Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46

Are two sources given sufficient citation for the special use of the word "outlaw" by those who call themselves "outlaw motorcycle clubs"? On the talk page the objection was raised that Dulaney and Drew have a "personal stake" in the issue. As far as I know, their only stake is that they write on motorcycling topics, which is to be expected of anyone who could possibly be a reliable source on this.

If not, what would be a reliable source to explain what "outlaw motorcycle club" means? --

I'll post here to try to keep this all in one place. A.J. Drew is a pagan author and rider/self-proclaimed member of a one-percenter club (that he never actually names). If we assume good faith, then his book is actually hard to claim has able to really truly say what the word "outlaw" implies to people not of the Outlaw MC subculture. Dulaney is a noted professor and great author who readilly admits his self interest in the subject, and this would still be fine, but the noted reference doesn't say what it is being purported to say. The jump of logic that is used to utilize his writing as a reference with this statement constitutes OR. It should be noted that the user wishing to keep this in has a history of contributions of a pro-"one percenter/outlaw biker" stance and anti-"99 percenter" stance, as can be seen via his contributions. I do not mean to imply anything via this statement, just that the user may not be able to look at this particular issue from the proper perspective. Hooper (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a problem of sourcing, but of misleading writing. In normal usage, the word "outlaw" doesn't imply criminal intent, but rather it refers to the status of being shunned or exiled, and often nowadays with a glamorous overtone.

For instance. Shorter Oxford:

One put outside the law and deprived of its benefits and protection; one under sentence of outlawry. b. More vaguely, An exile, a fugitive.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has a similar definition.

The outlaw motorcyclists need not fear being mistaken for bank robbers or muggers. Being an "Outlaw" doesn't mean you're up to no good. --TS 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a bit, and tried this diff version as a better wording and to lose the information that really isn't needed. Thoughts? Hooper (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. A.J. Drew is unreliable because he isn't a Christian? Is that the issue? And what is the source for the accusation that he is in an outlaw (or criminal club)? He was a member of the Harley Owners Group, according to his bio on his book. Where are you getting your information?

I've added three more sources saying "outlaw" is intended to mean disassociation from the AMA. I have no objection to improving the wording of the article to make clear that these clubs use "outlaw" to mean one thing while the normal sense of the word is different. --

talk

) 01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Hooper's passing comment, I am unaware of any formal "One Percenter" motorcycle club. One percenter is a term within North American motorcycle culture that arose several decades ago from an AMA statement that 99% of motorcyclists are upstanding citizens. In reaction, various individuals started adding "1%" patches to their jackets and "one percenter" became a catchall designation for a certain type of rider. Durova³²² 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That version of the one percenter story is apocryphal, as the

talk

) 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, the Hollister incident and its aftermath is at the root of the thing. You may be right about the element of misattribution in the term's original genesis, but the point is that I'm unaware of any formal club that uses the term in its name. Durova³²² 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance of motorcycle culture and jargon, but I believe that in general usage "outlaw motorcycle club" is synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang". Saying that these clubs are not sanctioned by the American Motorcycle Association seems to ignore the worldwide nature of outlaw motorcycle clubs (and gangs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! The central point is that when these groups call themselves outlaws they are not intentionally admitting to being criminals. That's all that's being said here. While non-bikers, the media, and law enforcement authorities have their opinions -- which are well represented in the article -- the bikers themselves define the word in a special way. It is not meant to argue one way or there other for the

talk

) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the general public sees "outlaw motorcycle club" as synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang", then the article should reflect that. That wouldn't make it an "attack page", just an accurate one. The fact that within the community the term may be used differently should be noted, but right now the article uses a lot of words in the introduction to distinguish these theoretically non-criminal "outlaw" clubs from the more common understanding of outlaw clubs. It is only much later in the page that there is a section describing "outlaw motorcycle gangs". This section misrepresents the nomenclature used by law enforcement. I think you will agree that the news media generally uses "outlaw motorcycle club" to mean the same as "outlaw motorcycle gang". Wouldn't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a neutrally-written article should tell the reader both what the general public thinks, and what the subject has to say for themselves. Now, if you have sources that show the actual criminal "outlaw motorcycle clubs/gangs" outnumber the non-criminal ones, please cite them. I'd be thrilled to include that kind of data in the article. The sources I've read seems to lean the other way: there are more "wanna-bes" and poesurs who join so-called "outlaw" clubs, wear the outfits and act tough, but only very few of these clubs are real criminal gangs like the Bandidos or Pagans. Best guess is that there are around 4,000 Hells Angels worldwide [1] while attendance at the Sturgis rally alone, where the "outlaw" image is the norm, exceeds 100 times that number [2]. But seriously, if you have good data on this question, be bold! Edit it into the article. All help is most welcome.

Note that yesterday I added

talk

) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The charity events section only serves to further cloud the issue by presenting these mythical non-criminal outlaw clubs as distinct from the "outlaw gangs", something which is done throughout the article and is also beginning to stray into related articles. The very definition of the word "outlaw", as shown above, involves a rejection of the law. The apparently mistaken origin of the 1%er term comes from the percentage of bikers who are not "law-abiding citizens". Ideally, a neutrally-written article doesn't get co-opted by those who want to distort public perception, but it can happen if people let it. There's a place for your minority viewpoint in the article, but it should be noted that it is a minority viewpoint. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The media calls Brother Speed an "outlaw" club [3], and they accept this title -- by the definition I've cited. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that Brother Speed is a criminal organization. Brother Speed is perhaps the poster child for guilt by association.

Almost from the moment of my first edit on these motorcycle gang/club articles, I've been under constant criticism from both pro- and anti- outlaw motorcycle partisans, each saying my edits are biased in favor of the other side, each assuming I must be either a cop or a gang member. So I think I must be doing something right.--

talk

) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply untrue. The article you linked says of Brother Speed: "Most of the victims belonged to the Brother Speed motorcycle club, officials said. The Oregonian reported that the group is identified by the state's Department of Justice as an outlaw biker gang". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? And? If you have any evidence that Brother Speed is a criminal organization, please post it at

talk

) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you a quote from a reliable source which states that Oregon's Department of Justice considers Brother Speed to be an outlaw biker gang. Note that it says "outlaw biker gang" not, as you misrepresented above, "outlaw club". You inserted a paragraph about a general term which most readers would interpret as pertaining to Brother Speed - in essence, you were negating the perception that they are deemed to be a criminal organisation. Why you did this is unclear since references already present in the article clearly identify Brother Speed as an "outlaw motorcycle gang". Why do think I need to bring this for discussion in the article's talk page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in supporting a wikicrusade to present outlaw MCs in any light, whether favorable or inflammatory. Let us just have NPOV articles on them. These additions and arguments are stretching and grasping and arguably OR and overly-pro on the subject. Hooper (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Oregonian "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is going on at Talk:Nightwish#Genres.2C_part_2 about what would be an appropriate way to source the genre of a band. Is a single review enough? As this is potentially a wider issue than just at this article, I'm interested in getting the opinions of a wider audience. —Ruud 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the number of sources necessary to make a specific statement seems to be a question beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Gabbe (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to is one specific instance of a more general problem which repeatedly appears at a large number of articles, so I don't think "specific statement" really applies. I'm also looking more for a qualitative than a quantitative answer. —Ruud 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is beyond the scope of this noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If only one source mentions the genre of the band, then examine the quality of that source, and perhaps wonder why other sources don't mention it. If other sources give a different genre, then you should either report both sides or go with what the majority of reliable sources say. Refer closely to

WP:NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk

) 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If one source mentions a genre, that's OK. If their choice is a little different that what you'd consider the genre of the band, then attribute. "Source X described band B as style G". Where articles run into problems is when they get five different sources each describing a band as a different but overlapping genre. That leads to edit conflicts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is in infoboxes which list the genre(s) of bands, musicians or the particular work which is the topic of the article: these genre classifications are sometimes cited but often not, and in many articles they are frequently changed. If every genre label ever applied to a particular artist is listed in the infobox it can get a bit silly sometimes. Allmusic.com is generally accepted as a reliable source for most Wikipedia purposes, but their artist pages have the headings "Genre" which appears to list almost everything as "Pop/Rock" and "Styles" which can include several subgenres. In the article prose it may be appropriate to mention and attribute differing views where applicable, but we can't (or shouldn't) write whole paragraphs in the infoboxes. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a question for the Reliable Source Gurus. I'm working on keeping Gerald Ford as a FA, and need a call on a source. The source is thus:

• "A Lifetime of Achievement". 4President.org. Retrieved 2009-09-29.

And purports to be a copy of Ford's 1976 campaign flyer. It includes, among other items, a brief biography that fleshes out some details about Ford's youth and family. Since this is essentially the candidate making statements about himself, how authoritative is it? Is it reliable enough about the claims it makes? Or should it be taken entirely with a grain of salt, since its purpose is to influence? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

4president.org doesn't have an about section. It isn't an archival repository. Given the passage of time (20+ years) the incidents have lapsed into history. SELF's reasonable citations have lapsed into PRIMARY sources. In this context, cite from a secondary source, preferably an academic work (though in this case, a book from a commentator outside the academic system but within the professional system of US politics would be fine). Then illustrate (ie: not verify, but expand or illuminate) the citation using the primary source. Sadly, 4president.org is not a reliable provider of primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The site gets 35 gbooks hits from books written by well known scholars and authors. So its reliability does not seem so bad. It seems good enough as a source for Ford's old campaign materials, which of course fall under self-publication or primary sources and should be used as we usually use them. If it says something extraordinary, attribute, if something humdrum that clarifies secondarily sourced material, maybe not.John Z (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Z more than Fifelfoo. I disagree with the whole presumption on Wikipedia that secondary sources are so great and primary sources are terrible and shouldnt be used. We need to change our idea on that and put each in their place. Primary sources are MORE reliable generally than secondary as they are closer in time and knowledge regarding the event/people in question; secondary sources are sometimes written by idiots who pretend to know what they are talking about in order to sell books and push their agenda. Use primary sources to VERIFY that a secondary source is truly using the information it presents without pushing an agenda. Use secondary sources to put primary source information into context. Since Wikipedia has regulations regarding synth and OR we cant use primary sources and draw conclusions, even though YES THAT IS WHAT REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS DO, they are written by professionals and therefore can do that, we cant because we have some editors who cant be trusted. We rely on secondary sources to draw conclusions and have commentary we can use, that is all they sould be used for, primary sources should be used for the actual facts. Primary source-facts; secondary source- commentary, conclusions drawn from, and synth of, primary sources.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not good enough to cite Ford's materials off there because there's no provenance of the materials, and because they're unconfirmed typescripts, rather than scans. There's no way to verify that the materials are actually the campaign materials. If well known scholars and authors have bad practice in citing primary materials, then they oughtn't to really be as well known as they are. Regarding Camelbinky's thoughts on verification strategies, the place to take that forward is at the policy and procedure pages, to change those. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to, all I have to do is convince enough people at this and other noticeboards that the way I put forth is the way we should have our consensus' come out in favor of. I dont have to change policy in order to change policy because consensus rules the day. Oh, and just about every single author out there has a "bad practice in citing primary materials" because they all have an agenda or theory they are promoting and cherry picking how they present their information, which they often dont present the primary sources correctly. I've written plenty of published articles with the various professors I've had the honor of working under as a grad student, so yea, I know what goes on in the "peer-reviewed" journals that Wikipedia holds in such high esteem. The publishing world doesnt give a crap about truth, please stop making it seem like if it is published by a reputable publisher/journal/whatever then it is "all-good". That is naive.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary source and secondary sources are better. Note that there are a lot of secondary sources about Ford, so there is no reason to rely on this. It may be of value to someone writing about his 1976 campaign, but has no place here. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered safely reliable for facts about Gerald Ford, if that is your question. Even if it's a genuine archive of material, it is only useful as a primary source for materials on that election campaign. I may be stepping out on a wiki limb here, but I think campaign literature tends to have bias issues, even in apparent "facts". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of this board is to ascertain reliability. Primary, secondary or self-publication is tangential, and whether and how campaign materials should be used is a question for individual talk pages. The opinions above are not so far apart; primary, self-published sources are often perfectly OK for facts. It is true that it is hard to see who is behind this particular site, but I argue that it does count as a genuine archive for campaign materials, as a reliable source, according to the reliable source guideline, in particular

Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources. That well-known scholars and authors use it provides very good evidence for the authenticity of the materials therein. It does not mean that they are engaging in a "bad practice in citing primary materials" but that they are doing exactly what experts do, confirming and verifying that the site accurately presents these campaign materials. They are the subject matter experts, and on wikipedia we have no alternative to relying on their expertise.John Z (talk

) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well known scholars are known to engage in all sorts of bad behaviour, like citing documents with no provenance, from a "repository" that an Archivist hasn't put their name to. Thankfully, Well known scholars aren't wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, this is not bad behavior, but ordinary academic practice. If a political scientist or author is familiar with campaign literature, and sees a website which is a good freely available source of it, why should the author not cite it? Why should we not use their knowledge and source vetting to improve wikipedia, as allowed for in the RS guideline? It is a lot easier to make up a phony "about us" page than it is to construct a site that passes the inspection of many independent experts well enough for them to cite it.John Z (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary academic practice, according to your statement, has fallen into a pit of horror in political science. Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't a Political scientist. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As one who has a degree in political science and is almost done with his masters in poli sci as well...I'm a bit disappointed in Fifelfoo, but I understand he was probably just joking. As I've mentioned about journals, newspapers, and book publishers- they dont fact check!!!!!!! Wikipedia needs to stop thinking that these reliable sources out there are double checking like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve ("yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" as one NY newspaper once said to a little girl who wrote in). Historians, political scientists, authors, and journalists arent perfect, get sloppy sometimes, and take things at peoples and websites words without always doing the legwork they should do; and of course being human they have their own biases and POVs they are pushing in their work even subconsciously. We need to lighten up here in Wikipedia about this type of thing or it will get to where nothing is allowed. Perhaps Wikipedians need to learn how "the sausage is made", it aint pretty but in the end the product tastes yummy.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad our disappointment is mutual. I like to know the name of my butcher, the address of his store, and to be able to post his name in libel bills if I get food poisoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a number of sites online that archive primary sources, such as political documents, FOIA-obtained documents, and the like. We should check to make sure that the repository has a good reputation for hosting documents. One way to achieve reputation is to see that it is cited by other reliable sources. The book citations that John Z found satisfy this. So, 4president may be cited. If people continue to debate this, it could be attributed as "4president, a repository cite quoted by X and Y", or we create an article about the website to wikilink to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A musician performs in a recital at Carnegie Hall. No notice or review appears in the press, and the venue's own database that could confirm her appearance isn't a published resource. The University where she later becomes a professor mentions the performance in its official "faculty bio" page about her, however. In the absence of other sources, can the musician's Carnegie performance be admitted into an article about her, based on the University's official bio page alone? If so, can other information from that bio page be likewise admitted when there's no traditional media source available? Here's the context, for those who are interested. Thanks, - Ohiostandard (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, no. There's a problem. University webpages are usually supplied by staff, often separately to CVs. Unipage says, "and most recently a solo debut at Carnegie Hall;" , Talkpage on article says, "I resorted to checking by phone with Carnegie Hall. I was told by an archives department employee that she had performed in a "dual recital" (ie with one other musician) in Carnegie Hall's Weill Recital Hall, on 24 Feb 2000" (User:Ohiostandard). Uh oh. That kind of discrepancy means that I am disinclined to trust the University webpage. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that talk page comment is totally irrelevant original research. It doesn't matter what some editor claims was said in a phone call. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so, Dlabtot. I acknowledged this in my 3 Oct 2009 posts (see below) previous to this your 4 Oct 2009 post, which you placed above, out of temporal sequence. Not really "top posting" in such a case, since you were responding to Fifelfoo, but I did want to reiterate that I do understand the WP:OR concern, and that I had commented on this previously. Thanks for your comment, Ohiostandard (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one area of

WP:RS that I don't get. If a primary source can't be used, then what's the point in allowing primary sources in the first place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One could focus on what is confirmed by Carnegie Hall, that she did debut there, without the word "solo". The university webpage would be OK for this, they are generally accepted for such claims, and could be used carefully as usual, for other claims. Using the email from Carnegie Hall would be considered OR to put information in an article, but there is nothing wrong with using it to leave something out of an article - the word "solo". The lack of performance date in the Washington Post mention referred to on the talk page (which says "solo debut" btw) does not make it fail

WP:V. There is no doubt that she performed there; whether "solo" should be used or not is a matter of fine judgment. That Carnegie Hall says they're "still in the labor-intensive process of building their internal database" casts a little doubt on their minor doubt-casting. She might have performed a dual recital in 2000 and a solo one later, before 2005.John Z (talk

) 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A clarification about the word "solo" as it's applied in music might be called for here, especially since the source pertains to a living person. It's my impression that in the context of music, "solo" doesn't at all imply "alone onstage". A Carnegie Hall press release about another musician illustrates this: "Violinist Glenn Dicterow made his solo debut at age 11 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic ..." Also, the Oxford Dictionary takes note of the unusual usage in musicology, viz. "Of musical instruments, or the players of these: Playing or taking the solo part." This is quite different from the way the word is used in most other contexts, e.g. in aviation. I can't remember whether I noticed the apparent discrepancy when I first heard the term from the archives staffer, but subsequent investigation into the terms leads me to the conclusion that "dual recital" probably doesn't conflict with "solo debut" at all. I do remember, btw, that I assumed the other performer had played some complementary instrument, e.g. a piano to the subject's flute. I'm not certain whether it'll help or hurt at this point to say so, but I made that assumption after the archives staffer commented that although the subject's performance was listed as a "dual recital" in their database, he could find no database entry to identify the other performer in the recital.

Thank you for your reply, Fifelfoo, and for recalling my attention to the phrase, "most recently", that occurs on the faculty bio page and that apparently refers to a year 2000 performance. I'd noticed that at one point, too, but had forgotten it. That error does tend to disqualify the source, even if it was a good-faith, unintentional result of a copy-and-paste from some outdated document or web page, as I assume it to be. Thanks, too, A_Quest for your comment, and John_Z for your well-considered and thoughtful reply. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being such a good, source focused editor! It seems like you barely needed RS/N at all; but it was nice for you to drop by! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks! You're too generous by half, though, to say so. I know it couldn't "show" from the above, but the process here has been very useful to me in itself, even apart from the valuable, explicitly-communicated information you (all) provided. That I had to review the matter in order to summarize it coherently was beneficial, and seeing what naturally happened because of my little

WP:SECONDARY than I had previously. Sorry to drag others through it with me, of course, but the process here is what allowed me to notice that I'd made a mistake at all, and then go on to evaluate it correctly as having considerable significance in its nature, if not (luckily) so much in its actual affects in this case. I probably wouldn't have "got" that anything like so well if someone had just told me I was wrong, and why. Ohiostandard (talk

) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: I didn't mean to shut the discussion down. Both more generally and also with respect to the particular article that occasioned it, the reliability of faculty bio pages is an important-enough question that anyone who has anything they'd like to contribute to this discussion should certainly do so. ( Provided the discussion hasn't been closed via the normal archiving process, of course! ) Ohiostandard (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out here that our bios on academics use their pages extensively to fill in details. Not sure if this is useful or proper in all cases but it is certainly very common. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Self-published sources such as this are acceptable for uncontroversial factual details about their own authors; see
    WP:SELFPUB. So, in the case in question, I would answer "yes": the information from the faculty bio can be included, as long as it does not form the basis of notability of the article and as long as there is no reason to doubt its veracity. —David Eppstein (talk
    ) 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming it's non-RS doesn't ring true to me. There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution. Besides, this goes further because this is citing the ACLU for a statement about the ACLU. I think the ACLU is reliable enough to report on its own activities. Any opinions? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More context would have been nice. Two removed ACLU PA sources are:

1. url=http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/g20case.htm |title=Code Pink vs US Secret Service |date=2009-09-11|author=ACLU-PA
2. name=ACLU-PA-G20> |url=http://blog.aclu.org/2009/09/24/fighting-for-free-speech-at-the-g20-in-pittsburgh/ |title=Fighting for Free Speech at the G20 in Pittsburgh |date=2009-09-24 |author=ACLU-PA

The first looks like a trivial data mirror of court records.

The second is an official blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both sides are wrong here. There were two refs in question: one from ACLU legal, another is from ACLU-hosted blog by a Sara Mullen. While the first one is OK, the second is not, since we don't know Sara Mullen and she does not speak of herself. - Altenmann >t 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To Fireflo: trivial or not, it is a verifiable statement of fact. - Altenmann >t 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, the original contribution also included the statement not evident from the sources cited: "After numerous denials of permits". - Altenmann >t 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Still more, the statement "successfully sued" is also kinda colored too pink: ACLU didn't get all what it wanted. And I am pretty sure that the mentioned "numerous permits" were stated too broadly, and sure thing, the officials were only happy and possibly right to refuse them. We don't hear both sides here. - Altenmann >t 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My conlcuding opinion: since the piece of text in question is a POV of the ACLU side in a 2-sided controversy, it must (1) strictly follow the sources, (2) always properly attribute the opinionated phrasing (such as "successfully"; BTW, this judgment is absent in the sources), and (3) of the two sources only the first one is IMO admissible, but I may be convinced otherwise regarding #3. - Altenmann >t 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the blog's window title. "Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union." Mullen is speaking as an authorised agents of the ACLU when writing that blog, she wrote it over the ACLU's signature. So you could quote that blog post for the ACLU's opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Official or not, it is still a blog. I don't understand the phrase "she wrote it over the ACLU's signature". And I still don't know who is she. There are plenty of angry radicals around, not all of them have an ability to stick strictly to facts. For example, Mullen writes "to intimidate members ... minor traffic violations". OK, may be. But... You have rights to protest by sitting in the middle of the street, but don't whine when you are jailed: you were probably looking towards this, to make more noise. While ACLU will call this episode "intimidation", other will call it "drama queen", regardless the cause is noble. In other words, ACLU members are not a neutral party to report its activities and any way they want. While they may present basic facts correctly, the opinions are heavily biased and better be seconded by independent sources. If the event was notable, I am sure the sources will be abound.- Altenmann >t 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

She is "Sara Mullen" who you just made reference to. Official statements of organisations are owned by the organisation. The fact that Sara Mullen has a by-line is nice, but the ACLU purports the blog to be an official blog: an utterance of the organisation's opinions. "Writing over a signature" is an office metaphor, often senior staff (those who voice for the organisation) will sign blank letterhead, allowing other staff to write letters or opinions on the page, effective "over" in hierarchical space ordering, the signature; the metaphor is used to describe delegations of speaking authority. The content of the blog doesn't go to its reliability. The opinions are generally best sourced from the primary source, "The ACLU believes,"..."". As you rightly point out, statements regarding fact are in wikipedia best sourced from non-self-published sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see it was an official statement of the organization. It was an opinion of a Sara Mullen. I.e., "Sara Mullen believes, "..."", rather than "The ACLU believes,"..."". Sounds less impressive, eh? Please don't tell me that ACLU allows its members to blog only views endorsed by the ACLU. - Altenmann >t 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is unambiguous, ""Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And...? - Altenmann >t 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a clear an unambiguous statement of corporate authorship. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. Also not clear what you mean under the term "corporate authorship". All posts are authored by named individuals. Unless you prove otherwise I assume that "official" merely means that only members may blog, unlike various blog-hosting websites. - Altenmann >t 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that two disinterested editors can disagree over if official blog (without clarification from the publisher) means official statements of the organisation to the outside world, or the only authorised blog for members to blog in relation to the organisation, I think we can fall over towards the case with lesser burden of demonstration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just two random editors disagreeing on something, no wider consensus. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Use as source for opinion of named author. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Both are RS. One is a press release from a chapter of the ACLU, which is a valid primary source about a particular protest march during the G-20. The attached court documents are also valid primary sources for G-20; the ACLU is reliable enough to serve as a repository for public documents. The second source is a staff blog of the national ACLU; While I prefer the first source be used, I doubt that any ACLU member could post to that blog. This is just like the staff "blog" of a newspaper, which is generally an RS if the newspaper is an RS. In this case, it would be the staff blog of a political advocacy group, and political sources can still be reliable secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What Squid says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No evidence it is staff blog. You still not answered what is Sara Mullen and what's her weight. If she is a notable person, the character of the blog is irrelevant. Political sources cannot be 100% RS: there is such thing as propaganda. So one has to carefully judge whether to use them and how, rather than indiscriminately throw links in. - Altenmann >t 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, a notarized affidavit? Are you familiar with the ACLU at all? It's huge. Of course it's a staff blog, it's not for the thousands and thousands of members to post on. And yes, the author is the assistant director of the Pittsburgh chapter and the head of community organizing.[4] And I suppose you're unaware that newspapers and academics publish biased stories and "spin" all the time. I'd rather quote from political sources, at least then you know what the point of view is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from mockery towards colleague wikipedians. Yes, I want a notarized affidavit, which is called "reliable source" in wikipedia. A Wikipedian's word ("of course it is staff's blog"- why?) is not. No I am not unaware that ..., and I see no disagreement here. Anyway, thank you for clarifying the personality. This should have been done at the very head of this thread to avoid the waste of time.. From my point of view the issue is closed: info from an ACLU chapter assistant director is reasonably reliable, if stripped from anti-establishment spin. - Altenmann >t 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

#Voice of America. - Altenmann >t 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I have read something about this somewhere, but I can't find it. Where is there information about how to find and use sources that are not available in English? Bielle (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:VUE, perhaps? Gabbe (talk

) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! That's exactly what I wanted. Thanks so much. Bielle (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an issue over at

In the Awards and recognition section of this article, the awards listed are cited as coming from www.eliseosoriano.com. My understanding of policy is that lacking reliable third party sources, this should not be included. Am I correct in this? - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog is a reliable source (relating to this entry by Meir Javedanfar). The Guardian itself would obviously be considered a reliable source. Comment is Free articles are commentary on news, not the news, and they do not go through the editorial process that news articles in The Guardian do. As there is no editorial control and no oversight, commentary and blogging posted there should not be considered as a reliable source for facts, right?

According to Comment is free: About us We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog.

From

This suggests that the Guardian Comment is Free blog/commentary should only be considered a reliable source for personal views (rather than factual) of Meir Javedanfar on the (still alive) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Comment is free" is one of the websites that falls into the category of "major news organisation that happens to publish in a blog style format". It is one of the articles that The Guardian uses to start off debate by readers. It should be treated as you say, like a signed opinion piece in the newspaper. It is reliable for the existence of this point of view, held by Mr Javendafar, possibly by others. You will have to decide whether this is a view that is notable enough to cover in the article. Please note that the reader comments following this signed piece are unlikely to be usable as a source at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable. Not only reliable, but it's probably the most prominent source for a counterclaim to this recent controversy. Newpapers all over the world are quoting this Guardian article at the moment, go do a Google News search and see for yourself. It definitely belongs in the biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles with the Ahmadinejad biography

Something is very odd about that biography. There is no mention of the recent controversy about his background which has been all over the news. There's a big hubbub on the talk page, with people taking straw polls and debating whether sources of the stature of the Guardian and the Telegraph are RS. The earlier query about WorldNet Daily was very odd. Nobody on that talk page was seriously proposing WND as a source. It also wasn't necessary for all the talk page editors to come up here and do most of the talking; this is a low-volume forum and the regulars here have a lot of experience with straightening out RS problems. I'd like to remind everybody that even if this story turns out to be nonsense, it's still notable nonsense, and describing how it was treated in the media is an important part of the biography.

I would recommend at least three particular articles be included in the biography of Ahmadinejad. One is the Telegraph article,[6] which popularized the idea that Sabourjian was a Jewish name. The second is the Guardian article[7], which based on expert interviews and sources says that the name Sabourjian simply means "thread colorer" or "carpet weaver". The third was an article published by the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in January [8], which was the first secondary source that suggested Sabourjian could be a Jewish name.

I believe that these three sources ( the third quoted with attribution that it is a US-funded source ) should be the core of any article section about the debate. If people want to add other sources that analyze these further, or if they want to add primary soruces such as the Khazali blog which RFERL quotes or the Iran state list of Jewish names that the UPI version of the story refers to,[9] that's fine, but those three seconary sources which everything else quotes should be included. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the advice from this board was clear about the status of the Guardian and Telegraph. I was a bit worried about recentism, and on that basis one user relegated the story to a footnote, but since the story is now in wide discussion that concern fades. The only area where there is some room for ambiguity is in the news/opinion distinction. We all agree that a signed Comment is Free piece is equivalent to a piece in the printed version of the Guardian. I was treating it as op-ed, but I agree that this particular piece presents sourced factual information. Perhaps we need to revisit this distinction in the policy and guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These are relevant paras in

WP:RS

that I was bearing in mind. Are they adequate to deal with a case like this?

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a debate about whether the Guardian article is an op-ed and what it can be cited for is part of the problem on that page. Here's what I see:

• The way I read that part of RS is that some op-eds and staff blogs are only reliable for opinion, but not necessarily all of them. An op-ed about the antics of "birthers" in The Nation is only good for opinion. A staff blog of the Monitoring Times magazine that gives the technical details behind a story is good for fact.
• I wouldn't really consider the Guardian piece an op-ed. It's an interview and an overview of other sources. The opinion would be that of the interviewees, not the columnist.
• I'm also not aware of any blanket ban on citing op-eds in BLPs or of citing facts from staff columns. Like many other areas of WP, this should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
• Technically, if the Guardian interview is cited for a fact about the name Sabourjian, not the person, we only need RS, not the extra caveats for BLP.
• In a broader sense, all three pieces I suggested, the Guardian, the Telegraph, and Radio Liberty, are, if not the opinions of their authors, ideas and should be cited with attribution. Something like "The Guardian ran an article, citing various experts, that Sabourjian simply means 'thread dyer' or carpet weaver and is not necessarily a Jewish name" would work.
• Keep in mind these aren't obscure stories. This was more of an "opinion leader" situation where the information being published became news in itself and was covered in thousands of outlets. While WP is NOTNEWS, if I walk into a bookstore ten years from now and buy a biography of Ahmadinejad, I would expect it to explain this issue. Our biography should too.
• There was another question about whether the Guardian article could be cited for details about his family where he grew up, the debate based on whether it was an opinion piece. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the article for that, but we may be able to find a book about him that has the same information. I would tag with "refimprove" rather than deleting sourced content.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Is Daily Mail UK a RS? Daily mail gives Rachel Zoe's birthday as 1 September 1968. Zoe tweeted her birthday being 1 september; many fasion mags reporting on her parties also reported birthday as being 1 september it. Thus many editors have added 1 sept 68 as her birthday, but one editor keeps reverting/deleting it out; but then doesnt add a source. 70.108.85.109 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the reverting editor directly about their sources?

I do not consider the Daily Mail a reliable source: however if it's the only third-party source of information which happens to be true then I suppose it's better than no source at all. I had a similar problem with Vitas' date of birth: apparently his real D.O.B. (19 Feb 1979) is common knowledge among Russian fans, but trying to find Reliable Sources is another matter entirely. Sources agree he was born 19 Feb but disagree about the year. Most sources about Vitas which are not Wikipedia mirrors or blogs etc. are foreign and unfamiliar to me so I have no idea of their comparative reliability. I vented my frustrations on the talk page. If a celebrity chooses not to publicise their real age you could spend a great deal of time and effort trying to verify it. Or you could run away, fast. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By reading the edit summaries the sources given dont meet their standards, yet they dont add a source. The NYT also says her age/dob : http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/chic-in-review-how-old-is-rachel-zoe/?pagemode=print . 70.108.85.109 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the Daily Mail would be a reasonably reliable source for information of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources used at the article, and the discussion on the talk page, all need attention. The major editor, User:Abotnick, doesn't seem to get the point. User:Risker as tried to remove improperly sourced material. Would some editors please take a few of the refs being used and explain to Abotnick why they don't meet our standards here, and why his reasoning is faulty? Personal letters and unverifiable information aren't legitimate as sources here, even if the truth thus can't be told here.

He's actually right about what he writes. There is a cover-up, but if we can't find V & RS to document it, we can't really write about it. I have tried, but he needs to hear from others why other sources need to be used to tell the story. It should be possible to tell part of the story using V & RS. --

Thank you for recognizing the severity of the problem Brangifer. The nature of a cover up is to hide information. Barring a news publication on it in the future I don't see indirect sources forthcoming so the article will remain a shill for the diploma mill.Abotnick (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The "severity of the problem" at the moment is that the article included many sources that don't qualify for use here. While I agree that there is a cover-up, and that the school and Big Sid are far from clean, Wikipedia has some rules that must be followed. I don't think that the article has to "remain a shill" (and it isn't a

talk

) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis has questioned the use of TeleSUR as a source in the article. I'm aware of its orgins and history and don't feel they disqualify it from use as a source. What do others think? Rsheptak (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. "The Venezuelan-backed

Control Risks and Stratfor, they typically use that style of attribution. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 14:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Memory Alpha, a fan wiki, suitable for use as a source when citing in an article?

• Not generally, no. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• It's an open wiki, and most open wikis are not considered reliable sources (just like Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source). See
  WP:SPS. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a big discussion on it somewhere. It's related to a Stargate FAC, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. They do interviews and articles, and I can't remember what the reliability was decided on those. Any wiki part would not be reliable, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am involved in a discussion about two sources I brought. Another editor disagrees with me. Please see Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#mentalblog.com_as_a_reliable_source and comment there. Debresser (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I just now saw that there is a section above, opened by my opponent without giving notification on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly not. The NYT isn't opining on science, it's reporting the consensus of "most climate scientists". I've reverted with a note to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that scientific journals are more reliable than the NYT... especially for statements of scientific fact. However, that does not mean that the NYT is unreliable. In this case, it is not being used for a statement of scientific fact, but for a claim that "climate scientists generally agree" about something. For such a claim, the NYT is absolutely reliable.

That said... If there is any real debate about the claim (in other words if someone can reasonably argue that climate scientists don't generally agree on the issue) then the claim should be attributed... as in:

• According to a New York Times report, although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999, climate scientists generally agree that global temperatures are likely to continue to increase in the long-term. <ref>citation to NYT.</ref>

I don't think there is debate on this claim, so my personal opinion is that attribution is not needed. It is an option however. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to disagree about the absolutely reliable comment. When anyone is giving a subjective opinion couched in statistical terms that does not make it a reliable source for data. You have to consider the context and semantics. --BozMo talk 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek and Blueboar, thank you for the input and suggestions, helpful as always. Unfortunately, another editor, User:Tony Sidaway doesn't agree with you and has just reverted Sarek. Cla68 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd no idea that Cla68 had referred the problem here. As this is a scientific matter for which there are many reliable scientific sources that discuss this issue directly, it seems perverse to me to quote a sidelong comment from New York Times in an article which is about the problems of communicating the science to the public. The consensus on the talk page is against inclusion, or at the very least not significantly for it. The problem is that undue attention is being given to short term events in the context of a multi-decadal climate shift. That is to say, undue weight to this source would give a misleading impression. --TS 16:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree - the statement "Although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999," is a scientific one. The reason that popular media aren't useful on science articles, is lack of scientific editorial oversight. In this particular case (as i stated on the Talk page) there is also a significant problem with

WP:WEIGHT. Finally it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that this is written by a columnist (thus editorial oversight is even smaller). And even though Revkin is rather accurate on this particular subject - it still falls short of the mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk

) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable. How to use it is editorial discretion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded and added a quote from a Met Office press release,[10] but I agree that there are problems with weight here. --TS 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats an interesting absolute statement. Are you saying that columnists in the NYT are reliable on all topics? Or is it Revkin in particular? I had the (apparently wrong) assumption that reliability was based upon editorial oversight, and context. (both of which are a problem here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable. A wiki article on a scientific topic should therefore not cite newspapers. If you write about something that is covered in a newspaper and you can't find a better source for it, then you could give a citation to the newspaper temporarily until a better source is found. In case it is clear that the newspaper article is in conflict with results published in peer reviewed journals, then you can't include that in the wiki article at all.

Example: A large number of newspapers reported that Special Relativity had been violated in an experiment. All these newspapers reports were wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see scientific sources for scientific articles. Readers who want to know more about the subject would be better served by information sourced to scientific journals. What does it mean that the climate has been relatively stable or that scientists generally agree? What is a scientist? A scientific article would explain what these terms meant and how they reached their conclusions. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What's useful about newspaper articles, and this particular NYTimes article is a good example, is that they can aggregate and summarize in one location the opinions expressed by scientists and scientific organizations. Anyway, WP policies currently allow this source to be used in this way, so until the policy is changed, I believe the editors who keep removing the content in question are in violation of WP policy. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. We don't have to include everything that is reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I find spurious claims of unreliability such as this one to be extremely annoying. Dlabtot (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, it won't happen again. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it will happen again, believe me. Dlabtot (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's another one. Gerald Ford, during his days in Congress, had a reputation as a "Congressman's Congressman". The source currently cited is an overview of President Ford's life from the University of Groningen which, while it may be reliable, is far from the high calibre source we need for the FA (Owing to being an unsourced html summary, not a scholarly work or relevant news article) Congress itself, in a resolution celebrating what would have been Ford's 96th birthday, noted this reputation as follows:

Whereas Gerald R. Ford's contributions to the Foreign Operations and Defense Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives earned him a reputation as a 'Congressman's Congressman';

Since the reputation was held by congress and congressmen, and since the resolution naming the reputation also comes from congress, and since it's officially passed legislation, is it reliable to back the term "Congressman's Congressman"? Phrasing and context would be key, obviously. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is here, and is authentic, as it comes from the Library of Congress. I'm not seeing passage, though; just a referral to committee with 53 co-sponsors (!). So, hmm. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If those co-sponsors didnt vote yes label them flip-floppers!Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The resolution appears to be a reliable source. Also, it is uncontroversial. There was a more collegial atmosphere in Congress then. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The following issue surrounds the Acupuncture page.

I had cited 4 different reviews for a statement that reviews show the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating osteoarthritis symptoms under the evidence-based medicine section. Originally 3 sources were removed with the change summary: "don't need four references when there is one specific, detailed study" Later 2 were returned because another editor intervened commenting on how we should have lots of MEDRs for a controversial topic, but 2 were left out in the end because: "removed the less specific English one and the Hebrew language one for accessibility and specificity and combined it to one reference only since it is unnecessary and ugly to have four references after a statement."

Now, the Hebrew article has an english abstract as one can see in the link below. It stated: "The studies have shown that acupuncture serves as an effective complementary treatment to standard care, improves function and provides pain relief for people with osteoarthritis of the knee."

The article is published by Harefuah, which is published by the Israel Medical Association, which I believe makes it reliable enough and peer-reviewed. Harefuah provides their abstracts in English. Now, my question is: Are reviews that are in a Non-English language, but have an English abstract that summarizes its conclusion in a straight-forward manner not allowed on Wikipedia?

Here is the link to the review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674552 - 99.229.146.30 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address (

talk

) 06:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be possible since I am on an Rogers, an ISP that uses dynamic IPs, so I probably have an IP that was used in the past by someone else. I am not him though if that's what you're suggesting.99.229.146.30 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IP guy here. Does anyone have any feedback besides accusations of me being an IP sock?JohnCBE (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Captain Occam has acknowledged that the actual research studies are better to cite than blogs that speculate about their meaning.

19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked before as to whether a fan site claiming to hold interviews or other correspondence with experts in a field can be used to cite an article. WP:RS seems to be against their use, may I have this confirmed with the site above? The FAQ for the site doesn't seem to imply any sort of editorial process etc.

Interviews may be reliable for statements of the interviewee, if they're an expert. I don't think we've come up with a great way to say if a site is good enough to believe their interviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What if it exists as the only source for this statement? Is there any way to verify that interviews or correspondence listed on fan sites are the actual text verbatim?

talk

) 08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is allmusic a reliable source if the album overview being cited is written by Stephen Thomas Erlewine? 98.66.145.167 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think allmusic has shown up on this board before. Check the archives (see that little search box at the top of the page). I'll check back later and see what I can find. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is used a ton for something. Not sure what. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the All Music Guide a published book? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP is talking about allmusic.com, which I consult frequently, although I've never used it as a source here. I personally would consider them reliable for facts like song listings, etc., not however for establishing notability, as they do attempt to catalog ALL MUSIC. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the basic read from the archived discussions. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe allmusic.com comes from the book. If the online version of the guide is still relatively the same breadth ( unlike, say, last.fm which seems to have something about every artist ) I would be OK for notability of bands. And in either case I'd be OK for notability of a genre. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The website does indeed cover just about every artist. Not sure what book you are talking about. Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bound "All Music Guide" that I've seen. Our article on

Allmusic explains. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Information in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article is being sourced to http://mentalblog.com , a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. As I understand those who argue for its inclusion, they say that the material in question is found on a pdf scan of a document signed by Schneerson (see http://mentalblog.com/filedepot/PDF/RAMASHwills.pdf ), and is therefore reliable, regardless of the fact that the scan is found on a blog. Does this, in fact, make the source reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentalblog is not an archive, and is not reliable for the storage and retrieval of documents with controlled authorship and provenance. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the scan appears to show that the will is housed in the Harvard College Library, Widener Library. Surely someone could be dispatched to verify it there. I'm not sure what it is going to be used for, but as a primary source it's a document that needs to be used with great care. --Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is Lipkin's book which is found in the Harvard library (which I have checked online is indeed the case). Debresser (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In a related discussion, is Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider giving us a place of publication, publisher, year of publication, type of work (Journal article, chapter in edited collection, monograph, pamphlet) and what you're intending on using it as a reliable source for? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. User:Debresser added it as a source in this edit, then steadfastly refused to even provide a page number from it, much less explain why it was reliable. He insisted asking for page numbers from book citations was "preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Works without publication provenance are inherently unreliable. For the requirement for page numbers (which I do expect as an element of reliability), specific claims would require specific citation. A pamphlet work under 10 pages may not require a page reference. A pamphlet work under 10 pages is highly unlikely to be a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to use this book [19] which would be a better, secondary source for the information cited.--Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I attempted to use it as a source, but was almost immediately reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Both the book Lipkin, Binyamin (2000). Heshbono shel olam. Lod, Israel: Mekhon ha-sefer. and the website "PDF of Schneerson's will" (PDF). 27 February 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 November 2006. bring a copy of the will. So it is not their reliability at question at all, unless we want to accuse them of falsification. Debresser (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how the blog, PDF, or Lipkin's book qualify as

reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk)

04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (copied from talkpage)

Sorry, could you please respond in a way that is relevant to

WP:RS? Preferably with sources? Jayjg ^(talk)

05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if you could specify what it is you think should be provided. Plain English would be preferred to the above abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example,

WP:SPS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." Now, can you explain what makes the mentalblog.com blog an exception to this rule? Jayjg ^(talk)

05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the book citation, Google ""Mekhon ha-sefer"" as a phrase shows five search results, the first is wikipedia, the remaining four are poor quality specialist book indexes. Does the publisher normally go by their Hebrew orthography? If so, could you supply that. This makes me concerned that the publisher is Vanity implying the book is Self-published and unreliable for wikipedia purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. So what if mentalblog is not an archive? The document stands on its own. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to everyone who is familiar with it. And the use to which it is being put in the article is simply to cite what it says. No interpretation at all, so no secondary source required. -- Zsero (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So that's your justification for this edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What is your problem with that? So long as the will itself appears on its face to be genuine, and there is no reason to doubt it, it makes not the slightest difference where the scan is hosted; for all I care it could be at World Weekly News or some such site. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely wrongheaded. The source is the will. RS is about sources, not about publishers. A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance. However, any issue here should be about whether the copy provided is authentic, not about whether the sources is reliable. A primary source (if authentic) is reliable on topics that are permitted under the primary sourcing policy. ^Bongo_matic 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the PDF found on the blog is an accurate representation of the will? Why would this blog PDF be preferred to a reliable secondary source, written by a professor of Jewish studies, who is already cited 10 times in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The real question is what makes you suspect that it is not? The signature is instantly recognisable, and the document shows no sign of alteration. The will is a primary source, and therefore by definition a better source for what it says than any book by some professor in China, who has no personal knowledge of the subject. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing makes me think that at all—did I say otherwise? I said that the will is a primary source and is appropriate for verifying noncontroversial material if the authenticity is not in dispute. As such, this is not the appropriate forum for discussing whether the putative copy of it hosted on a particular web site should be cited. It would be helpful if commentators would read and try to comprehend before a knee-jerk reaction. Again: this is not a question about the reliability of a source, but the authenticity of a document. You raise another question here too—also one that is not fitting for this forum—as to whether the information that this primary source is used to support is better off being cited to a secondary source instead. I have no opinion in this particular case, but generally I find primary sources to be better for demonstrating facts than secondary ones (such as awards, which are frequently unintentionally bungled by secondary sources). ^Bongo_matic 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the comments below, which explain exactly why this material is not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion essentially takes place on the talkpage, so I'd advise all to go there. Debresser (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much on the talk page that is not already here. Two sources have been questioned: Lipkin's book and a PDF of a will. Fifelfoo has given standard answers in each case. The book is not reliable unless you can show that it is from a mainstream publisher and not self-published. The PDF of the will is a primary source. Are there any other aspects that editors on this page need to consider? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I (above) have provided a third, a secondary source, published by a publisher of amongst other things) academic works. [20] We should always use the best sources. I am a loss to see why this hasn't been snapped up as the obvious solution to the double issue of the questionable primary source. --Slp1 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1's book is published by a commercial book publisher. The publisher describes themselves as, "Today, KTAV is famous for its teaching devices, its scholarly publications and its educational texts." and from their webpage and offerings appears to be. The book Slp1 recommends, Ehrlich, The Messiah of Brooklyn, is available in English, and for sale, and is partly google accessable. I'd suggest strongly that you go with the secondary source specifically on topic, that's a RS, towards the higher grades of RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did, with this edit. I was reverted two minutes later. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There can be no source more reliable than the document itself. The notion that KTAV has fact checkers who verified Ehrlich's claims, let alone that they're so thorough that their checking would have gone beyond looking at this scan or one like it, is ludicrous. The entire premise of the whole "RS" schema fails in a case like this. -- Zsero (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thesis depends on your confidence that the document is genuine, and in the ability and desirability of WP editors determining that the documents have not been tampered with. I don't personally doubt that the document under discussion is the genuine article, but I am not qualified to make such a determination. Example: Anyone could easily take a copy of a will, photoshop in a copy of Schneerson's signature, post it on a website, and voila, I would be very easily fooled into believing in its authenticity. Perhaps you would too? Given that there is a controversy here and even a second "unsigned" will in this case, such a deception is even a possibility, no? What happens if you say it is genuine and I say it isn't? These issues are why WP cannot and does not permit its editors to make this kind of evaluation of authenticy. In contrast, we do have more confidence that books published by mainstream publishing houses have authors and editors that do have the requisite qualifications. --Slp1 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What "requisite qualifications"? Do you seriously believe, and expect us to believe, that the highly qualified editors at KTAV would have insisted on seeing the original will rather than relying on a scan like this one? Do you seriously believe, and expect us to believe, that they did any detailed fact-checking on Ehrlich's book before publishing it? That is not how they work. They wouldn't even know whom to ask. And that is doubly true of any academic journal or publisher. -- Zsero (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they have more qualifications and resources to do this job than you and me and the rest of WP editors. Obviously you disagree. What you are disagreeing with, however, challenges a very fundamental tenet of

reliable sources. If you want to continue this challenge, I suggest you do it on the talkpages of those articles, and try to change the guidelines/policies themselves.--Slp1 (talk

) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, a few observations. An image of a will hosted at a third-party blog is not RS, unless other RS's cite or link and vouch for the image hosted at the blog. However, it may be allowable as an EL if it's non-controversial. Another suggestion for an auxilary reference: if the will is housed in Harvard's libraries, they've probably assigned an OCLC number to it, and a cite to Worldcat would be usable to show that the will exists ( and would also be an aid to researchers ). As far as books, we generally assume books are RS unless they are shown to be fringe or self-published. I don't believe that's the case, so the book should go in as a reference. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite obviously not a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward that in most cases nothing hosted on a blog ought to be used as a reliable source for any claim. There are narrow exceptions, particularly if the blog is published by a recognized expert in the field for which it is cited, but those don't seem to apply here. We have no capacity to judge whether the PDF is authentic or not; such a determination must be made by experts, publishing in reliable sources in the real world, not by Wikipedia editors who think the authenticity of the signature should be obvious to everyone. Even I can fake a will and add an authentic-looking signature. To address the book: if information about the reliability of the publisher can't be found, then the book should be assumed to be self-published and its reliability suspected as a result. Nathan ^T 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have organisations involved in a controversy that was covered widely in the mainstream press (eg all the world's major newspapers and technology magazines reported on the controversy). For interest's sake, the controversy surrounds Microsoft and the International Standards Organisation, which passed Microsoft's

Sources direct from the horses' mouths are best used to further illustrate or provide direct quotes for points made by secondary sources, if they are used at all. And this is because while secondary sources don't always cover a controversy (or anything, for that matter) in the greatest detail possible, third-party, reliable, secondary sources are the major determinant for what is

significant with regard to any given topic. Someguy1221 (talk

) 04:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite the source, and name the article and section, people are disputing? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TO 'Someguy1221': Your advice sounds good... that reliable secondary sources are a good gauge of what is significant, compared to what is trivia or undue.

To 'Fifelfoo': Yes, I can give examples. Article is Office Open XML, in the lede. This reference from the ISO was recently inserted against article text that said it's "a free format" (free can mean anything), though I notice the article text has just been changed to "a freely available format". It's not how the mainstream media describes it, as extended delays in publishing format revisions have resulted in complaints from nations that it is not available on equal terms to all, even though it is free-of-cost. I feel that controversial subjects should be described from independent sources.--Lester 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a preferred orthography which isn't all caps, you can reference it by looking at my username in my sigs. The article said when I checked near 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "available to anyone for download free-of-charge" and referenced against this link which seems like a trivial and obvious claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps. Yes, the text changed again. Some are determined to get the words "free" or "open" into the article. I guess that using secondary (newspaper) references, it helps not only with accuracy, but also creates a barrier to putting trivia (or undue weight) in there. Thanks, Lester 10:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we still beating this dead horse? I'm aware there some controversy about whether this format is truly "open" or not, but independent secondary sources, citations from advocacy groups (with attribution), notable opinions from the governments involved, and statements from MS or ISO themselves ( primary sources in an article about themselves ) are all RS. This really isn't an RS issue. Sounds more like an NPOV or undue weight issue, and probably belongs at a different noticeboard. Just attribute everything as "X said Y" and try to avoid giving too much weight to overinterpretations of the word "free".

That said, if OOXML is covered by a patent, even if the owner grants a free license to use, then that's still a "free as in beer" situation and we should use the compromise wording "freely available" in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Squidfryerchef. I guess attribution is the key, as you say. --Lester 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is material uploaded to www.hotlinkfiles a reliable source? This issue has arisen in connection with the

Can you please cite the document being linked to? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the present version of the article, the following links are used: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The linked files are a number of .doc files and one .pdf. hotlinkfiles.com is not a publisher. This makes them "Any old files uploaded to the web." Ie: SELF published. Additionally, the article in question is full of a number of dubious SELF publications which look like advertspam by the Living Person in question and her family. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Removing the self-publications was one of the things I tried to do in a recent copyedit although I was reverted. You may wish to contribute to the RFC. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these files referred to or linked to by any reliable sources? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I're-removed this dubiously sourced content from

Controversy

Christian group Focus on the Family has described Soulforce as "wolves in sheep's clothing," and has stated that the purpose of their actions is not "dialogue and greater understanding -- it's to tempt [others] to embrace a false doctrine, which will keep many from the gospel message of hope and transformation for those who are trapped in homosexuality."(http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=54626&terms=soulforce). Soulforce has responded to accusations from Focus on the Family through organixed direct action events,(http://www.soulforce.org/article/130) and by producing an article in response to statements made by Dr James Dobson (http://www.soulforce.org/article/false-focus-family).

I feel it's a textbook case of

I did not create this content but it is well sourced, it is neutrally worded and it only states Focus on the Family's opinion and does not treat it as fact. The previous uses has been edit warring to remove it for reasons I can only guess at. - Schrandit (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you edit-war to re-add content, especially contested content you're considered the author. The reason I, and others removed it were given at the time but let's see what uninvolved editors who specialize in sourcing have to say.

-- Banjeboi

18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm neither a) an unbiased editor on this issue [says the man with a page named after gay porn fetish slang] nor b) someone with much experience in source debates, it seems pretty clear to me that Focus on the Family's opinion would be notable if it was referred to by a reliable secondary source (such as National Review or Christianity Today or some other sympathetic site). But here is a case where all we have are what are essentially press releases from the group (going through an obscure website). I tend to think that it's not relevant to anything. I also have a clear aversion to 'Criticism' sections in the first place, since they seem to be edit war magnets.

I hope that helps. The Squicks (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

www.onenewsnow.com is edited by journalists, but its mission statement is to produce "the day's news from a biblical perspective". This is a non-standard view of journalism in the west, and puts the website in the same category as other politically or religiously motivated publications. The size of the organisation is also a worry. The onenewsnow source seems to be reliable in reporting the opinions of Focus on the Family. These opinions aren't necessarily encyclopedically significant to an article on Soul Force. Take it to UNDUE. Soulforce, as an activist organisation, is not reliable for reporting on its own actions. The link to the pamphlet is also miscited. Either cite the pamphlet properly as a publication, or don't include it. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The website just does not seem like an acceptable source to me. Of course, I could be wrong. But I would greatly prefer to see 2nd and 3rd party material on this and I would prefer to hold back on including criticism until then. The Squicks (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Many US colleges and universities have student-run newspapers. Examples include the

Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can make a blanket statement on... It really depends on the reputation of the specific student-run newspaper in question. Some have high editorial standards and are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this take. Some are highly respected and should be considered reliable, others less so. — e. ripley\^talk 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The specific newspaper I am interested in is the | Williams Record, but, obviously, I would not expect anyone to have an opinion on it specifically. Would it be fair to say that there is no presumption for or against a specific college newspaper and that it would depend on the topic of the article?

talk

) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of a presumption for student newspapers. They do have editors. I would say that particular one is reliable (it's 120 years old), although the particular statement and source can of course effect that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, very loudly, except for student sports results (something difficult to get wrong). They have editors, but these are people barely out of their teens whose next newspaper job is typically making tea for proper journalists. Some may be brilliantly honest journos in the making, but we have no way of distinguishing them from the rest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you would recommend that all the citations in Wikipedia to the Harvard Crimson, say, be deleted since the Crimson is not a reliable source?

talk

) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are some things like sports results where they can be RS. But RS requires a reputation for fact checking, and universities tend not to sue the student newspapers (and students don't have the funds or energy to sue), so the pressure's a bit off the fact checking. My own experience of Cherwell is that student newspapers are rather like tabloids - most things are true, but...if it's anything controversial, the newspapers are simply not under the same pressure as real papers like NYT, The Times etc to get things right. They're rather like news blogs that just don't quite make it to RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes, the key question is: What is the reputation of the Williams Record?... has it won awards or been recognized for its journalism. My inclination is to call it reliable (Williams College is highly respected and I would expect them to have a high quality newspaper) but I don't really know enough to make a judgement.

That said... looking at the AfD, the reliability of the paper is not the real issue... the issue is the localness of the paper (and the other sources that are cited). The key question is whether there is any coverage of the subject (EphBlog) from beyond the local area of Williams College. That is a question for

WT:NOTE and not one for this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk

) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I agree that whether or not the Williams Record is a reliable source is largely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not

talk

) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see two separate issues here. First, are college newspapers good sources for establishing notability? Second, are they reliable as to their accuracy? As regards notability, I don't think they are good sources for establishing the notability of people and things related to their own college. College newspapers cover some topics that are only of interest on their own campuses. If the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group at Harvard, that wouldn't impress me much as to the group's notability. On the other hand, if the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group from UCLA, that would tend to help establish notability for the group because that would mean that the group was receiving attention outside their own college community. The fact that a Williams College newspaper mentions a blog about Williams College does not necessarily indicate that the blog is notable outside the college (the blog could be notable, but it would need some attention from outside the college community as well). Then, as regards accuracy, college newspapers are not only subject to all the possible sources for error that professional newspapers are, but additional sources of error as well -- they are mostly written by amateur reporters and supervised by amateur editors, all of whom have to fit their reporting in their spare time around their classwork. The more contentious a statement, the less willing I would be to source it to a college newspaper. However, it looks like this is not a particular concern in the EphBlog article; the main reason that article cites the Williams Record is to establish that the Record has mentioned the blog, and obviously the Record is reliable as to whether they are mentioning the blog, whether or not their statements about the blog are accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example, no. On Dit, is from an old university, and once had gratuitous photos of students engaging in nude mud wrestling and other junk. The editors also once bragged in their column that they used the funds to buy porn and marijuana. Not RS at all. More like a troll-blog. Includes doctored images of politicians they don't like (typically right winger ones) in scandalous poses and so forth. I've seen other ones that are similar to this, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See Yellow journalism and United States journalism scandals. The Chicago Tribune under Colonel McCormick said that Franklin Roosevelt was as commnistic as Stalin. In the 1960's the Tribune published a photo of nailheads in a door and claimed they were bullet holes where black militants had fired at police before being shot to death. The New York Times had reporters who simply made up stories, which is true of numerous other major news sources, such as CBS News and the bogus memos about Bush's National Guard service. College papers can be reliable sources. Edison (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

College newspapers can be RS. They have an editorial board, and some of the writing in college newspapers is better than what I've seen in conventional newspapers. I definitely wouldnt characterize them as training grounds so they can "make tea for proper journalists". Their next stop might be writing penetrating analyses at a business consulting firm or at the U.S. State Dept. As far as establishing notability, I would treat them like a local hometown newspaper. A mention in a student newspaper wouldn't count towards notability for things that happen at the same college, just as a mention of the local Little League team in a small town newspaper doesn't establish notability. But, like Metropolitan90 says, if the newspaper at another college runs an article about something, then yes that does count towards notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms expressed above about college newspapers might as easily apply to commercial newspapers in towns of comparable size to the college (or to big city newspapers in many well documented cases). The editors of "real" newspapers often get things wrong, often play favorites and promote issues they favor, or write flattering puff pieces about family members or favorite causes of major advertisers, and engage in boosterism. A small town paper may hire reporters of less intellectual ability and no more honesty and diligence than staffers at a college paper.

Is the BNP a reliable source for A: thier opinions B: thier statements C: Thier ppolicies ?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to British National Party? Depends on the context, I'd say. What specific source are you looking for? Speeches, Official Website, Press Releases...? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeo thats the lads. As to context. As an example [[28]] (the source is ironicly not from the BNP (so does beg the question did the person who removed it even check it)) but clearly states tyhat the BNP could not considerd a source for this claim. So the context is. Are statemtns issued by the BNP either as press releases or on thier web sire RS for thier views or opinions?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends. The BNP has been accused of hiding its true agenda, so care must be taken in reporting their statements at face value. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true, but it is an accusation (made maiinly by those who have a publicly stated anti-BNP agenda. Also all that is, mbeing asked is are they RS for their statments, not that we take them at face value, but that we can qoute and say "the BNP say this"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the edit cited by Slatersteven above. The first link discusses a quote from a New Year's message by Nick Griffin. However, it is cited to Heretical.com, which appears to be another white nationalist site and thus a
  fringe source that should be avoided as a source. Since the statement was being included in the article just to establish that Griffin made the statement (not necessarily that the statement was true), it should have been cited to the BNP web site at [29] instead. The second link is a claim that the British government is denying information to the MEPs from the BNP, which is cited to the BNP web site. That should not be cited to the BNP web site, because they are an opposition party to the government and thus are biased with regard to this issue. On the other hand, the Guardian has discussed this issue and this information could be cited to there. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the BNP RS for their response to this? Also on a wider popint is the BNP RS for what they say? This point has still not be answerdSlatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a statement of the BNP appears on the BNP web site is reliable evidence that the statement was actually made. But the BNP is considered a fringe source, and as The Four Deuces says, they have been accused of trying to clean up their image with their public statements but not necessarily sincerely. So the fact that the BNP has made a statement is not necessarily good evidence that they believe the statement, much less that the statement is true. Their status as a reliable source is, for most purposes, not very reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So if they say they did not beleive something we cannot use them as a source for the fact they say they do not beleive it? Or as a source for their denile of an accusation (as long as the accusation if in the article)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to provide details as to exactly what source you want to use and what you want to use it to support. That would enable us to give you a more specific response. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking for a general rule of thumb. I fail to see why it is so hard to say if the BNP are RS for thier claims, not RS for those claims being true but RS for the fact they have made those claims. In a way I aqm asking are they RS for thier opinions, not for teh veracity of those opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor in comments on the talk page of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis has questioned the use of VOA news stories as sources for facts in the article. Other opinions.? Rsheptak (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to this and the above thread- in any instance in which a media outlets independence, motives, leanings, or neutrality is questioned you can always use it as a source as long as you make sure in the article you attribute it to being what that media says, instead of wording it as fact and using a citation to that media. Example- "FOX News reported Obama is a terrorist and wasnt born in the United States" is, regrettably OK; whereas saying "Obama is a terrorist and wasnt born in the United States" with a footnote sourcing it as fact to FOX News is not OK.Camelbinky (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. [...] Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns." -- Rico 03:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of Air America, which is like FOX. VoA does do propaganda. Not sure what that means for RSness. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the three sources cited to substantiate the statement that, "Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns,"[30] is:
Shulman, Holly Cowan. The Voice of America: Propaganda and Democracy, 1941-1945. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. -- Rico 04:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if VoA still does propoganda, so what? So does FOX. And yes Fox is proganda. As I said- use attribution regarding the statement and it is ok. I dont know what else there is to discuss. If you are going to keep the statement in the article the attribute it to being the opinion or statement of VoA or whereever. It's that easy. Any other use of a statement from that source is not RS, but being attributed it is being used as RS. What else do we need to discuss? I think we've pretty much got it covered with that.Camelbinky (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Works for me. Rsheptak (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. "The U.S.-funded Voice of America says..." There's nothing wrong with using goverment-funded sources. It would be impossible to cover some parts of the world without them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why using Fox News or VOA or RFE, or any other sources that is either government funded, or leans right is seen as negative. However, that being said that doesn't mean that the references cannot be backed up with additional references from sources that are seen as neutral such as Reuters, AP, or AFP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In reference to a current dispute on Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom. Can I ask what others opinions are to the use of the Daily Mail (UK) as a source? I have previously tagged some statements which use the Mail as needing a better source. However, User:The Squicks is adamant that the Mail is a reliable source. For what it is worth, as someone who actually lives in the UK, I am of the opinion that the Mail is almost NEVER a reliable source for these types of story. Its the type of story the paper thrives on and the story rarely turns out to be even partly accurate. A tagged a request for alternatives as the problem is that these types of story, when the truth is told are invariably a non-story, so actually digging out alternatives can be quite difficult. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have frequently discussed the Daily Mail here (search for it in the archive), and the most recent consensus seems to be that it is so-so or semi-reliable. In this case, I think that there is more to worry about than the reliability of the DM. That is: does the DM even claim that these stories indicate anti-Christian sentiment? Or does it cover the cases to illustrate its long-standing bee-in-the-bonnet of

original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk

) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the review of Telos's publication history and its involvement with the European new right here I would strongly suggest you find positive reviews of the book in question in scholarly journals (other than Telos, obviously), before making use of it. Even then, given the functioning of humanities, attribute all claims to the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Would Linkedin count as a reliable source when referencing a list entry? The specific case is as follows:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Filipino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=319571092&oldid=319522349 List of Filipino Americans. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User submitted content, could be anyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawyers.com is operated by

It's SELFPUB - lawyers send their content/information to lawyers.com for publication. It is not really an independent source. That said, it is probably fine for non-controversial biographical info. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The info is non-controversial. (years he passed the various bar exams) Thanks for the feedback. Cheers.

say that you love me

06:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is preventive action (I hope). Back in June one Historyprof101 added a batch of material praising a translation of Mein Kampf by Michael Ford. Today, Historyprof101 returned and reinserted it. He then started going around Wikipedia removing references to my books and articles (I'm a fairly well published scholar in the field of Nazi propaganda). One of the difficulties of using one's real name on Wikipedia is exactly this kind of thing.

Well, I don't really want to get into an edit war, so it might be good to have a few people weigh in on the merits of self-published books like Mr. Ford's translation and its failure to meet

At the top of the page we request a full citation of the work in question. This assists us in locating it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. It is Michael Ford, "Mein Kampf: The Ford Translation," Elite Minds, Inc., 2009. The author runs "Elite Minds," so the book is self-published,and has had no credible reviews. Bytwerk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Is Michael Ford's translation republished somewhere else notable? Is his translation almost identical to other reliable translations? If the answer is no to both questions, and Michael Ford is not a German linguistic expert or certified Hitler's closest friend, then all we have here is some guy's opinion on what Hitler believes. Jim101 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not published by somewhere notable, and it is not "almost identical" to other translations. In fact, he claims that his is the "correct" translation, and that others, by renowned translators like Ralph Manheim, are inferior to his. Bytwerk (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I would say this guy is high, borderline delusional. Definitely not a RS source. Jim101 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is IdahoGangs.com reliable in the context of telling us how many members are in an international gang, or what crimes the gang is known to commit? It is cited in many articles such as

Unreliable No authorship, no indication of demographic or criminological credibility. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable, at least for information relevant to Idaho. News reports indicate it is operated by the Idaho Department of Corrections. KBCI Boise: IDOC launches website to help identify Idaho gangs Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we trust the news reports that idahogangs.com is authored by the Idaho department of corrections. I'm still somewhat concerned at the way the web site doesn't mention a single person's name or provide any of the kind of background information that we normally associate with good sources, like attribution, dates, and other references. For example, if the site were wrong about something important, who exactly in Idaho would be held accountable? I'm just wondering if there is any further policy or guidelines that help with handling an odd-duck source like this, that at first glance seems to fail WPs criteria.--

talk

) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is published by the IDOC, according to multiple news reports. We don't usually apply the stringent criteria that you suggest to other sources. They have a contact page if you are concerned about specific information on the website. I suspect that they have deliberately avoided giving out too much information on the site's workers due to risks of harassment or other activities carried out by supporters of the organisations profiled. You should probably undo this edit and any others where you have removed them as a source. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Help - I'm willing to believe that the Idaho Department of Correction is behind idahogangs.com, but the site still raises red flags for me. I can understand why individuals might not sign their names to pages there, but the publisher's name is nowhere to be found either. Why? Why no explanation of where the data comes from, or how its vetted? Is there peer review of some kind? All I'm saying is, this web site does not look or act very much like what is normally considered a reliable source by WP, and a third or fourth opinion on how to handle citations from this source from an expert would be helpful to me. Thanks!--
  talk
  ) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me whether this source can be included in Wikipedia articles: ( Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by Dr. F.G.Debets) Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Non RS. PhD theses are not published works. While they are assessed this differs from "peer review" in the sense of academic publications. There is an expectation that subsequent publication as a monograph can, but will not necessarily occur, and that publication process includes a review. Either its been published as a monograph, or it hasn't. And the work you've cited hasn't. Also ethnogenesis in Soviet historiography? alarm bells. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's your book, "The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos" here's your scholarly review of it, J. LAWRENCE ANGE American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 22, Issue 3 (p 343-345) DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330220326, "unsystematic" "but uses no twin data to estimate the genetic versus environmental limits" "he omits about half of the literature" "he tends to overvalue speculations based on small samples". Hmm. Unlike the PhD thesis its reliable, in that its published (if you can go read your popular modern Greek). Though I'd say that even though IEAS USSR and Morphosis have published, that you ought to strictly attribute any drawn conclusions to the Author due to the indicated review issues, the fact that its 50 years out of date, and the fact that its ethnogenesis published in 1961 in the USSR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you think this work being published in the USSR makes it unreliable? This needs to be demonstrated.

Offliner (talk

) 03:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Klaus Mehrnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952) on the poor quality of studies of ethnogenesis in the Soviet Union due to non-methodologically justifiable ideological intervention by state elites in the work of historians and anthropologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the heading to something less verbose. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the USSR itself produced many great scientists and scientific works. There is something else worth mentioning about this particular academic study. Dr.

Offliner for making a good point. It is now clear that the article meets Wikipedia standards as per the rules and I will once again (as I did when I first referenced this source) "strictly attribute the drawn conclusions to the author." Again, thank you all for your help in this matter. Have a good day or night wherever you may be on our beautiful planet Earth.--Monshuai (talk

) 06:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well when we use a source that has been subject to extensive critisism we should also include that critisism.

Taemyr (talk

) 07:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite clearly rejected the source you cited, and indicated that you may wish to read in full a different source. I suggest you work out of Poulianos' modern writings, and, for that matter, look up modern anthropological review articles on the relevant ethnogeneses and assign weight out of those. If you claim that I support a PhD thesis being RS, I will be greatly offended, and make this known where I discover you doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the work being academic and peer reviewed, not whether or not you agree with its conclusions. I didn't think you're an anthropologist, thereby I was not incquiring nor commenting your views of this particular field. I would also like to make clear that I have read most if not all of Poulianos's published works in full. My first PhD was based partly on his work. Also, Poulianos is considered one of the foremost anthropologists in Greece and his conclusions about the Thracian anthropological type have not been disputed to date. If someone is suspicious about this, they are free to research it themselves. Good day.--Monshuai (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Its interesting you chose to cite his 1961 PhD thesis instead of... any other text. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Monshuai (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have triggered this by making the initial removal of the sentence referencing the Poulianos study at Thracians. I'll just put on the record here that my removal was not even primarily motivated by my doubts over the RS status of that work – although I'm aware it's highly controversial and probably heavily outdated research. I removed it because the sentence as it stood in its context made no sense [33]. There is a previous sentence, sourced to a more modern source, stating that on modern genetic criteria Thracians were slightly more closely related to certain modern ethnic groups in the area other than Bulgarians. The contentious sentence then was added as if it provided a refutation or contradiction of this statement, but it in fact contained only a much weaker statement, namely that both Thracians and modern Bulgarians belong to the same overall anthropological type. Which may well be true – but then, so do the other modern ethnicities referred to in the previous sentence. Which means the two are in no way contradictory, and the first is certainly more informative and makes the second essentially superfluous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Future Perfect at Sunrise, but as the article is written now it is made to seem as though Bulgarians don't have a connection with Thracians. The reference doesn't contradict the other sources I included in the article years ago about the Thracian connection to Greeks and other ethnic groups. Yes, believe it or not I was the one who included the other anthropological studies detailing similarities between Greeks and Thracians. It's all in the history of the article. Furthermore, the Poulianos study simply emphasizes that modern Bulgarians are anthropologically less Slav and more Balkan/Thracian and belonging to the Aegeanan anthro type. This also connects some modern Bulgarians to some Greeks and people of other national backgrounds, which contrary to showcasing nationalistic divisions actually goes to show that various divided peoples have more in common then various sources of nationalistic propaganda would have them believe in the first place. This information can be placed in there in a way that fits perfectly with said other sources. Thank you for your comment in this discussion.--Monshuai (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A user is trying to use this as a source for various statements at

Reliability is not an on/off switch. It depends on the specific piece of content, and what it is being used to support. In this case the author is a member of a task force that sponsored the now-infamous legislation to rename

pow-wow, together with lots of supporting material about the issues, history, and so on. In response to the above-editor's requests I have found other more editorially-neutral sources for every proposition sourced, removed any content that in my quick search could be supported only by this source, and in all cases but two remove this source as a citation. The two that remain are: (1) sourcing a mention of the committee, which has other sources, on theory that this is an informational link that adds rather than detracts from the verifiability and information available via the encyclopedia on the committee; and (2) mentioning that there is a pow-wow every year, an uncontroversial statement for which this serves as a valid primary source (e.g. an announcement of an event by the sponsors serves to verify that the event occurred - but note that I have found other sources confirming this). There are many cases where we use an organizer's own statements about an organization to verify uncontroversial facts about the organization. RS is not a blanket ban on everything but the most sterling sources, it is a standard used to ensure verifiability. Here the information is verified, and the addition of a second source serves to fill out the supporting content available to interested readers should they care to follow the link. Wikidemon (talk

) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the material is found in reliable sources, this inferior source is rendered unnecessary. If the material is found only in in this inferior source, it doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor has asked to this link to the "official" Taliban website to the Taliban article.

* Taliban's website (English)

He supplied this link to a Slate (online magazine) article as a source for the information. Another editor remarked that Slate is not a reliable source for information about the Middle East. The discussion is

I see no problem with it. Slate is a reputable and well-established online magazine with a decent reputation for reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update, this same info is now being reported by Wired Magazine.[34] -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Referenced in several Kamboja-related articles. Anyone know how is it regarded by recent historians? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

NO its an encyclopedia from 1968. It is not an acceptable source for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To expand, even given FUTON bias against the subcontinent, the citations in Scholar since 1990 are not connected to disciplines and investigations that are considered credible in historical practice. "1968" publication by Praeger and the subcontinent should trigger serious warning bells if you're asking about historical veracity. Subcontinental history has changed dramatically since the 1970s. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Very useful, many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The work was reviewed in Religious Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Oct., 1969) and the review was positive overall, calling the books "a survey which will prove a most useful reference book, provided it is used critically, for anyone concerned with the Hindu tradition. Mr Walker is to be commended for his staggering achievement." The main "minor blemishes" that the review pointed out were that the encyclopedia relied mainly on secondary sources; should have had more maps and illustrations; the Romanization scheme was somewhat old fashioned; the treatment sometimes passed value-judgments; and the topic selection was sometimes idiosyncratic. These are not significant issues as far as our use is concerned.
So while I understand that this is a 40 year old one-person tertiary source, I think it is reasonable to use it as a source as long as it is is done "critically" i.e., don't use it for

Being old doesn't make it unreliable. But its use probably requires more care because of that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so but am having a little run-in with a user who does seem to think so. I would be grateful if people who care about this policy could comment here:[35]. This is a very short description. The other editor suggests I consult other articles, which I think he wrote - and which seem to be based on "divine revelation" too. It might be a good idea of some people who participate in this page check out those linked articles. Just follow the link here, it will be obvious to you. This is not an edit conflict, no conflict over the article, yet - just a strange conversation about what is a good source for our articles. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It does look very problematic to only use Scripture or Saints' diaries as sources for articles, because those must be considered primary sources in this situation. The mainstay of an article should be based on citations from secondary sources, and primary sources should only be used as quotes or to illustrate how the subjects themselves perceived it. However, as theology is not really my field, it would be nice to have some more opinions from other editiors on this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago, I posted here asking about the suitability of a source which estimates the number of people from various Latin American countries living in the UK. The source itself uses the term "guesstimates" to describe these figures. It was agreed that it was OK to use the figures, providing that they were flagged as guesstimates. However, there are two current problems with the use of these statistics at present.

Firstly, a number of articles (such as Colombians in the United Kingdom) are using the figures to describe the Latin American population "regardless of birthplace", which I take to mean including UK-born descendents of immigrants from Latin America, despite the fact that the source does not make clear whether the estimates include these people or not.

Secondly, the

Any thoughts on this? I'm inclined to think that the guesstimates are now redundant. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed using the Office for National Statistics is a far more reliable and accurate. Official stats should always be given priority. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So what about an article such as Colombians in the United Kingdom? There are no statistics from the ONS to quote, but the very fact that there aren't means that there are fewer Colombians in the UK than the guesstimates suggest. Do we remove the guesstimate from the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave them out. The article already has plenty of detail of the official figures. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the actual source that's being debated? Also, I wouldn't get too worked up over the term "guesstimate". Perhaps it's more common in the US than the UK, but describing it as an "estimate" is just fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is Sofia Buchuck. "Crossing borders: Latin American exiles in London". untoldLondon. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's technically RS, though it's kind of an "off the cuff" figure. The article also says there are 800,000 salsa classes happening in the UK every night(!). You may be able to find other estimates, perhaps from where that article got its figures from. "These numbers are guesstimates from embassies, community centres and refugee groups" So you might see if the Brazilian embassy publishes a figure of their own that contradicts the UK figure. I'm not aware of all the issues involved. Does the UK not ask about ethnicity or nationality on its census? - "there has never been a precise census of Latin Americans in the UK" And are there many undocumented immigrants in the UK? Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The UK census does ask about ethnicity, but when published the data is categorised into what most of use would understand to be races, not ethnicities (white, black, Asian etc.), albeit with some differentiation (i.e. white British, white Irish, white other). There is no way to tell if anyone has Latin American ancestry from this question. The census also collects data on country of birth, but again this does not help with identifying people with Latin American ancestry. It's clearly the most reliable source for statistics on Latin American-born people though. I've tried to find the original statistics used in the article but to no avail. I guess the author just called up the embassies and community organisations and asked them to take a guess. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the Office for National Statistics statistics quoted at

Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, these just cover country of birth and nationality. Cordless Larry (talk

) 16:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a view on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The Washington Post is RS.

There's a discussion[37] going on about this picture on the Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia article. The picture is sourced to the government of South Ossetia's website, and depicts "South Ossetian civilians killed by Georgian forces in May, 1992".

Some people are arguing that a government source is no good for a controversial picture like this, and that the picture might be from a different, unrelated incident. I say if a similar situation involved American, German or British government websites, no one would be making a fuss, and their arguments are fueled by their own personal opinions about the reliability of the South Ossetian government while trying to find technicalities to hide it. I would like some unbiased opinions please. LokiiT (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The website in question obviously cannot be considered a reliable source - it is the website of a government of one of the belligerents involved in the conflict. If there is independent confirmation from a reliable source that in fact the photo is what the website says it is then of course it's a different matter. But no such confirmation has been provided - rather assertions have been made that "any official state agency is a reliable source". Special care needs to be taken given the very graphic nature of this photo.

talk

) 06:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Radeksz is involved in the dispute and therefore has a conflict of interest. Precisely the reason I came here instead of continuing the argument on the talk page. LokiiT (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved in dispute yourself LokiiT. I'm just presenting the other side, as is my right to do.

talk

) 06:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's being accused by Biophys of being a sockpuppet. I've been accused by Biophys of being a sockpuppet too, an accusation which was proven to be completely false. You and Biophys on the other hand, are part of the biggest ArbCom case to hit Wikipedia. Don't equate the two. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a

Offliner (talk

) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason - it comes from the website of a government involved in the conflict. Provide a source which confirms the photo is what it is. Like, for example, has it ever been used by any independent (and no, Putinite sources don't count) outlet, with that or similar caption?

talk

) 06:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally (though this is a separate issue), in one of the articles that the photo is being used it's also UNDUE.

talk

) 06:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Offliner (talk

) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, verifiability, not truth. So we need to verify if this photo comes from reliable sources or partisan government websites. In *some* cases - mostly where the info is non-controversial or can be independently verified - government websites are used to source ... view of government agencies. Sometimes to cite some statistics and the like. But there is no blanket rule that *any* government website is a reliable source. If the picture really is genuine, then it should be easy for you to come up with independent sources (such as non-Ossetian or non-Russian government ones) which verify (as in "verifiability") that the photo is what the website claims it is.

talk

) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a major (non-Ossetian, non-Russian government) news agency which used the photo for example? If so, I'll be happy to withdraw my objections.

talk

) 06:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Great, but not really, considering we already know your biases and conflicts of interest. Now can you please cite a wiki policy that backs your views up about government sources and the circumstances of when they're allowed and when they're not? Note that it's not our job to prove the reliability of a notable source. It's your job to disprove it. LokiiT (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And you have your opinion, which we also know, given your biases and your conflict of interests. There's no wiki policy which says that any government site is a reliable source. And yes it is your job to prove a reliability of a source.

talk

) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's clearly a reliably published source. Whether it is true is a different matter; obviously it's been published for propaganda purposes, so it should be treated with some caution. It can legitimately be used to represent the S.O. government's viewpoint and should be cited as such. However, it should not be presented as an established fact. It is reliable only in so far as it is a statement of the government's POV. That POV is, clearly, a notable one, so it should be represented in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say that it is a reliably published source (published "somewhere" is not the same as reliably published)? Would info from the website of the Sudanese government be reliable in regard to say, Darfur? I can see it being presented as an opinion of the Ossetian government... if the picture wasn't so graphic and included in interest of obvious POV pushing.

talk

) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments made for deleting the picture, can be made for deleting the article. Yet I don't see you making those arguments Radek. Actually if you think about it, the article's even worse. It cites sources that think that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input ChrisO, I agree with what you're saying and it's consistent with wiki policy. Radekz: Yes, a picture from the Sudanese government would be reliable insofar as being a picture produced by the government of Sudan. I think the same logic would apply. LokiiT (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. Considering the impact a picture can have though I question wether or not it's use falls within our guidelines on due weight. Also it's use needs to be attributed, if used it needs to be made clear that the source of the image could be biased.

Fact is, if it is a legitimate government source, I see no policy that states that it cannot be used, no matter whether true or reliable. Remember, it is not our job to decide what is right or true, only to report the information. I would suggesting including the picture, with a note that is from a source involved in the conflict. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one think it is a mistake to automatically lend credulity to governments where those same governments have reason to falsify or exaggerate evidence. We try to (as seen above) partition this into WEIGHT and RS and what-not, but I'm uncomfortable just declaring that "this is a reliable source for the gov't of Georgia's opinion of what this picture is" and carting people off to another noticeboard. Does the government of Georgia have a record for reliable presentation of facts on this issue? Is there evidence that they have falsified documents or manufactured controversies before? Is the information corroborated anywhere? I'm also really uncomfortable treating this as "illustration" rather than "support" for a claim. I feel that is a false distinction in general and is especially so with visual images.

I agree with ChrisO about this photo. There doesn't seem to be any particular controversy about it, and the facts expressed by the photo - the deaths of a number of civilians - are consistent with reliably sourced information, and apparently not disputed. It should be attributed and it is. Neutrality and undue weight are issues, but it doesn't seem unacceptable in that regard either. As always, let the reader form his or her own opinions.John Z (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)