has to be a good book about that coming down the pike sometime. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The caliber of the staff they assembled was undeniable. For the purposes of this particular issue, though, keep in mind they laid off most of those folks in December 2008. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Further sources that attest to the existence (and notability, although that is not at issue in this forum) of the list are here, here, here, here, here, and here. Rvcx (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do any of those "sources" provide critical commentary of the listing? Half of them are regarding Vikram Pandit, not

wp:blp user:J aka justen (talk

) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Portfolio is a reliable source. Period. Its "Best" and "Worst" CEO list (and, yes, there was best CEO list as well as a worst CEO list) are certainly notable as well, as they were widely reported. It is hardly slanderous, and is perfectly appropriate to include in the Fiore article per BLP. This matter should be closed.

Fladrif (talk

) 17:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP given the adequate sourcing. That said, I personally don't see it as essential to a complete, encyclopedic biography either. MastCell ^Talk
  18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Quite, it's not an issue of

  WP:NPOV - is the list sufficiently important, or inclusion in it sufficiently informative (it seems to be mere inclusion, rather than inclusion + explanation?) to justify mentioning it in the article? Rd232 ^talk

  16:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, an admin has restored the material, citing a CNBC article commenting on the Portfolio article, so it looks like the point is resolved, unless we want to add a supplemental cite to Portfolio for redundancy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I commented at the page in question. I'm not clear on what exactly makes CNP a reliable source for the purposes of determining the 20 Worst CEO's ever. Conde Nast in general is certainly reliable within its purview. As a determiner of historical relevance though, I'm not sure the magazine has ever established its claim to authority. What was the methodology used to establish the ranking? How wide a field of expertise was consulted? Ultimately, this was a survey of business-school professors based on unclear criteria, tabulated in an unclear manner, summarized in an editorial fashion. Really, it's an opinion piece. It has no factual basis. Certainly it is notable that CN chose to publish an opinion piece and title it as the 20-Best/20-Worst EVER!!, and it's notable that other parties chose to comment on that for various reasons - but I fail to understand how this rises above the treatment we would give any op-ed piece in any magazine. Put simply, it's reliable that this particular article occurred at some point in time, but it's not reliable that Conde Nast is a source for determining 20 all-time worst anything. Surely that is just opinion.

To Squid, if you refer to Jenna's restoration of the material, she explicitly noted my comments post-facto and declared ambivalence on the matter, so I don't see a definitive decision there. I'm willing to continue discussion here in an unheated environment, but I don't personally see this as resolved. Within any reliable source, there are varying degrees of reliability. I would never quote something from The Economist or Nature that came from the editorial bits of those magazines unless I made clear that it was an editorial or opinion bit. Putting aside the political kerfuffle, the issue is whether CN is reliable for definitive statements on worst-ever. I maintain that it is not, and in general, no source is reliable in that regard. It can only ever be quoted as opinion. Franamax (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be attacking a straw man. Nobody has suggested using this source to support the claim that Fiorina was a bad CEO. Only that there has been significant criticism of her tenure. Rvcx (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is

Note that the author has written over a dozen books on automobiles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, although it may depend on the statement. If it's controversial, bring it up here, otherwise it's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact it's being used to source is that Mazda designed the international version of the Ford Ranger/B-series line of trucks, and the line from the source that's being used is Mazda and Ford continued joint efforts. In 1994, the Mazda B-Series line was split between an international (Mazda-designed) version and North American clone of the Ford Ranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I read that you are considering the imposition of restrictions on the biographical sketches of public figures. This is an important decision and I congratulate you on that.

Recently I corrected a wilful distortion of information on the religious background of the late Ms Benazir Bhutto. She and her father were presented as Shias, which is not true at all about her father and she herself never declared that she was a Shia. In her latest book published posthumously, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West, Simon & Schuster, London, New York, Sidney, Toronto, 2008, p. 54 Benazir Bhutto writes and I quote directly:

"I, like so many Muslims, had a Sunni father and a Shia mother".

However, after a few days someone edited it and restored the false information describing her father and her as Shias.

I am a professor of Political Science and a Pakistan specialist, and therefore very conscious of the fact that facts should not be distorted. In case you need I can email you a scanned copy of page 54 of her book.

I would advise you to introduce some controls so that Wikipedia can continue to be source of ready and reliable information. Sincerely, Ishtiaq Ahmed Visiting Research Professor Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore

The essence of this concern seems to be not just Benazir Bhutto, but also the information listed for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose infobox lists him as a Shia. The page lists not one, but four sources for this information. I can't find relevant information in the first link, but the second is an article in the Times (a British paper) explicitly stating "Like his daughter, he was a Shia and he appealed particularly to that fifth of the population of Pakistan that follows the Shia faith." This article directly cites Benazir Bhutto's biography (which they describe as "evasive"), so the author of the article must be aware of its content. The third reference also explicitly describes both Benazir and Zulfikar Ali as Shia. The fourth reference is book unavailable to me. Without more context for the quotation you offer (or other sources for the information) it does seem that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's status as a Shia can be verified, while his status as a Sunni cannot. Rvcx (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly is the questionable source here? (Or, what's the question here?) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether Benazir Bhutto herself asserts that her father was Sunni, in which case we would appear to have a conflict between reliable sources. I have looked at the keyword search facility for the edition of the book on Amazon [44] and it appears that the sentence quoted by Ishtiaq Ahmed is indeed in the book on page 54. The problem is who is doing the "wilful distortion of information"? Benazir Bhutto was a politician with a motive for attempting to appeal to both factions, so maybe she's the one distorting history. In this case I'd suggest that her assertion should be included, but not presented as authoritative, overriding the other sources. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems this has been discussed at length on the talk page. All sources indicate that Benazir Bhutto came from a Shi'a family and community, but that is/was a political liability in Pakistan, so she claimed to be Sunni at various times. I don't know enough about the facts to say what's worth including in the article, but there certainly seems to be enough evidence of equivocation from Bhutto that her own autobiography can't be considered a reliable source on the facts; only on the claims she made. Rvcx (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been reading the discussion, which also occurs on the page about her father Talk:Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto#Shia_or_Atheist. It also seems that Benazir Bhutto made this claim in earlier publications. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not really an RS issue... it falls under

WP:NPOV

, and I would advise you to ask about it there. But to give you a preview ... When two reliable sources disagree, the trick is to discuss the disagreement and not try to choose between them... discuss what both say, in a neutral tone, and attribute opinions to those who hold them For example:

• "There is some scholarly debate as to whether Bhutto was Shi'a or Sunni. Noted historian Ima Scholar is of the opinion that she was Shi'a <cite to Ima> while Prof. P. H. Dee is of the opinion that she was Sunni <cite to Dee>. Bhutto herself stated, in an interview in the Peshawer Daily Bugle, that: 'I am both, as I had a Sunni father and a Shi'a mother' <cite to Bugle>"

(obviously my example is made up... you would need to substitute the actual opinions and the real citations). Hope this helps.Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

http://bigbrothernetwork.com/ - it just looks like a fan page, with updates based on the OR viewing of the show by the person making the reports. There doesn't seem to be any kind of peer reviewing. Yet it's used as a reliable source, and when I questioned it, I was told, "Start a fight that is actually worth fighting.". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a BLP article when we're discussing who did what on a reality TV show, so the use of reliable sources is doubly important. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have already said, technically we don't need sources because the TV show is the source. We use these as "double" verification. What about Zap2it? Where else can we get anything about these? Where do you EXPECT to get info on a TV show? –túrian^patois 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked a while back on

WP:BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 04:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Then the show is enough for sources. We don't need sources. –túrian^patois 04:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What parts of

WP:V do not apply here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 04:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the use of TV shows as sources. There appears to be some level of tolerance for the sourcing of non-contentious in-universe content to the fictional works themselves, for TV shows, books, movies etc. There is certainly no consensus for the idea that direct citation of ot-fictional TV shows for real-world information related to themselves is acceptable -- formally, because they're primary sources at best, and the analysis is original research; informally, because such citations boil down an individual editor's assertion that "I saw it on TV," and that just cant fly, especially in the context of BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If bigbrothernetwork is a fan site, then no, it is not a reliable source. If the only source one can come up with is the primary source, then whatever fact being debated isn't notable enough for a BLP. For anything contentious an excellent source must be produced. AniMate^draw 05:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Turian, the question wasn't "Where else can...", or "Where would you expect..." or "Is the show alone enough", the question was "Is bigbrothernetwork a reliable source?". It does not seem to be a reliable source to me, and I agree with AniMate above. If you can't find valid reliable sources, maybe that's because it's just not that notable. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's for something that actually happened on the show, then the show itself is adequate as a primary source. If a semi-reliable source is added as an "extra" footnote that should be okay; in the case of Big Brother Network it appears to be a post from the site owner and I don't see anything about an editorial board, so you'd have to argue that the owner is something of an expert on the show. If there's any speculation about why someone did something or why someone is no longer on the show then using only the show as a source won't work. But it looks like ( this appears to be at List of Big Brother 11 HouseGuests (U.S.) ) a clear RS has been found for the matter, a column at Entertainment Weekly. One more observation: "house guests" should be written as two separate words. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The show itself is absolutely not acceptable as a source. The exception for the use of television programs as primary sources for their contents in

WP:RS applies only to shows that fall into the general category of "artistic or fictional works." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing like that anywhere in policy. Almost anything under the sun may be used as a primary source in an article about itself, including television shows. Though the show should be archived somewhere to meet WP:V. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, 8 million viewers per episode is beyond notable. –túrian^patois 23:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(

big number. Protonk (talk

) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to raise a linked issue involving the current UK BB10 series which is being discussed on the article's talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template. I have followed the above editor here, somewhat by accident, but am grateful to him for helping me to find the correct place! As indicated over there, there is no or an inadequatly documented consensus to use the cite episode template to refer to broadcast episodes as verifible source. These programmes are not readily accessible to view and there is no documented retention policy. The nature of the particular dispute (apart from it indicating the incorrect episode) boils down to the use of a summary section which is intended to very briefly state the key activities of the week and point to a reliable source to provide the additional detail required by readers to understand the "full picture". Without links, the summary is inadequate to relate the full story or provide verifiability. Being threatend with a 3RR block is only obscuring the necessary discussion. There are questions and an open invitation to resolve on the talk page and my talk page, but the involved editor is uncompromising. Is there any help you can provide please? leaky_caldron (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I add that the shows, being edited highlights of 60 minutes with 4 - 5 commercial breaks, contain little more that 40 minutes content. There is no certainty that anything stated in the article will appear in the broadcast material, leaving article content unverified. leaky_caldron (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, whoever wrote that needs to be slapped. I have never read something so blatantly ignorant. And there are multiple sources. And no one has brought up a good point as to why BBN is NOT a good source. –túrian^patois 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Never? I find that hard to believe. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is wrong with BBN? –túrian^patois 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a group blog and a fan-driven source, so it isn't reliable per our guidelines. The number of hits they receive is largely immaterial. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 TV edit

A user has been continually adding mention of a Channel 4 cut to the The Simpsons episode "The Cartridge Family". Now, as UK user, I know what they're adding to be true, however they have not yet provided a reliable or verifiable source. I thought about citing the broadcast itself but surely, because it would be my interpretation of the changes from the original broadcast, that would be OR? Anyway, the user added (and perhaps made) this YouTube video of the cut. So my question is, is that video useable proof? Gran² 05:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the video is a copyright violation and cannot be used. AniMate^draw 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think AniMate is too strict - I belive that copyvio should not be linked to as a reference or an EL but could still be used as a source.Martinlc (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The YouTube video doesn't actually show any evidence that a cut has been made. I'd say that if no RS has seen fit to pass comment on the edit, then it may not be noteworthy enough to include, and including information on the basis that an editor has observed it probably is OR. --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The video clearly shows the credits appearing after Marge has binned the gun, so it supports the assertion. However, we have no reason to believe that the video is authentic. It could be a recording of an edit created and shown on his own TV by the uploader. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It supports the assertion only partly, because you can't tell just by looking at it that an edit has been made. The important thing is that it doesn't make the assertion - the assertion, in this case, is make by an editor, which is OR. --FormerIP (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to assert. If a book is published with a green cover in the first edition and in the second edition has a red cover we don't necessarily need a reliable source to "assert" this fact in order to mention it. If we argue that the change of colour has some special significance then that's constructing an argument or synthesis. There's always a hazy area between what is legitimate summary of observations and what is constructing an argument or synthesis. IMO, this would count as legitimate observation if it were undisputed. However, this debate is properly a matter for the OR board. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy isn't just to prevent untrue information being presented, it it also to prevent trivial information being presented. If it's worth mentioning, someone will have already mentioned it somewhere. Wikipedia is not supposed to undetake new (original) research. I'd say the same thing with regards to the colour of a dust-jacket (ie: "prove to me that an RS has previously found this fact interesting"). --FormerIP (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I think that's a bit glib. No reliable source provides encyclopedic information on each episode of a TV show, because the show itself stands as a primary source. In this case I think the fact could be notable, because the plot of the episode is different in the Channel 4 airing than the others. This has been noted on message boards and forum postings all over the internet, but of course such posts are not reliable sources as to the show's content. Even if you don't think this particular case is notable, that's not the issue here. The issue is what is necessary to cite the airing of a TV show as a primary, authoritive source for that show's content. It makes me uneasy that we don't have a good answer to that question. I'd like to think that events unfolding on live TV or radio can be used as primary sources.

To take it one level further (and more hypothetical): what if reliable-source commentary commented on the notability of a fact, but assumed understanding of the primary source? E.g. the NYT writes that "the color of Michelle Obama's dress caused great controversy", but they don't mention that the dress was red because everybody saw it on TV. Rvcx (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no perfect way to know what's OR, and what isn't. Even with secondary sources, unless its a direct quote, we're still summarizing with the possibility of OR. All we can do is work with consensus, and it sounds like this Simpsons fact doesn't have consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the episode can be used as a primary source as to its contents. But the episode does not actually contain the fact that it has been shown in different edits - this is something that needs to be deduced by an observer. Really, that observer should be an RS, not a WP editor.

The colour of MO's dress in your example is directly verifiable - no deduction is required - so it's not really the same.

I don't have any great interest in defending the current text of the article, but it is the case that in the US version, Marge keeps the gun for herself. In the Channel 4 version she throws it in the garbage. Both of those are objective facts which accurately summarize the two primary sources (which we currently don't know how to cite, but which I have seen with my own eyes, and the latter of which will be re-broadcast tomorrow night), and notability aside it should be entirely reasonable to include those two facts in the article. There is a tenuous case that WP:OR prevents combining these two facts to form the conclusion "the UK version edited out one shot in the final scene". I don't buy that argument, but even if I did it wouldn't prohibit mentioning the two facts in isolation and letting the reader make their own inference. Rvcx (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This might seem pedantic (OK, I'll give you that), but my basic point is that if there are certain things that no-one ever seems to have passed comment on, it is probably because they are just not noteworthy. The edit doesn't appear to have been controversial or unusual (it looks to be just standard practice for terrestrial broadcasters in the UK, and it probably happens on a daily basis). --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several threads on forums discussing the edit, and it even appears on the tv.com page as a piece of "trivia" about the episode. I don't feel strongly about notability, but I definitely don't think it's an open-and-shut case either way. More importantly, all of the above mention the show's content, but none is in itself a reliable source. If we had 1000 other self-published blogs mentioning the fact, we'd have notability, but none of them would be a reliable source either. The broadcast of the show should be a reliable source. Should be, but I don't know how it could be. Rvcx (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is tv.com (I'm not familar with it) not a reliable source? That would put an end to the problem. --FormerIP (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but it looks to me like the "trivia" entries on tv.com are user-contributed. It's possible tv.com fact-checks them, but I'm skeptical. Rvcx (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as the YouTube clip, there shouldn't be any concern about linking to a copyright violation because it's only a few-seconds long shot of a TV screen, and is fair use.

However, it wouldn't be accurate to say Channel 4 made the change, because obviously someone from the Simpsons animators had to draw the alternate version. So unless the "dropping the pistol in the trash" sequence is a splice from another episode, it would be more accurate to say that an alternate ending for the show exists, and yes you could use YouTube as a source for that.

We have to watch out for original research. The US version showing that Marge keeps it and the UK version showing that Marge tosses it doesn't necessarily mean that the UK network made the edit. It's more likely that the US made a censored version to air in gun-phobic regions of the world, the UK being one of several. So to phrase it without introducing any assumptions you would say "An alternate version of the episode where she throws the gun away exists(cite Youtube) which was reportedly seen in the UK(cite tv.com, etc).

I would be tempted to IAR on the sourcing needs, though I would prefer a semi-reliable source ( say a fan-oriented site with a volunteer editorial board ) to forum posts on a message board. I would go ahead and use TV.com. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The animators didn't produce an alternate ending. It's a Channel 4 cut. They just took out a few frames. The DVD is completely unedited here. When the episode aired on BBC2 the ending was the correct version. And no, I'm going to use TV.com because that essentially is just like Wikipedia. A lot of the stuff they have on Simpsons episode pages is wrong (for example, their entry for "Homer's Phobia" previously said something like "It was a really controversial episode that received numerous complaints" which was completely wrong). My policy with the UK cuts has always been "unless a reliable third-party sees the need to mention it it isn't notable". That's only ever happened in relation to "Trash of the Titans" and "A Streetcar Named Marge". Gran² 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

venusians

sources are not reliable.

talk

) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to fix whatever you think you should, but don't try to disrupt the process to make a point.
  NVO (talk
  ) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• i am in the process of improving/correcting my understanding on very basics of wikipedia. meanwhile, somebody might want to deal with it. i don't think this is a disruption to the process. you simply are assuming bad faith. try to assume good faith.
  talk
  ) 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like bad etiquette to me, to bring something here for comment, and when someone makes a comment that you don't agree with, you accuse them of bad faith. If you don't want opinions, don't bring it here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're wrong. If somebody has a overwhelming belief that I had a point while making that edit, she/he should either report it or reveal the point she/he's talking about, instead of implying something that I'm not aware of. Opinions on

talk

) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The other editor started his response with "Feel free to fix whatever you think you should", and warned you about a policy you may or may not be aware of (WP:Point), since you yourself said you were in the process of understanding the basics. There was nothing said about you. This noticeboard is about sources, not editors. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the order of appearance first, before briefing me about what was the issue there. The other editor warned me of a policy referring to what behaviour/point exactly? If you don't know the answer, why don't you cease from interpreting other editor's edits. Logos5557 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*... Again, this board is about sources, take your complaints about editors elsewhere. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• :) it seems we have a mimicking monkey situation here. you better leave now, if you don't have any comment on the sources of venusians article.
  talk
  ) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always cute when we get the kids on here... good luck with your "process of improving/correcting my understanding on very basics of wikipedia". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not the board for asking for specific reliable sources on a particular topic, but for looking for consensus about the rules and conventions for using them. However, the original question, if misconceived, seems to be sincere, so this whole sniping sneering saga seems, shall we say, unhelpful. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is portal site kresy.pl a reliable source?

Is Portal Site Kresy.pl considered to be a realiable source. Best that I can determine from http://translate.google.ca/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http://www.polskieradio.pl/historia/artykul.aspx%3Fid%3D58130&sl=pl&tl=en&history_state0= is that it is a collaborative site like Wikipedia without any editorial oversight. If deemed not a RS - how do I deal with articles that reference pages on that portal? Bobanni (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be based on third-party sources

Discussion moved to

Wikipedia talk:V#Articles should be based on third-party sources. Protonk (talk

) 22:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

• Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources.

There is a general dispute between myself and another editor about the meaning of these policy statements. My view is that they mean that most of an article, including most of each section or entry, should be based on 3rd-party sources, and that primary or self-published sources should be used sparingly for illustrative quotes, factual details, etc. (The self-published materials in question are by the subject of the article). The other editor has written that "There is no 'correct ratio' of primary to secondary sources." In other words, if a 3rd-party source mentions an issue, even very briefly, then it is acceptable to write any amount of text on that issue drawn from primary sources. In addition, the other editor seems to believe that if there are secondary sources in some parts of an article then it's acceptable for other sections to rely exclusively on primary sources. So here's the question: Does "based on" mean "partially based on"? Is it acceptable to use several primary sources to synthesize an overview of an issue instead of relying on secondary sources?   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is probably best discussed on the V or RS talk page. My quick answer is that there is no quick answer. Some local guidelines (e.g.
  WP:PSTS is offered as a solution to the problem, but in my opinion that is a terribly written piece of policy/guidance and it leads us astray on a great many issues. Protonk (talk
  ) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd debated where to raise this. Since it doesn't involve questions about specific sources it may be better on a talk page. I'll strike this out and move it to
    WT:V. Thanks also for for the feedback on the dispute.   Will Beback  talk
      22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are Industry Associations Reliable Sources?

I was using self-published reports from The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PHRMA http://www.phrma.org/ ), the Europian Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA http://www.efpia.org/ ), and the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA http://www.jpma.or.jp/english/) as sources of information about industry expenditures. Any opinions on reliabilty of these sources for facts on industry expenditures? What about other industry information? To see an example go here [45]. The question arises from

Talk:Health_care_industry#Investment_Trends_in_Healthcare_industry

.

• Pharma industry financials can be easily verified/approximated through individual co's financial reports. Doctoring this data makes no sense, so I'd take the lobbyists' word for it. However, since corporate, university and govt research are all mixed together in one pot, take care to present the whole pic rather than only corporate side.
  NVO (talk
  ) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Industry associations serve two general purposes. One, to provide information and idea exchange within the industry. Two, to provide information and advocacy on behalf of the industry to those outside it. It would be wrong to start from a general presumption that everything they say is unreliable. Some statements will be more reliable than newspapers in general, others will be advocacy. The details in the relevant diff were news to me, but that the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of medical research has been known among those well informed in the subject for decades. So it should, with a bit of dead tree research and willingness not to have the most up-to-this-instant data (which will would have to come from industry publications) be possible to find non-industry sources. But it seems to me that current discussion is more about where and how to include these well known facts in the article than the specifics of whether they are reliably sourced.
  GRBerry
  20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

True, the real concern is whether the facts from these reports should be qualified by a statement that indicates a conflict of interest, e.g. "According to industry advocates the industry spends x...." or whether I can just say "The industry spends x.." Mrdthree (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be cited only with attribution, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is difficult, because there may be different approaches to reporting these things in different countries. Do you report net or gross expenditures? How are subsidies and taxes included? What is a research spending - salaries? Lab equipment? Building write-offs? The secretary helping the tax accountant to optimize the tax report on research spending? Depending on the local legal and cultural conditions, the resulting numbers can be very different. So I would not compare numbers coming from different sources unless they explicitly conform to an agreed common standard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

When a cited source is comparing the health of an industry in its own country with the health of an industry overseas, I would assume they use the same metric. But, I assume your broader concern is that it might be a bad idea for an editor to use financial data from two different countries and then make direct comparisons or statements about the industries? Also I am curious are you expressing caution or do you have knowledge that it is the case that financial statements vary significantly between Europe, Japan and the United States? Mrdthree (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You called the tax accountant, now hear the tax accountant. Your concerns on diverse accounting treatments are well justified, and actual output from one megadollar injected in the industry will vary quite widely. Counting output is futile; R&D financials are useless in estimating R&D output. It is simply a measure of input; just disregard all the suckers who join the feast downstream - R&D is a black hole even in the most transparent economies. It's not about how "two different economies" invest their monies, it's only about spending. X spends 1 dollar per capita, Y spends 100. Nothing more. Now, I have matters to discuss with my secretaries... :)

NVO (talk

) 05:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So your point is R&D spending per capita is the best measure? Mrdthree (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the point was: consider spending as just this, spending, expense, cash out. Don't ask "What is a research spending - salaries? Lab equipment? ..." this is below the radar of public knowledge. A black box.

NVO (talk

) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've dealt with this a lot IRL for academic-style writing. A number like the amount of money spent on research by the pharmaceutical industry has a source. When you use the number, you include the source. You say, "The pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. spent $X billion dollars in 2005 on research and development, according to the trade association PhRMA." If you can find somebody who disagrees, you add, "or $Y billion dollars in 2005 according to industry critic Marcia Angell." (BTW Angell has argued that the pharmaceutical industry is inflating their spending on research.)

There is no one true number for the amount spent on research and development in the U.S. in a given year, for reasons like Stephan Schulz gave. There are many different definitions of "research" and "development." A Fortune 500 company may (legitimately) come up with one number for tax purposes and another number for investment analysis. If they appoint a bunch of doctors to an advisory panel and fly them to Hawaii for a pre-launch seminar, they could call that research, development, or marketing, and they might have legitimate accounting reasons for assigning it to one category or the other. How much of the cost of the legal department should be counted as research?

In accounting, and economics, they have to make a lot of arbitrary rules. The numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but they're still useful.

So I think the answer is yes, industry sources are

WP:NPOV to add them too. You should make it clear what the limits to accuracy are, and the better reports will explain those limits, so you can quote them. --Nbauman (talk

) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bubblegum Dancer

I wondering if Mitch Adrews's site [www. bubblegumdancer.com Bubblegum Dancer] could be a

reliable self-published source for his interview with Jorge Vasconcelo who has had his CD mentioned on Fuji News Network. He has won an award for his Bubblegum music video at NME's online site which is a well established magazine in the UK pop music and appears to be connected with multiple bubblegum dance band.陣内_Jinnai

03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm assuming this is for an article to be written. You'd have to argue that the site has a reputation in its field. I rather like the site, it's been around for a long time, and it seem to be the place for information on the bubblegum genre. You could probably use it, but it wouldn't count towards establishing notability. NME would, but you'll need more than that plus Bubblegum Dancer to get the article going. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's for a small subsection on

verify.陣内_Jinnai

21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be bold and go for it. It's about time somebody documented a link between bubblegum and anime. Some of that Scandinavian pop music is really, really kawaii. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Posting valuable information -- need advice, help and permission

Ok I hope I now don't get in trouble for cross posting, but was told to repost this here:

---

Although I first submitted this directly to Wikipedia, I was redirected here. I have a disagreement with User:Hu12's tactics, and decisions to delete my posts. I am not here to spam.. and understand why it may be perceived that way. However, I ask that you all help me and reconsider this moderators decisions.

First, to explain my unique expertise and contributions. For 13 years, I have filed more Freedom of Information Act requests than almost any other person (In excess of 3,000). I have amassed well over a half million pages of declassified government and military documents from the U.S., most of which are not found anywhere else in the world. They are declassified for my request, and sent to me. (This is verifiable, and heavily sourced on the internet by major media outlets)

I run the largest database of declassified documents in the world at www.theblackvault.com I felt, since a lot of this information is NEW and NEVER BEFORE SEEN, it would be a benefit to Wikipedia. So I learned how to edit. Although a couple years ago, I only added links, and I realized this was WRONG. I talked with a moderator who helped me understand to write my content into the article, and source it. Which, I am now doing, or was.

Now, User:Hu12 perceives this as a conflict of interest, and my edits were deleted. I would love to source other sites other than my own if I could, but as I mentioned, these are unique documents not available anywhere else. I would love permission to add these records, that anyone can verify. It is rare, valuable and needed. Rather, I get form letters and rude responses.

I know that it could be perceived as spam, but it isn’t. I do not make money by linking to PDFs as the source for my edits. Not a single penny. These pdfs of the documents are used only as sources, and I am rarely adding external links. It is frustrating, as I would think Wikipedia would want this information (which is 100% real and verifiable) rather than some of the other silly sources which I have seen referenced.

I hope someone can help me. I do not hide behind nicknames - anyone can Google my name and see my contributions and press regarding the archive. It is a unique situation.

Sincerely,

John Greenewald, Jr.

--Johnbv417 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• If those sources are in the public domain, then you are better off adding them to
  not assuming the best, but a reason why someone might not have dealt with your situation carefully and personally. I hope I've answered some of your questions. If I haven't, leave a message on my talk page. Protonk (talk
  ) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also watch out for the issue of undue weight. You don't want to introduce what's really a little nugget of information within a broad topic by writing a long paragraph beginning with "The Black Vault FOIA archive released...". Most FOIA-obtained documents are only a small piece of the puzzle, and are primary sources with a capital, bold, and italic 'P', so it takes a lot of detail work to weave them into an article without making a tangent, and even then it might be used to source only one little clause out of the whole aritcle. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

Are the following sources reliable for the lead of

Communist genocide

?

1) '"Understanding genocide" by Rebecca Knuth, p. 248

2) Gender and catastrophe by Ronit Lentin, p. 3

The lead begins: Communist genocide refers to mass killings of particular categories of the population carried out by communist regimes, which may be considered genocides or politicides, with the perpetrators either convicted in a court of law, or accused of engaging in genocide by third parties.

The first source makes no mention of Communist genocide.[47]

The second source states: Soviet and Communist genocide and mass state killings, sometimes termed politicide, occurred in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the People's Republic of China.[48][49]

The first source is not about Communist genocide, neither source supports the lead, and the Knuth article is only available on Google Books in snippet view.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources in two World War Two articles

For some unknown reason, user Jim Sweeney has been tagging two WW2 articles - Pidkamin massacre, and Huta Pieniacka massacre, claiming that sources used there are unreliable. If somebody could check these sources, and help out, I would be grateful. Here are the sources Jim Sweeney dislikes:

1. An article from official webpage of Polish Radio, Polish equivalent of BBC [50]
2. A book by Grzegorz Motyka, renowned, professional historian, specializing in Polish - Ukrainian relations during the war,
3. A book by Sol Littman, former Canadian Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. [51]
4. A book by Tadeusz Piotrowski, professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire [52]
5. A Polish - language tourist guide of Western Ukraine, by Grzegorz Rakowski PhD, author of a number of publications [53]

I am awaiting opinions of uninvolved users. Tymek (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I skim through the arguments, and since the biggest problem is that the source is in Polish, I just want to point out that the laugage of the source is irrelevant on the reliability of the source per

WP:NONENG. Unless someone has equivalent English sources to replace the Polish sources, saying Polish sources is unreliable due to language barrier is groundless. Jim101 (talk

) 21:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

on the Huta Pieniacka massacre

• ref 1 appears to be a ukranian forum ?
• ref 2 is to a googl book review
• ref 3 has two big errors there was no 14th sub unit or 4th regiment so what make the rest of the site reliable
• ref 5 is to a dead external site
• ref 8 is a google book search that reveals it was another ss division responsible
• ref 10 is to a dead external site

All the other refs are a foreign language but if they are the same as above there credability is in some doubt --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also doubt over Grzegorz Motyka

"Grzegorz Motyka refers to no archival sources when he claims in his book Ukrai ska partyzantka 1942-1960 — dzia alno Organizacji Ukrai skich Nacjonalist w i Ukrai skiej Powsta czej Armii (Warsaw, 2006) that Huta Pieniacka was “pacified” [i.e., annihilated] by the 4th Regiment of the SS Police, which was made up of Ukrainians, and by the UPA’s Siromantsi Company under D. Karpenko’s command" and so he is not reliable. SOurces are a must in references from User:Chaosdruid --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist) his article claims he is a book editor, reviewer, manuscript referee, and a translator. Its not claimede he is a historian. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead sites, while regrettable, should be investigated and fixed, not removed as long as the accessdate field was properly filled out for the citation we must assume good faith that the site existed at that time and did say what it said.

• Citing a book that is placed on Google books is not a problem. Just because a site has a major mistake that doesnt make it unreliable for everything else in it, you must prove it unreliable for the actual information being cited.
• You can not assume that "because the other refs are not credible then the other foreign language cites are too", that's not logic, that's assinine and not a legitimate defence.
• We do not require that our sources use and cite in them any sort of primary documents or archival sources, therefore your comment about Grzegorz Mtyka is also not legitimate.
• I dont understand the comment about user Chaosdruid, but if he has done something to make it where you no longer give him good faith then ok, but references should be a must from everyone anyways. *As for Tadeusz Piotrowski it does not matter if he is a historian or not; lots of good history books have been written by non-historians, his other qualifications seem just as good to me; we dont require that only sources written by historians are accepted for articles about historical events. Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim101, and Camelbinky, for your prompt responses. I must admit I was very surprised to see user Jim Sweeney basically dismiss all the sources provided, especially in the Pidkamin massacre article. If we see works of professional historians and professors of universities as unreliable, then we basically should get rid of all sources in all articles. As for sources other than English, there are rules, and it is clear. A number of my articles has been featured on the front page (DYK), and most of them are based on Polish-language sources. All it takes is to assume a little good faith. Nevertheless, if user Jim Sweeney needs some clarification of Polish language sources, I am always willing to translate them, upon request. Thank you again. Tymek (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An external link to an illegal recording

In the article

User:LTSally has added an external link to an illegal recording contained in a blog[54]. I and others have tried to explain why this link should be removed[55], but LTSally claims that there is no basis for the removal of the external link[56].--Scientia est opulentia (talk

) 12:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To date the three editors who have "tried to explain why this link should be removed" have offered these arguments: (a) the recording is illegal (b) the link is "not suitable", (c) the recording was made without the consent of all involved (d) that it amounts to an "investigation" or original reseach. There has to date been no discussion of the external link as a reliable source and no evidence that the blog contains an illegal recording.

Here are my arguments for its inclusion as an external link:

The style guideline at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided does indeed suggest that links to blogs be avoided. This is a guideline only, and exceptions are allowed. I believe that this blog is such an exception. The opinions expressed on the blog are of secondary importance only. The critical content of the blog is the audio recording of a judicial committee hearing of an individual who has himself uploaded the content to the internet with the intention of it being heard. The subject of the article is disciplinary procedures of Jehovah's Witnesses, including juducial committees. The inclusion of a recording of a complete judicial committee hearing is a valuable addition to the written material in the article. It is informative, instructive and quite rare. It's claimed the recording is illegal. It is certainly contrary to the policies of Jehovah's Witness judicial committee hearings, but that in itself is not a crime, thus making it illegal.

Suggestions that privacy is being violated are spurious. The individual on trial from this church court has clearly approved of his case being made public at his Death or Obedience blogsite. Those who made the allegations against him should have no shame about, or objection to, their accusations being made public, since the accused has no objection. Their evidence consisted of the viewpoints of the accused expressed – at their invitation – at a prior shepherding call. They accused him of "spreading" apostate views ... in this case, sharing his views with them in a pastoral visit in response to their questions. The accused has no objection about that being publicised either. Jehovah's Witnesses' judicial committees are held as a secretive court session with no observers and no subsequent report of evidence or defence. This recording is a valuable record of such proceedings and a link to it on an article dealing with disciplinary procedures is entirely appropriate.

Jehovah's Witnesses are avid contributors to this article, so I'm baffled at why they shy from adding a link to a recording that cuts out the middle man, allowing the public to hear for themselves JW disciplinary procedures in action.

talk

) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the place to talk about sources, not external links. Arguments on both sides seem weak (what's illegal about it? blogspot??), but this is not the place to hash it out. DreamGuy (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Illegal is the recording, since it is made without the approval of the persons involved.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the right noticeboard to bring forward the issue of alleged illegality, though. --LjL (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not stand on ceremony. If there's a link to copyright-infringing material, the link should be removed pronto. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone claimed copyright. I'm not stoked about linking to the blog from article space (read: don't do it), but let's not take claims of illegality at face value. Protonk (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no issue of copyright in this debate. No one has made that suggestion, so I don't know why you raise it.

talk

) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

...Please read the comment directly above mine. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think that was a reference to the comment before yours... not everyone uses indenting the same way, which makes threading of comments confusing.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If there were a copyright problem I'd have said it needed to be removed for sure. Whether it is illegal to record people without their approval depends upon state laws. In some jurisdictions all it takes is one of the people being recorded to approve of it for it to be completely legal. Even if it were against the law to record it that doesn't necessarily mean that posting it online, or linking to it, would be illegal. That's not to say I support linking to it, just clarifying the legal situation a bit. But none of this has anything to do with Reliable Sources. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly surprising that this matter is yet-unresolved.
Hello,

WP:DOLT

.

• In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to record a person without his knowledge.
  
• In even more jurisdictions, it is illegal to use that recording for any but "personal use".
• In even MORE jurisdictions, it is illegal to share that recording indiscriminately (eg on the internet).
  

For example, a person who merely records a sex act without his partner's knowledge may or may not be subject to prosecution depending on the jurisdiction, but in literally everyplace in all 50 states in the USA, sharing such a recording can be prosecuted as a crime (not merely a civil infraction for which one could be sued). Clearly, I'm not threatening legal action, but it's naive for conscientious editors to ignore

the real world.
--AuthorityTam (talk

) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously I concur w/ the bulk of your statement, but the recording is not "Original Research".
  WP:OR is a policy which constrains editors on wikipedia in articlespace from presenting their novel conclusions. It is not a sensible description for anything else, be it arguments made by wikipedians outside of articlespace or materials made off wikipedia. Furthermore, it obviously isn't original in any way because it's a recording of a meeting. Lastly, it should be said that the material obviously doesn't belong in the article and shouldn't be otherwise linked from the article. Whether or not it can be linked on the talk page (or here for that matter) during a discussion of the meetings in general is a more nuanced question. Protonk (talk
  ) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to apply this part of the

WP:V regarding what might be called 'editor-as-peer-review'.
--AuthorityTam (talk

) 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The source itself isn't OR, tho. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR has nothing to do with an outside source, and sharing recordings of sex acts is far different from sharing recordings of a meeting. Perhaps you should drop the tone of moral and intellectual superiority and focus on the topic actually being discussed other than some straw man arguments about some other situations entirely. DreamGuy (talk

) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO prohibits the inclusion of links to personal blogs ,the link contains OR and does not need to be included--Notedgrant (talk

) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you even know what

WP:OR is? It's been explained here more than once, but you seem to not be paying attention. DreamGuy (talk

) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, DreamGuy. The arguments against the inclusion of the link to the recording have so far been very weak. And

WP:EL

does not prohibit their inclusion as links. Unfortunately I think I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get consensus to get this approved. I'm outnumbered by Jehovah's Witnesses who, for reasons I can't fathom, don't want to see it linked. Their cited reasons all seem a bit desperate and grasping and appear to be a cover for their real objection ... whatever it is. I still think it would be a valuable addition to the article.

I sense the discussion here has run out of steam, perhaps because it's not really an issue of RS. That was raised for the first time by the dude who listed it here. I have attempted to rekindle the debate back at

talk

) 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't supporting the inclusion of the link itself, as I never even got far enough to look into the specifics. What I was doing was pointing out the very poor arguments being made about policies and alleged illegality that do not match what our policies and the law actually says. There may be good reasons to not link to the site in question, but that doesn't excuse making up spurious legal claims and trying to apply policies that aren't related in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have added an RfC back at the article's

talk

) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

There has been some dispute about whether this article, published on the

biographies of living people. In particular, I have not seen any evidence that this site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by our sourcing guidelines. I am also concerned about what, if any, editorial processes are in place. Note that there is a discussion on this matter at Talk:Ashida Kim and I have posted here to obtain input from the wider editorial community. *** Crotalus ***

15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No way, no how is that article or that website a reliable source for a BLP. The article (on Bullshido.net) even lists the Wikipedia article on

L0b0t (talk

) 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blimely O_O where to start with that - I think the answer is NO, NO, NO, especially for a BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

crotalus's message here seems a little disingenuous. first of all, the owner of bullshido has visited the talkpage just yesterday to state :"As the executive director of the Bullshido websites I can state that Sam Browning's research articles are not self-published, nor are they presented as open discussions for participatory research. Rather, they are the fully and professionally researched works that are presented for the benefit of the general public in order to inform consumers of the true credentials of someone who has been selling books on martial arts related subjects since the 1980's". second of all, crotalus has

WP:Pointy nominated this article for deletion twice in the past year, which may or may not be related to why he is rejecting well researched articles. ashida kim is a fringe martial artist/fake ninja. he isn't going to have articles written about him by the new york times. we should accept this source after the website owner comes and assures us it's reliable and fact checked. Theserialcomma (talk

) 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ashida kim is a fringe martial artist/fake ninja. then why are *we* writing about him? he isn't going to have articles written about him by the new york times. I'm not asking for the New York times, I'm asking for reliable sources, if they don't exist, the article should not exist, not just this section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this- "we should accept this source after the website owner comes and assures us it's reliable and fact checked." is one of the silliest things I have heard in a long time.

L0b0t (talk

) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

um, how are we supposed to know about a questionable source's editorial oversight unless we ask? how is that silly? sure, he could lie, but any newspaper could be lying/deceiving people about their editorial oversight. i'd like to hear the editor's explanation, regardless, and then use that information to help to come a conclusion, rather than blindly speculate. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not silly to try to determine a questionable source's oversight. It is silly, however, to claim that questionable source is reliable just because Willie Website Owner or Francis Forum Host shows up at the talk page of an article (with a long history of troublesome sources, mainly the one in question) to say that their particular troublesome source is Jim Dandee.

L0b0t (talk

) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for my opinion is that the article on Bullshido uses references itself, then draws conclusions from these, it is not just a blog entry or forum post. The fact checking side is partly the peer review from the forum community where the whole ethos of the site it to pick holes in dubious claims, there is also ample information of any one to review the conclusions drawn. --Nate^t/_c 09:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable in the slightest. It's sad to see so many what should be obvious cases being fought over by people who don't seem to get the basic concept of what a reliable source is. This is just an online forum, with no proven expertise or notability or fact checking or anything. They are fine for what they do, but what they do isn't encyclopedic. DreamGuy (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have posted a

deletion review on this article, asking for the last closure to be overturned and this article to be deleted. *** Crotalus ***

20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ahh, yes. one source has been deemed unreliable and so therefore the article's 6th failed deletion should be overturned! yes! Theserialcomma (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Article on

Alternative Minimum Tax

Resolved

 – yes, the NYT is a reliable source

Unresolved

 – Discussion continues. No need to archive this if something productive will come from it. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor is claiming, with this revert [57], suggesting that the New York Times is not a "truly reliable source." The editor has previously excised any references to the NY Times topic on the Alternative Minimum Tax. Looking for some guidance here.Mattnad (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know much about this, but the NYT is obviously a reliable source for most facts. I think you may have more of an editorial disagreement, than a RS problem. What to do with that, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times meets all our requirements for a reliable source. Treat that editor as a vandal and put the NY Times reference back in and take appropriate warning steps against said editor should he/she continue to vandalize. The only problem, and it would have nothing to do with the NY Times being a reliable source is that the references you are using from the NY Times are actual fact-checked articles and not op-eds or some other format in which it is the editor or writer's opinions. If they unbiased news articles then they can be used for facts, figures, etc. Always remember though- a source is not inherently always reliable or unreliable. The particular use of information as a reference from a source must be reliable in the context it is being used.Camelbinky (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT TREAT THIS EDITOR LIKE A VANDAL (end yelling). Engage the editor via dispute resolution. If the source makes an egregious factual error, then we can deal with that specifically on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IF this editor is removing NY Times sources anywhere he/she finds them just because he things the NYT is, as a source in general, unreliable, whatever his motives are it is vandalism and he needs to be treated as such. Removing source information because you have an axe to grind with that particular source is vandalism. I'm not saying this particular editor does or that this is what he's doing. My suggestion was for if an editor is removing any information that was sourced from the New York Times for no reason other than "the New York Times is not a reliable source" and not based on the particular piece of information, which according to the edit summary it was my understanding that this is what that editor was doing. Oh, and capital letters and bold typeface is not "yelling" so dont worry about it I took no offence, this is a print media not real life, or did I suddenly get on Myspace by accident?Camelbinky (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it

wandered into myspace, thank you. Protonk (talk

) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Protonk you are saying that if an editor, for whatever reason, is going around removing every single source that is the NY Times from an article (or worse from EVERY article) then that is not vandalism? I would say you are wrong then. If someone removes something everytime they see it is sourced to the NY Times that is indeed a vandal. They arent saying that the particular info is wrong, they are saying the entire NY Times is unreliable and not a valid source ever. If the editor is saying that then they are indeed a vandal. They are being disruptive to articles for no reason other than they have a beef with the NY Times. If they were removing one or two references that just happen to be from the NY Times because those particular pieces of information were found to be wrong then I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Either you truly think that someone is allowed to go around removing any references that use the NY Times on purpose or I failed to get that point across that I was only talking about purposefully removing correct information from an article just because the source happens to be the NY Times. I dont like Fox News and I dont think they should be used as a source ever for anything other than a statement saying "in Fox News opinion ....", but I dont go around removing every source to them, if I did I believe lots of editors would then call me a vandal.Camelbinky (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case (As is shown below) there is a considerable amount of discussion about whether or not the NYT ought to be judged as a reliable source on the subject. Which means if the NYT contains incorrect or misleading information and a better source exists it certainly is not wrong to remove references and stated claims based on those references with an informative edit summary. Doing it en masse is less cool and doing it across "every" article is borderline disruptive but neither action would be vandalism, because the editor has a good faith belief that the quoted source is in error. Saying something "is not vandalism" does not immediately mean that the action is proper or desirable or that the outcome from the action is the best possible outcome. But calling it vandalism moves us out of debate on the subject and into immediately protecting the encyclopedia from disruption. When those circuit breakers are closed for edits which are vandalism it offers a quick means to block editors and protect pages (as opposed to long discussion and consensus). When those circuit breakers are closed for edits which are not vandalism, we alienate potential long term editors, do damage to our reputation and prevent beneficial changes to articles. We may be in general agreement, but recall that I was responding to the point I quoted above, which in no way indicated that your charge of vandalism was reserved for editors conducting wholesale removals. If I misunderstood the words then I'm sorry, but they seemed clear to me. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems I probably should have chosen better words when I first discussed this topic and should have said "an editor" instead of "this editor". In further clarification I did in subsequent posts state what I meant, I apologize I wasnt clearer from the beginning though. As always you have taught me something new, sir.Camelbinky (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Article on Alternative Minimum Tax - Discussion Closed Prematurely?

I agree that in general, the New York Times is a reliable source. But in this specific instance, was reliability actually determined? It seems to me that the discussion might have been closed prematurely. The specific issue raised by PMcGarrigle is "NYTimes quote added by Mattnad rehashes debate of 1-10-2009. NYTimes quote is contradicted by [3, p. 17]. Direct link added to [3] (a truly reliable source, authors v. knowledeable on this issue).)" Has this specific complaint been addressed? If so, I don't see it. Also, have other editors had time to look into this and give their opinions? It seems like this discussion may have been closed too soon. 71.57.126.233 (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A reply from the editor in question: Mattnad misquotes and misunderstands my earlier comments, and apparently has not even read the supporting evidence I provided. Indeed, he deleted the newly added link to the supporting evidence.

Some considerable time back, Mattnad added a quote to the AMT entry, consisting of one sentence, from a New York Times article (discussion piece? editorial?; it's not clear which). To anyone who follows AMT, the quote is clearly incorrect. After a little search, I found the sentence is directly contradicted by a very authoritative paper by Berman et al. in an article published by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. I provided a reference to the article and deleted the NY Times quote, in January 2009.

In the past couple of days, Mattnad added back the NY Times quote, without referring to the earlier discussion. This time I added a URL for the Tax Policy Center article, re-explained that the NY Times quote is contradicted by the Tax Policy Center article, and again deleted the NY Times quote.

Some minutes later, I find that Mattnad has reverted to the previous version, again without any discussion of the contradictory evidence, and has also thereby deleted the URL for the Tax Policy Center article. I find this very disappointing.

My edit summary said that the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution is a truly reliable source. And on this issue it is: see [58] and [59] and judge for yourself. It is clearly (in my opinion) vastly more reliable on this topic than the NY Times, which is after all a daily newspaper and does not produce academic studies of archival value. When they directly contradict each other, as they do here, the NY Times (in my opinion) is clearly wrong. I really can't see how anyone who has read both sources could possibly believe the NY Times discussion piece (unsigned!) over the TPC article. Whether the NY Times is reliable in general is not the point at issue: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and I certainly would never say that it is intrinsically unreliable. However on this specific issue, the NY Times discussion piece is not a reliable source (in my opinion, and I have provided evidence from a reliable source).

If Mattnad still thinks the NY Times discussion piece is correct, it would be helpful if he explained why the Berman et al. article is wrong, or why he thinks there really is no contradiction between the two. In the meantime, I will wait for further guidance here, but at some point will revert the AMT article to the previous version. Thanks. PMcGarrigle (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion is ridiculous. The New York Times is a reliable source, generally, and specifically in this instance. When reliable sources contradict, we report the dispute, we don't say which source is 'right'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll add on here. I only reversed Dlabtot's archiving of the section because I felt there was the possibility this might lead to some resolution surrounding the specific issue. We can talk about two sources contradicting here, with maybe some resolution as to how the article will report that contradiction or dispute. But we don't need general inveighing. If the discussion dissolves then I won't hesitate to close it down here and direct parties to
    elsewhere in the DR chain. Protonk (talk
    ) 03:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Include what they both say, and don't mark threads here resolved. Everything is case by case, so resolved doesn't work very well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would think the caveat about academic topics at

L0b0t (talk

) 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it isn't particle physics. In theory the NYT should be able to do a competent job reporting on the AMT. In practice... Protonk (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's not physics but it is pretty advanced math for liberal arts/journalism graduates, I always have to reach for the salt cellar when the local fishwrap has anything to say about economics or tax policy. Oh, one might want to check the NYT for an issue or two after the one in question. If there was a mistake and it was corrected there should be a retraction. Cheers.

L0b0t (talk

) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The tax topic in the NYC times is actively maintained and what's at issue is not math per se, but history. Mattnad (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's put aside for now a basic tenant of Wikipedia that allows for contradictory content to coexist in an article when there's reliable sources supporting different points of view. When I read the Berman article provided by PMcGarrigle, I saw nothing that contradicts the NYtimes article content (the other link he provided is to multiple articles). The Berman article focused on the current implications of the AMT and only provides a cursory evaluation of the historical changes leading up to now. Here's most of what Berman says about the period in AMT history that PMcGarrigle wants removed

"The 1986 reforms also fundamentally altered the AMT. The Act added numerous AMT preferences, expanding the difference between rules and definitions in the AMT and the regular tax, and significantly increasing the role of deferral preferences. It raised the AMT rate to 21 percent, created the exemption phaseout, introduced the notion of the AMT as a floor on taxes by limiting the extent to which net operating losses and foreign tax credits could reduce AMT, and created a minimum tax credit in the regular tax for AMT liability caused by deferral items. After 1986, AMT participation and revenues fell to pre-1982 levels."

Note that the Berman article does not contradict the information from from NYtimes that includes "A major shift occurred in 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive. "A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states." Berman does not contradict the NYtimes. Rather, the Berman article is written in tax speak, is oriented towards the current implications, and glosses over the historical fine points that the NYtimes bothers to explain for non-academics. Here's a good example of why editors should not assume they know more than other reliable sources. And I'll add that PMcGarrigle should not be allowed to pick and chose the sources he agrees with. Mattnad (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thank Mattnad for reading the Berman article I cited. Now we are making progress. We are still not in agreement (as I will explain in a moment) but at least we are on the same page, even if at opposite corners. If some further discussion cannot resolve the question, then we may have to end up citing both sources. Plus possibly some more.

Here is the crux of the disagreement: the NY Times article says "the AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive", whereas the Berman article says "After 1986, AMT participation and revenues fell to pre-1982 levels." So did AMT expand or contract in 1986? The NY Times seems to say "expand" (in fact "greatly expand"), and the Berman article seems to say "contract". To me these seem to contradict directly. What am I missing?

By the way, here is another reference I dug up: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/2223.html, which shows how many returns were affected by AMT and how much AMT revenue was generated, for each year from 1970 to 2005. Check out what happens around 1986: it sure looks like a contraction to me. What am I missing?

By the way, the NY Times discussion piece then goes on to talk about the 1986 bill refocusing AMT on "families who own their homes in high tax states". I have to be honest and say I do not know what they are talking about here. I wish I did, because I'm in a family that owns its home in a high tax state, and has dealt with complicated AMT issues for almost the last ten years, and I might learn something of interest. Unfortunately the article "glosses over the historical fine points" so I have to guess. I am unaware of any specific change the 1986 act made in the AMT liability of (a) families, (b) homeowners, or (c) people in high tax states. Does anyone have an idea what they are talking about?

Incidentally, I see that the Wikipedia article on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 repeats many of the same points Mattnad makes, complete with the same NY Times quotes! As soon as I have a chance to dig up a comprehensive set of references for the AMT article, I will also add them to the TRA_1986 article.

Finally, I'm puzzled what Mattnad means when he talks about the Berman article involving "tax speak", while the NY Times "bothers to explain for non-academics". I pay AMT, lots of it, so my interest in the topic is not academic but instead very personal. I can't understand how anyone who has AMT issues of any significance could find that the NY Times discussion has "explained" anything of value. (Has Mattnad ever paid AMT? I very much doubt it.) The Berman article is very straightforward and clear. If it's not considered an appropriate reference, I will upload many others, all of which (as far as I can see) support Berman and contradict the NY Times article. PMcGarrigle (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the NYT piece has no byline (that I could find) and of the sources presented is the only one that "glosses over the historical."

L0b0t (talk

) 06:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a little too much delving into the specifics for this arena (this is coming from someone who is a grad student in a poli sci department, so if its getting boring for me...) Anyways- I have to disagree with some of the other regulars who contribute on here, whom I normally like to agree with since I do respect them, such as Dlabtot, and this is an issue that I have disagreed with many times actually. When two normally reliable sources contradict it is Dlabtot and other's opinion that we should just report the dispute and put both in. I disagree. In many, if not most cases, one is right, one is wrong. Find out which is right or dont report either is probably the safest thing to do in most cases. I even have a dead president who agrees with me, he's no Jimbo Wales but I think we can take a cue from him-

• Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. Thomas Jefferson

You can find more quotes regarding truth should trump verifiability in the first section on my talk page. :-)Camelbinky (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The core of the dispute seems to be over whether the 1986 changes "greatly expanded" the AMT or not. I don't think either source supports that language. The Times article says:

How did the tax's reach expand? In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan and both parties on Capitol Hill agreed to a major change in the tax system, the law was subtly changed to aim at a wholly different set of deductions, the ones that everyone gets, like the personal exemption, state and local taxes, the standard deduction, certain expenses like union dues and even some medical costs for the seriously ill. At the same time it removed and revised some of the exotic investment deductions. A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states.

Any expansion (which I don't think it verifiably described as "great") was in who was subject to the tax, not in total revenue; the removal of "exotic investment deductions" presumably wiped out the new revenue (but such an assertion is not verifiable). The article should clarify that the changes "expanded the number of people subject to the AMT" (or similar words); an additional point from the Urban-Brookings paper that actual revenue dropped might be relevant. Rvcx (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note this is not about reliable sources now (that's been established). Short-term revenue shifts are not disputed. The "history" section is designed to explain major building blocks of the current law. It's all about who would be targeted by the tax system. I've made a tweak to the article to read "The reach of AMT was expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive." One could argue whether the adjective "greatly" (now removed) can still apply. The NYT article says the AMT was changed to aim at deductions "that everyone gets" instead of exotic deductions. Clearly the AMT is a very broadly felt tax system now. And there are articles on the AMT that mention the authors of the law were aware of the long-term revenue impact and designed it that way (e.g. income thresholds not indexed for inflation, focusing on broader base of typical deductions). I'll get around the digging those up later to provide a cite.Mattnad (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PMcG asked above: Here is the crux of the disagreement: the NY Times article says "the AMT was greatly expanded to aim at a different set of deductions that most Americans receive", whereas the Berman article says "After 1986, AMT participation and revenues fell to pre-1982 levels." So did AMT expand or contract in 1986? The NY Times seems to say "expand" (in fact "greatly expand"), and the Berman article seems to say "contract". To me these seem to contradict directly. What am I missing?

What I think you are missing is that the NYT and Berman are talking about different things. The NYT is talking about the fact that what was covered under ATM increased. Berman, on the other hand is saying that participation and revenue decreased. Coverage is not the same as paticipation and revenue. So Berman does not actually contradict the NYT. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we are getting close to a conclusion. I thank everyone for some reasonable points. Many months ago I added the AMT line that says "the AMT has evolved significantly in many ways since then, with substantial changes in 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, and 1993, among others". There were significant changes in 1986. However, folks, it is just not true that the 1986 act was the one that expanded it to cover the deductions that most Americans receive! The NY Times article is just flat out wrong on this point! I am surprised by how credulous some people are with this source. However let's put the NY Times quote and the others I will add side by side in the main article and let people judge for themselves just how reliable the NY Times really is. (The main issues for most Americans are state and local income taxes, personal exemptions, and standard deduction, all of which were added to the AMT calculation before 1986. The lack of indexation was in before 1986. The 1986 act added the phaseout of the AMT exemption and the extra medical expenses deduction, neither of which is "targeted at the deductions most Americans receive". It made extensive definitional and rewording changes, as it did for the regular tax system also.) PMcGarrigle (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but I think we give the NY Times more credence than we would a single editor. And be careful with what you add since I suspect you'll be interpreting technical articles and promoting your own conclusions as you did with the Berman article.Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to caution everyone involved in this article ... It seems to be a topic that could very easily slide into

original research... If you have not read our policy on that, please do so. Blueboar (talk

) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattnad, the issue is whether we should believe the NY Times above Berman, not whether we should believe the NY Times above some random anonymous editor. If I couldn't find any contradictory sources, I would not have said anything. I find Berman reliable but if someone came along with an even more detailed and authoritative source that contradicted him, then I would assume Berman had slipped on that point and move on. I wouldn't cling to a determined belief that Berman had to be defended at all costs. As for conclusion-promotion, that's what I thought you were and are doing. PMcGarrigle (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing is quoting the NY Times. The reason we're discussing this here is that you don't agree with that source and sought many times to exclude it from the article. Per Blueboar, see

original research.Mattnad (talk

) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can point at directly contradictory statements between the NYT and Berman then please provide them. I've looked through both and couldn't find any. The contention that "it is just not true that the 1986 act was the one that expanded it to cover the deductions that most Americans receive" is neither supported by any reliable source I have read, nor incompatible with the NYT story (which merely asserts that the 1986 changes expanded the range of AMT applications). If you feel that such a contradiction is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from the Berman paper, then I suggest you detail your reasoning on the article talk page or

WP:ORN. In the (IMO unlikely) event that you achieve consensus that Berman directly contradicts the NYT story then you'll have an issue relevant here. Rvcx (talk

) 16:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattnad: well, no, you're also adding text that is not in quote marks, and that (now that I look at it again) involves a rewrite of and change of emphasis for the NY Times text. The NY Times article said the AMT was "subtly changed" by the 1986 act, whereas you say it was a "major change". I read the NY Times article to say the overall tax system had a major change, and as part of that the AMT was subtly changed. Also you attribute the act to Ronald Reagan, whereas the NY Times article attributes it to "President Ronald Reagan and both parties on Capitol Hill". The overall effect is to tilt the NY Times article discussion in a way that casts Reagan in an unfavorable light. If you insist on citing the NY Times article, well and good, but the extra topspin will need to go.

In the spirit of brevity and editorial decision, I didn't quote the entire article. If you want to add "both parties" to share the responsibility for the tax changes, go for it. It's not necessarily the best writing, but I won't stand in your way. As for the the "subtly" vs. "major." I think the point that should be made is that "subtle" changes in 1986 had a "major" impact on who pays the AMT now. But I'll give you points for focusing on editorial questions (which should be on the article talk page) now.Mattnad (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rcvx: I take your point -- I didn't cite the new evidence (beyond Berman) here because it's off topic. I will do so on the AMT page. (I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word for it and never meant to imply that.) I agree we will just have to let all quotes stand and let the words speak for themselves. PMcGarrigle (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that the NYTimes thing is their topic page, not one of their articles. I don't know that we have really addressed the reliability of their topic pages, but I don't think it is higher than the reliability of their articles, especially if the topic page is not attributed to any author. If you go a little further down the topic page, they have a list of all of their relevant articles, that can be sorted in date order. I sorted it oldest first (none from before 1981 reflecting that the name of the tax was changed from "minimum tax" to "alternative minimum tax" in the 1983 change to this tax), to see what they said before 1986. These articles are behind a paywall, but some of the summaries are useful to this discussion. A January 1983 New York Times article[60] opens saying "BEGINNING this year, the alternative minimum tax - a term that a relatively small number of Americans have been aware of, and a tax that relatively few have paid thus far -will have an effect on many more Federal income taxpayers." Later in 1983, a different New York Times article[61] by a different author said "ONE of the thorniest financial problems that many well-to-do taxpayers may face in the next few weeks is how they can avoid being subject to the new alternative minimum tax. The intent of the tax, which was revised and expanded for years beginning with 1983, ..." Then there is a third NY Times article by a third author in November that also says there was a revision and expansion in 1982.[62] It seems pretty obvious that the author of the topic page didn't reflect the New York Time's own articles on the subject. Since the topic page is both 1) not attributed to any author and 2) not reflective of the NYTimes articles on which it is supposedly based on I personally would elect to treat it as not a reliable source. Editors might look for actual NYTimes articles from later than 1986 that reflect this line, but I wouldn't use the topic page here. Also, there are other reliable sources out there, such as this PDF of a 2001 report of a Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress, in which page 16 lists the significant legislative history of the AMT and shows major changes (via use of italics) in 1969 (introduction), 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1990, and 1993. (Unfortunately, it uses congress-speak rather than plain language to describe the changes.)

GRBerry

16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original NY Times article that has the text in question [63]Mattnad (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that the author David Cay Johnston, is notable for covering tax issues. Mattnad (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rate that article as more reliable than the topic page (as you expected), and thus suggest that you should use that source instead of the topic page. It also has much more extensive discussion of the issue, and its entire discussion should be reflected

GRBerry

18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Mattnad, this is the reliable sources/noticeboard, your comment "Note this is not about reliable sources now (that's been established)." is exactly what my last post was trying to tell you and others, you didnt seem to understand it though. This thread and noticeboard is for talking about reliable sources, if you have established that this thread is about anything other than the reliability of a source then you must go back to the talk page of the particular article or somewhere else with this discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ http://www.livemint.com/2008/05/14234650/Eight-years-and-14-billion-la.html?d=1
2. ^ http://www.portfolio.com/executives/2009/04/22/20-Worst-CEOs?page=4
3. ^ http://infotech.indiatimes.com/quickiearticleshow/4444446.cms