Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 51

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

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Need for WP:MEDRS/N noticeboard

We need a parallel noticeboard to deal with medical sourcing:

talk

) 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am hesitant about the idea of carving out topic specific sub-noticeboards... One of the benefits of RSN is that it is broad based. Because we get editors who are not subject specialists looking at the issues raised here, we get different perspectives on those issues. That is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for a separat board: perhaps encouraging more use of this board would do the trick?

WP:MEDRS isn't that hard to understand; the gist of it is, avoid the popular press for medical statements, use peer-reviewed secondary sources over primary sources. The single biggest problem occurring in medical articles I've seen is overreliance on primary studies in place of secondary review articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is odd that wikipedia singles out medicine when Ted Turner would probably be a reliable source on religious topics. I'm not saying to policy is bad for the resulting article quality, but certainly the same issues apply in different areas. Also, work in primary sources ( " we found pathway X" ) can be covered significantly in other source (" pathway Z depends on pathway X") that are not explicit review articles on (" review of pathway X") coming up in the pubmed review catagory. I've found some people go overboard on secondary source issues but then again I am prone to original research. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not really familiar with where people are currently typically asking. But I think the following is worth reading anyway.

It depends on what you want to achieve. Noticeboards only work well if there is sufficient traffic so that people get there for one reason or another, so that it gets on their watchlist. Currently

WP:N/N

. It was started almost a year ago and is still virtually unknown. (It's not being used because it's not on the noticeboard template. It doesn't get there because it's not being used.)

Since traffic at

WT:MED

seems to be moderate, I propose using the MEDRS talk page as the noticeboard. Initially people will still ask their questions at WT:MED or here. Just move them to the proper place and continue there. This way people will see it at WT:MED and get a chance to follow it to MEDRS. After a while there will be enough traffic there, and people will go there directly. By that time, all MEDRS questions will get into a single archive.

If there is so much traffic there that you really need to separate WT:MEDRS and the noticeboard, use the following trick: Move WT:MEDRS to WP:MEDRS/N, and then immediately back. Then create the noticeboard out of the redirect. This way all editors watching WT:MEDRS will automatically watch the noticeboard as well, ensuring that you don't lose the traffic in the transition.

Alternatively you could use the same trick starting from WT:MED, but some people might not like this. (And you will only find out after you have done it.) Hans Adler 01:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The key to noticeboards is traffic. There are big ones like the NPOV noticeboard that don't have enough traffic to work. The best thing to do is answer medical source questions here, and take questions you're involved with here. We have that cool way to search the archives up above, and after a while you can create a library will answer questions directly, or at least inform decisions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Would that sort of move between WT space and WP space even work technically? In any case, I doubt there would be much difficulty getting people who watch

WP:MEDRS or WikiProject:Medicine to add WP:MEDRS/N to their watchlists. My rough sense is that many editors have not grasped the distinction between what MEDRS considers a secondary source (reviews of papers in peer reviewed publications) and the broader definition used elsewhere (the papers in peer reviewed publications themselves). Accordingly, I'd commend a trial period with the new noticeboard. LeadSongDog come howl

02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone can always

be bold and create one. If it doesn't get much traffic, we can always close it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, that's a brilliant trick you've got there to make sure it gets/stays on people's watchlists. Right now I've been using MEDRS talk page, but have been rebuffed and told to post at the MED talk page. That's why I feel the need for this noticeboard. --

talk

) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But keep in mind that if the trick works between namespaces (LeadSongDog seems to doubt it, but I see no reason why not), then as a non-admin you can only apply it once. Your experience suggests that you may not be too welcome to do it with WT:MEDRS, but you still have a choice between WP:RS/N and the project talk page. However, since they are rather busy and likely a number of less active people won't be interested in the new noticeboard you should discuss it there first to take some wind out of their sails once the complaints come in. I just came up with the trick; I have never seen it used, and for all I know it may have been in common use before I joined Wikipedia (2 years ago) and then abandoned because it was heavily frowned upon. Just be careful, and perhaps ask an old-timer too. Hans Adler 08:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view the noticeboard as it is right now, putting a note in the medicine project and the WP:MEDRS is much better than dividing efforts in a new forum. Is there any proof that the actual system does not work? --Garrondo (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that direction is also worth exploring. Brangifer has expressed a concern about people commenting here not being qualified in the medical profession. There might also be a problem with people who are active here initially not even being aware that MEDRS exists. Perhaps a little template saying "This question relates to

WT:MEDRS already has a notice telling people to come here for questions relating to specific sources.) Hans Adler

08:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This just shows there is a need for a method to alert medical science savvy people. If the ones at Talk MEDRS don't want their discussions of the policy itself disturbed (which is understandable), then using their talk page won't work, but using a general RS board which deals with everything under the sun doesn't work very well for this specialized area. We still have a need for some solution. --

talk

) 05:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears there are some 76 watchers for

WT:MEDRS. Is that a critical mass? LeadSongDog come howl

05:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<-- I don't know, but since they don't want notifications on that page, then something needs to be done. --

talk

) 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The banners at the top of

WT:V would be distracted if all sourcing issues went through the policy talk page. If the question is purely whether a source meets minimal reliability standards, then this noticeboard is fine. But many issues tend to be more complex than just the use or abuse of sources and a post at the WP:MED project page may be more appropriate. And, yes, WT:MEDRS doesn't have enough watchers. I don't think we need a new noticeboard. Colin°^Talk

11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see wisdom in creating a MEDRS noticeboard but unfortunately I don't see consensus for it. Concensus would be needed and enthusiastic volunteers to watch list it. There has been recently discussion on wiki med project of adding a to wiki med banner a link to MEDRS to encoourage better sourcing for articles as many editors, especially new comers are not aware or familar with MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have either enough editors to watch a new noticeboard or enough questions to justify the overhead. Taken together, all WPMED-related pages seem to average of less than one new RS-related question per day.

MEDRS tells editors to ask questions either here or at the project's page (watched by ~300 people of varying levels of activity). Our existing infrastructure seems to be perfectly adequate: questions asked at one of the two named forums usually get a response.

Furthermore, not all "MEDRS" questions are actually covered by MEDRS: questions of social and political controversies aren't scientific facts and are therefore just plain old RS issues. On those rare occasions that someone posts a technical problem here, the regular RSN folks can always ping related projects for subject-matter experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

disputed ref on the Pete Townshend page

a "slow edit war" is going on on the

Sssoul (talk

) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Seems like

policy was ignored here. TheWeakWilled (T * G

) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you kindly – i did point out

WP:EDITWAR

to them, but they both seem convinced that it doesn't apply to them.

if any other editors have the time to state their views on that

Sssoul (talk

) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No the individual in question Sciberking is a sockpuppet account attempting to push a Pro-Jimmy Page, anti-Pete Towshend agenda based of his edits on the I can't explain, Pete Townshend page. See the Wiki Libs Sock Puppet investigation and Scieberking was found to have been numerous socks, however has yet to be banned. - I can't seem to find why it can't be kept in, but if you point it out what passage it is that keeps it from exclusion, but if you can find it, I am more then willing to let it go, --Occultaphenia (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scieberking cleared by CU of suspicion, Occultaphenia blocked as sockpuppet of long-time puppeteer User:CosmicLegg. --King Öomie 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Psychoenergetic Systems

This journal (NB: not the book by Stanley Krippner) is used for numerous references in the

WP:FRINGE-y. The editor who added that text also used the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a source. I see from past discussion that JSE isn't an RS for our purposes. So what's the status of Psychoenergetic Systems (ISSN 0305-7224 apparently) - is it more legitimate than JSE or not? Thanks in advance for any feedback. MartinPoulter (talk

) 12:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Three volumes were published from 1974 to 1979. The references I can see in the Precognition article at the moment are both from the same issue of Vol. 3, although no date is given, so the references are incomplete. The journal was published by Gordon & Breach Scientific Publishers, which I note was involved in a number of disputes with scholarly societies. One online document from a university centre says that its journals were at the bottom of the hierarchy. The publishers were subsequently absorbed by Taylor & Francis. It all looks pretty fringe to me, as does the article as a whole. I would check the status of all the journals cited in the article. A high status journal should appear for a number of years and be published by a mainstream publisher such as University of California, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Sage or Taylor & Francis. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this answer. I'll remove it from the article where it's used as a source for purported fact. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Article from textbook on Critical Psychology

Is this article from this textbook a RS for this edit? It is being contested by an editor on RS grounds. T34CH (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO this is an RS, but, since it comes from a school with a particular bent, this should be made clear. I'd favour a piped link of this kind: "Rushton's findings have been criticised by critical psychologist ZZ Cernovsky...".

I'd add that, looking at the diff, the points that are being made may fall short of being perfectly clear for the reader. So, although I think it is an RS, some talkpage discussion about wording might be beneficial.

Additionally, I see that the article is under mediation, which might need taking into account, in terms of whether the edit was in itself reasonable (although it doesn't change my answer to the question). --FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hesitate to label Cernovsky a critical psychologist. He studied psychology at the University of Berne and the University of Zurich, taught at the U. of Maryland, U. of Western Ontario (seems he's been there at least 12 years), and on U.S. military bases overseas, and has seen his articles on this exact subject published in a large number of mainstream journals. It does seem that the 1997 article was the last time Cernovsky published about it though. Of course there are other sources for this issue, but I was wondering about this one because it was the one an editor tried to use.

Side note: As for the mediation, I'm a party and I don't see how this particular edit is directly affected. It may be affected later by discussions on the scope of the article, but I don't think that means we should

exclude valid RS criticisms of points made explicitly in the article. T34CH (talk

) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I'd repeat that it looks to me as if the wording could do with some work. And it does appear that he is a Critical Psyschologist. This shouldn't be taken as denoting that his views are devalued, just that he belongs to a particular school of thought, which ought to be made clear. If this is plainly wrong, then, of course he need not be so identified. As a non-specisalist in this, although it looks to me like a valid RS, I wonder if the wording could do with some work purely to make it clearer what is being conveyed.

In terms of the mediation, I'm just flagging it up. What would otherwise be a good edit might be seen as disruptive when mediation is underway. I don't intend to look into that, just saying that if my comments are null and void because the edit is basically disruptive, then so be it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm not sure how we can prove that he's not a "critical psychologist", but after a good search I've not seen him described as one anywhere. Looking at the intro to the chapter in question, it seems the intent was to challenge the mainstream usage of standardized tests, so he's certainly critical of that. As for C.P. being a "school of thought", I'm not convinced this is the case. Despite what the WP article states, all I see is that C.P. is any writing which challenges some aspect of mainstream psychology, suggesting to me that you can be mainstream on 99% of current psychology but publish a paper in a C.P. journal on the other 1%. As for the language, that can be worked on. I just wanted to gather up some outside opinions on the general addition of this information and source before taking it to the talk page myself. T34CH (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask.com

Is this site reliable for the Barbara Bush quote at the top of the article? Nightscream (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, but you could probably cite [1] if challenged. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See [2] which attributes it to Lenny Clarke. I can find no reliable source for attributing it to Barbara Bush, and Clarke is a noted comedian. And misattributions of quotes are common -- that someone attributes a quote to a person does not count for much. Collect (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Ask.com is not a reliable source as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It does not do significant fact-checking and is often inaccurate. Nevertheless, it often has useful information that can then be searched for in a more reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ask.com is entirely too inconsistent to be considered RS. Dlabtot (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, AskMen.com has a professional editorial staff and I would consider it to be reliable in many cases. However, given

WP:BLP and the lack of corroborating sources, I wouldn't use this source for this particular claim. If this quote is legit, I think you would find a lot more sources for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about citing "about the author" type material

I was wondering if it is OK to cite the "about the author" section of a book (i.e. the info often found on the back cover or a dust jacket flap) for basic biographical information about the author. I would consider it a primary source, and obviously it can't be used to establish notability, but I would think it is permissible for basic information. Other opinions?\

Assuming it is permissable, how would be be cited? Like a normal book, but with a note saying it is the about the author section?

Thanks, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the information... I would say it has very limited reliability. Far better to look for something more reliable (perhaps a review of the book). Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the book reviewer is likely to get biographical information about the author from some other source than the "about the author" section? In any case, to answer the question: my feeling is that it probably doesn't undergo much if any editorial review and should therefore be given as much reliability as other self-published sources by the subject: ok for simple factual information that is unlikely to be contested such as the author's birth date, not ok for anything contentious. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good summary. In my experience the usual practice is for the publisher to ask the author to submit a short biog. On the behaviour of a book reviewer, it depends on the reviewer. Most reviews wouldn't carry any biographical information anyway. Then again, in academia, the reviewer might know the biography of the author well anyway (their careers have run in parallel), in which case there might be some detail that didn't depend at all on the publisher's blurb. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with it being included. As long as there aren't

unverifiable or unrealistic claims (such as "[Author] has visited Mars twice, and has published 2,000 books), I think the information is fine. TheWeakWilled (T * G

) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Gay Video Directory (RfC)

Frequenters of this board may wish to comment at

Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. LadyofShalott

20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruise Reports

A couple of "Cruise Reports" have been added to the Biography page of Fiona McLaughlin. These are made available on the website of http://www.whoi.edu, which potentially makes them sources. However they lack publication dates and there is no information on where, or if, they are otherwise officially published. They have been listed as publications but I suggest despite their article-like appearance they are in practice an extension of the website. Are there any suggestions on whether they should be included as publications as per the current layout or should their status (as non-academic standard reports) be made clearer?—Ash (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is up for deletion as being unnotable, it might be good to find some really notable sources about her. These won't make a difference, even if good ones. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

World Magazine

Is World Magazine considered a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to many issues in religion World Magazine must be used very judiciously because of its declared bias of conservative evangelical Protestantism. However, when reporting on an issues where that bias is in abeyance, it can be given comparable weight to other primary news sources such as local newspapers who do a modicum of fact-checking. It should not be used in preference to primary news sources with better fact-checking reputations such as the New York Times. It should not be used in preference to secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Book published by
Lulu.com

During the

ISBN 9781409202851. Retrieved 2009-03-14.) was questioned. Although the information seems to be adequate, the publisher is not reliable and this book is the main published work by the author. Could it be considered as reliable source or not? Thank you. Beagel (talk

) 18:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulu is a vanity press; this work is thoroughly unprofessional in presentation (the acknowledgements to "a cute girl" are particularly telling), and the book itself describes its author's qualifications as "an independent thinker and experienced international investor". The Preface indicates that this is written by a 2007 college graduate; he claimed 5 years' experience in stocks at the time he wrote the book; and he holds shares in some of the companies he discusses. The bibliography might be useful, but this work itself is a far cry from meeting RS. Maralia (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, would be removed then. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine

Is http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html a
self-published
polemic?
Is http://www.rkba.org/research/rkba.faq reliable for gun-ownership and crime statistics? As it does not mention the film, is it being used as appropriate contextualization or as inappropriate
coatracking
?
La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique: situation actuelle et évolution des 20 dernières années, Berne: Stämpfli is also being used in
Gun politics in Switzerland
, but I am not sure what it is.
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html is a Wall Street Journal article from 1999; the film was released in 2002.

- 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Self-published polemic.

2. rkba.org does not look like a reliable source for any topic.

3. Don't know. (Haven't looked at the source.)

4. Assuming that that piece was really published in the Wall St. Journal as claimed by the non-RS site that reproduced it, I would not call it an "article", but rather an opinion piece. It does contain statistics, and it's reasonable to expect that (if it was published in WSJ) there was some fact-checking on those statistics. However, it is cited in the "Bowling" article not as a source of data on Switzerland, but rather to support a statement about criticism of the movie ("The stats have also been called into question for ignoring countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic, which have gun laws similar to the US but death per capita numbers similar to the countries above."). The WSJ piece does not in fact criticize the movie (it was published before the movie), but appears to be introduced to help a Wikipedia contributor advance his/her own

original research to support a particular POV. --Orlady (talk

) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (3). It looks as it it would be very difficult to trace this source, and it's not in English, which makes it hard to be entirely sure about it. I think it is reasonably clear already, though, that we have a case of OR. Where four sources are used together to attest to the same facts and three are identified as failing RS, I think it is a good guess that if there is a fourth, inaccessible source, then it is likely to be of a similar character. Given the title (it appears to be a book about unreported crime in Switzerland), I think it is unlikely that the source will contain an analysis of Bowling for Columbine, but that this is an attempt to coatrack information about Swiss gun crime which is not directly relevant to the article. The cite contains no page reference, so, stricly speaking fails

Gun politics in Switzerland article simply because it looks authoratative and would be hard to challenge). In summary, I would delete it. --FormerIP (talk

) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (3). Martin Killias is the editor for La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique (Hidden crime in Switzerland and its impact on public opinion). Martin Killias is a respected author and editor of works on crime and criminology in Switzerland and Europe. He works for or with the European Committee on Crime Problems. You can see a partial list of works for which he bears some responsibility at WorldCat. His works can be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia; however, just because a source is generally reliable does not mean that it is used appropriately in a given instance. What is said in the Wikipedia article needs to reflect what is said in the source including, as appropriate, the context. Additionally, in preference to a work in French, a work in English should be used. Killias, Martin (1993) "International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide" CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal/Journal de l'Association Medicale Canadienne 148(10): pp. 1721-1725, for example, might contain the information that is sought to be authenticated with the newer French citation. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Transparently not an appropriate source for an article about a movie. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

TMZ

What were the policy based reasons we don't consider TMZ a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Per these two previous discussions [3] [4] it actually appears pretty reliable, see in particular NY Times: "The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media".[5] However, the big caveat is that the kind of material they publish, and their salacious commentary on it, is likely to run into

WP:BLP issues. I think User:Badger Drink

summed it up well: "If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ" and "If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is [..] completely non-notable".

In some ways TMZ might be better treated as a primary source, as the facts per se that they report seem to be quite reliable, but any analysis or commentary from TMZ is in the vast majority of cases unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Their paparazzi videos in particular I think should be seen as primary sources, not to mention the privacy/BLP concerns they raise. Siawase (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Establishing notability of YouTube videos

The article for the German film Downfall has a section on the re-subtitled parodies that have been appearing on YouTube over the past year or so. Because there are literally hundreds of these, the article source contains the prominent notice: "Parodies may be noted here ONLY IF THEY HAVE BEEN COVERED BY INDEPENDENT AND RELIABLE SOURCES."

By reliable here I'm assuming "reliable for the purposes of establishing the video's notability" rather than factually reliable because there are no facts to check: the only question is whether the parody is notable. Only three such parodies have been kept in the article: they've been political in nature and were covered in the New York Times, the Globe and Mail and the Jerusalem Post.

I've removed a mention of a Star Trek parody video on the basis that the source provided — a few sentences and an embedded video near the bottom of this post on the blog "trekmovie.com" — is not a reliable indicator of the video's notability. It's a Wordpress blog which, from what I can gather, will post pretty much anything Star Trek-related; further up the same article is an embedded video showing how to make an Uhura dress for Halloween.

Another user has reverted my removal and it's turning into a game of ping-pong, so to quickly resolve it I'm asking for opinions here and will respect whatever the consensus turns out to be. 77.103.113.127 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that trekmovie.com is just a glorified fan site. As far as I can tell, this 3-year-old site is doesn't have a clear editorial policy and the staff appear to be fans. I'm not even sure if they're writing in a professional capacity or of they do it on a volunteer basis.

Relevant section of WP:RS:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In order for this to even be considered an acceptable self-published source, one would first need to establish the credibility of the editorial team. Even then it might be acceptable in it's area of expertise, which would be Star Trek, not German films. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that blogs and YouTube are not reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs and some youtube videos are reliable, but in this case, only parodies mentioned in RSs should be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another PhD question at Entrepreneurial Mindset

I'm not sure if I should be bringing this up here or at the OR board, but

talk

) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PhDs from reputable Universities are currently acceptable as RS. "Published" is a misnomer. Wikipedia's use of "published" means made available to the public. In academic circles, published can mean indexed, or published as a monograph. Australian PhDs, for example, are never "published" even if they're full text online. A monograph book related may be "published". If the source has been accepted as part of a PhD, and if it can be consulted by people (within reasonable limits, like physically being present at the Institutions library), and if the doctorate was awarded by a credible university, then the Thesis is an RS. There may be WEIGHT problems though, or UNDUE. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the claimed thesis (pdf format), and the website, single sourced, undue, delete cruft not substantiated with inline citations. Its a WEIGHT, UNDUE and single source issue. The source itself is unreliable as I can't find a claim that the PhD was accepted. If this "http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-0307108-140133/" indicates the thesis was accepted / degree awarded, then the thesis is as credible as Universitat Oberta de Catalunya is (which appears to be a credible university). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.american-automobiles.com

Reliable source for car related articles? I found that a user has been including links to the site. It seems of a fairly high quality and has some interesting information, so rather than simply removing them I have left them in as a potential source for future improvements that would see the article no longer have need for the EL. The question is though, would information from that site be admissible? Unomi (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a WHOIS lookup of the site, and I don't feel it is reliable since the registrant lists a contact address linking to globalprofitgroup.com. ArcAngel (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Forum postings

I am working on an article about a film (

WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not sure. Copana2002 (talk

) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at their about page of the passion for cinema blog site [6] (and assuming it's accurate) it seems quite a few movie industry people are on the site, so it seems likely that the user is indeed the director. But I can't find any mention that the site actually verifies the identities of the users, so another reliable source identifying him as such would be better. If the user can be assumed to be the director, it should be fine to treat his blog entries and comments like any other self published source. Siawase (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
OK thank you, Siawase. Copana2002 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Letter from the editor a valid external link?

Resolved

This file is a letter from Fred Woodworth to the person that runs "The Classic Typewriter page." The letter is being used as an external link in Killian documents controversy. Is this a valid external link? Hipocrite (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Try asking this question on the
WP:ELN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk
) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did that already but forgot to remove this. Feel free to disregard. Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kew railway line, Melbourne

There are quite a lot of references / citations on this page pointing to Railpage Australia forums. As far as I know, forums (and other self-published sources) are not counted as WP:RS except in extreme circumstances. Replacements to these sources would be highly appreciated. 120.155.108.74 (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Far right

Are the articles listed below reliable sources for including the
Far right
political parties, or are they only reliable as a source of their authors' opinions? The sources do not actually use the term far right to describe the Muslim Brotherhood.

Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi and Al Qaeda by John Loftus

The Nazi-Islamist Connection by Herbert Eiteneier

The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam And the Extreme Right by George Michael[7]

Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that the book published by
Militant Islam (which also include Muslim Brotherhood). Should these books and sites be included as source for the far right knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood does have influence from the nazi since WWII?--71.249.247.144 (talk
) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The book by Michael claims that the far right and radical Islamics have cooperated not that radical Islamics were part of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
They would certainly be reliable to source an attributed comment as to the authors' opinions on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
But is it adequate to include the Muslim Brotherhood in the list of
Alleged far right organizations, which basically lists neofascist and neonazi parties? The Four Deuces (talk
) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the
Aryan Nation
who called for cooperation with Al-qaeda. --yin and yang 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also islamist group such as Hamas that adopt hitler salute [1]

It would seem to me that inclusion in the list is based on a simple criteria... are there reliable sources that label group X as being "far right". If yes, the group can be included in the list, if not, then it can not be included. So the question is... are their reliable sources that directly apply the term "far right" to Muslim Brotherhood (or any other Islamasist group)? (note: I am not talking about sources that say that such groups are influenced by the far right, or that various far right groups sympathize or cooperate with a given Islamasist groups... I am talking about sources that directly apply the term "far right" to the specific Islamasist group.) Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the source that i found (which i have not include as a source on wikipedia) use the term "Right-Wing political islam" which also include muslim brotherhood in it.--yin and yang 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
If Islamic fundamentalist cannot be included as far right just because some writer claimed far right only applied to european fascist why should "hindu nationalist" or jewish extremist be included since it was also a some writers opinion that claimed "hindu nationalist" and "jewish extremist" as far right.--yin and yang 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Radio Ga GA

Are radio inteviews RS, if you cannot actually hear what they say. For example <ref>The Adrian Goldberg Show, Talksport Radio (UK), 6 July 2009</ref>? From this source I cannot verify what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Access to sources addresses ease of verifying sources. Assume good faith, ask if a transcript is available, get a full citation (template optional) which will hopefully include a quote in this instance, search online (even if a page cannot be linked for whatever reason at least you can verify for yourself), and even go as far as contacting the station to see if they have archived material available on their website or mail.Cptnono (talk
) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Season 9)

I tried
WP:OR along with Twitter and Blog postings for references where there are any citations at all. Allowing this to go on it is ruining Wikipedia in my opinion, since it is very difficult to get any admins to help with it (in Admin defense, I know they are busy with vandals and malicious edits). Thank you for any help that can be provided here. Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk
) 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article in question is
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). A Quest For Knowledge (talk
) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, AQFK. I had a problem with an uppercase letter. And thanks for not biting a rank tyro (been here awhile - admit to not knowing everything!) T. TristaBella (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Article is now at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Several questions regarding sources used at Twisted Scriptures

I should state upfront that I have doubts that
WP:BK
. It certainly fails points 2-5, and I'm doubtful about #1. Taking a look at the sources used in the entry have brought forth several concerns I would appreciate additional input on.

Is it problematic to use blurbs or reviews posted on Amazon.com, by Amazon (as a marketing tool to sell books) as evidence of the "reception" of a book? The entry creator is arguing that Midwest Bookreview is open about the fact that their "reviews are also available through Internet bookstores such as Amazon.com" (from website). If Midwest Bookreview is a notable publication, and if the independently published review is cited I would not be asking this question, but the issue is that Amazon.com is being linked instead, and their use of this material is, in my mind, equivalent to cherry picked quotes used by publishers on back covers. After all they are just trying to sell the book.

If someone wants to use information from a footnote of a book or journal article how should this be done? See just below for the text in question. The problem here is that the journal author being cited does not ever mention Chrnalogar or her book (Twisted Scriptures) in the body of her article, but uses it, along with another author to exemplify a point in a footnote. The quoted text below is from the footnote. I find using footnote text like this dubious in general, but if it is allowable doesn't it need to be qualified heavily? When I read this I expect that Wong is discussing the book directly. Indeed it adds a lot of credibility to the notability argument -- but alas its just an example used in a footnote.
Chrnalogar points out that mind control does not need to occur only with sever tactics, writing: "All that's needed is an environment where the information can be controlled, and more importantly, the way people perceive that information."^[2] She cites mind control characteristics identified by Robert Jay Lifton, and asserts that only six of his "psychological themes" are required in order to manipulate followers in a cult.^[2]

Does anyone know what What Magazine is? Since it is being used as a primary source for the "reception" of the book I'm not entirely sure that "reliability" is the issue, but notability certainly is. Should reception criticism published in non-notable sources by non-notable authors be used to establish notability? Especially if there is no indication that the publication or the author of the criticism have any expertise in the relevant fields?

Thank you for your comments. Another set of eyes on this entry in general would be appreciated because, like I said, I do not believe it meets
WP:BK but this is only evident when one digs deeper into the sources and how they are used.PelleSmith (talk
) 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Question 3

What? seems to be a self-published site.- Sinneed 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that is the same What Magazine. This one is indexed by findarticles, highbeam research, and
Infotrac. Cirt (talk
) 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I should have noted that I came across that online mag but it appears to be a different publication. Besides Highbeam's indexing I've found zilch on this publication. The fact that Highbeam indexes it is of little value as well since they are a for profit business.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm but findarticles links to www.whatmagnet.com which is dead and for sale (warning links to an advertisement-to-sell-the-site).

Appears to be "What! Magazine" published by "http://www.gale.cengage.com/about/" - looking at the copyright at Highbeam.- Sinneed 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

~~:I see this article which mentions the book and the author. Most of the other refs I see through google for the book are "author speaking at" types of things.- Sinneed 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)~~

Sources for drug articles

Is it acceptable for the article Mephedrone to use sites as Erowid and [[8]] as reliable sources? I think it is better to limit the information than to include uncertain information. Ulner (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of essays and guidance specific to drugs and medicine including specificly more tolerance of primary sources or things other than popular press. But, in any case, a source is reliable or not depending on what claim you want it to support. If you just say " Eropwid says blah[]" then you can presumce the source to speak accurately

for itself. But, you may not want to site it as proof of safety and efficacy for a given indicatio ( Even if you cite the FDA, I'd do so overtly, " leading the FDA to conclude that water is safe and effective for the treatment of dehydration when used as directed."). Probably the best sources are on pubmed ad I wold at least include a survery of these to make sure that you have captured a decent cross section of knowledge on whatever you want to prove from your putatitve source. Sure, you can find "Reliable" sources to say anything but then if there are different opinions, you want to get the prominence right. I would also mention even the guys in white coats get things backwards often, other guys in white coats usually correct it but only after people have died in misguided clinical trials. So, I woldn't take too militant of an attitude, see any of my comments on antioxidants which are militantlu advocated by many reliabile sources but not proven to be "good" in some contexts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do you have any links to essays/guidance in this area? Ulner (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
wiki search only finds articles, this may help, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+reliable+medical+sources+primary&aq=f&aqi=&oq= However, never neglect fundamentals for a sanity check and consider the facts and intent of the article. Often, popular perceptions or myths may be encyclopedic merit etc. So, when you talk about drug articles it is likely that scientific results and peer reviewed work will be a large part of that but may not be the only source of relevant information. These comments come largely from a concern about "ivory tower science" when in fact all science has to be evaulated based on how well it describes dishwater(LB films for example) or urine(common fluid of medical relevance). Anecdotes, speculation, folk lore, while often dangerously wrong may be notable and generate leads for scientists stuck with confusing results and seized up by a fallacious belief that is too obvious to question etc. Anyway, as you gather there is a lot to consider here and anything you do will probably make someone upset so make a decision and see what feedback you get. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess I would also point out from personal experience that which is probably already known but not consciously considered, it is hard to get people to do science instead of hype. So, I would make clear in an overall article both the science and anecdotes and myths and any related events that lead to better understanding. This is just my personal opinion after watching biotech for a while but even the mortgage and financials suffer from similar problems that just don't happen to invilve chemicals directly. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic.org

Please advise if the site Anglo-Celtic.org.uk here can be considered a reliable source - in general, and specifically for the inclusion of 'parts of England' in the sentence "Limitation to these six is sometimes disputed by people from Asturias, parts of England, and Galicia – territories that have also retained some Celtic cultural traits." in the second paragraph of the introduction on Celtic nations. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no indication at all on the site who writes it or maintains it, it's impossible to assess their reliability, therefore I would say it cannot be treated as a RS. Barnabypage (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There's no way to assess the reliability of the site. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. Thanks for your time and consideration, Daicaregos (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist

There is a discussion regarding the spam blacklist and the reliability of sources
here.--Hu12 (talk
) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidestar.org

At Kripalu Center, a very great deal of information, including some information about living persons, is being pulled from [guidestar.org].
Looking through the press, there seems to be a great deal of credibility placed in the information there, and I am leaving the BLP information (positions of employment, money) in the article on the assumption that this is a strong enough source to carry it. If there is any concern, I would love to know. - Sinneed 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The only citations to Guidestar.org appear to be returns that the center itself filed with the
WP:BLP problem. The only way I could imagine such a problem arising would be if the nonprofit organization submitted a return to the IRS containing inaccurate information about its own officers, directors, etc. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

British national party

I objected to this addition , well to the citations actually..are these wikipedia reliable....
In an audio message Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a “Zionist false flag operation” and added that “This is a neo-con operation.”. They went on the say that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war. [9] [10]
Ones a blog and the daily star, well, it shouldn't be considered a reliable source for anything excepts titillating tabloid commentary....the star article if you can call it that, starts with the neutral .....
BONKERS Nick Griffin has decided who is behind all his troubles – this newspaper. The blundering BNP leader bla bla....
Off2riorob (talk
) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Blog is Simon Darby's own blog, I think he may be a notable expert on what he says. As to the star, as far as I am aware it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by involved user The Star is an RS for the purposes of citing a direct quote from a politician. The blog of the Deputy Leader of a political party is an RS for the purposes of citing direct quotes made on behalf of that party. --FormerIP (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the possible insertion of the comment and the citations can be found here .
Off2riorob (talk
) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The key here is to phrase what is being discussed in terms of being the opinion of Nick Griffin and Simon Darby, and not phrasing it as being accepted fact. Whether their opinions are noteworthy enough to mention in a specific article depends on who these men are and the topic of the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Mr Griffin is is leader and Mr Darby it deputy Leader of the BNP! it safe to say their views are notable on this subject (the BNP!). Well its the section mof teh BNP article that discuses links between tehr BNP and the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Still looking for some more comment regarding these two [11] [12] citations. Are these two citations the really type of thing that we as writers of an encyclopedia should be linking to in order to support our content?
Off2riorob (talk
) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone specify what statement these two sources are intended to serve as citation for ? Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

At present the BNP article says: In an audio message Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a “Zionist false flag operation” and added that “This is a neo-con operation.”. They went on the say that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war. --FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So Mr Darbey's Blog is Being used to souurce Mr Darbey's views.14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The issue is this... (apparently) the EDL (English Defence League) is alledged to be tied to the BNP (as a "front" organization)... and the quoted material was Griffin's and Darbey's response to this allegation. In this context, I think we have to say that the sources are reliable self-published sources. The alternative is to not mention the allegation about the EDL (in which case there is no need to include their response). Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See [[13]]. If its removed from one page it woould have to be removed from both.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Daily Star article does support the statement cited by FormerIP, and since we have the exact audio, there are no
due weight
. A few of minor corrections:
Use "said" instead of "claim" (see
WP:WTA
);

The statement about "low level civil war" precedes the statement about "Zionist false flag operation" in the audio, so we shouldn't say that "they went on to say". Can simply say, They also said ..."

Shouldn't the statements be attributed to Griffin alone ? Can say something like, "Ina recorded conversation with Darby ..."

These are minor issues that don't affect the substance of the content, but we should get it right anyway. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The Daily star does attribute the comments to both men.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
But we can tell from the audio that the relevant parts selected for quotation in the article were all spoken by Griffin. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This Daily Star article (rightly) attributes the comments to Griffin alone and doesn't even mention Darby. Am I missing something here ? Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Opps sorry. This was origional found on the Hopenothate site, which does use the Griffin/Darby line. when it was inserted that was gopouing to be the source. Anyway the page was changed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of journal articles as sources for
MigrationWatch UK
article

An editor is arguing at
Talk:MigrationWatch UK that an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal should not be used as a source since members of the public don't have free access to it. It would be good to get a third-party perspective since it's just a discussion between the two of us at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk
) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See
wp:PAYWALL. LeadSongDog come howl
18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've quoted this on the article's talk page. It would be helpful if someone would back me up there as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be better practice for you to put a note on the talk page with a link to this discussion. It's quite clear-cut. Having to pay for downloading a journal article is in the same category as having to buy a book. Neither are a barrier to verifiability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Publicintelligence.net

Is this [14] a reliable source, in particular for this confidential fax? Thanks.
talk
) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Domain is registerd in Cayman Islands - so we do not know who it is for sure. It does appear to get hold of some important documents if a US Army request for immediate reoval of a file means much. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be different views out there, but IMO it is fine for reporting that a person is on the invite list (I'm making an assumption that that is the proposed purpose), provided there is no indication anywhere that the list might be a forgery. Consideration might be given to how noteworthy it is that the person is on the invite list. Bilderberg is a significant and interesting conference, but it is not the meeting place of the illuminati, as some would have it.--FormerIP (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought about it some more and I think, although it is an RS, I think in most cases it will only meet
Bilderberg Group. In articles on individual attendees, I would prefer their attendance to be only included if it is subsequently mentioned in the mainstream media, otherwise it seems a bit too much like investigative journalism. --FormerIP (talk
) 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Webcomic Reviews

I'd like to question the reliability of multiple sources pertaining largely to webcomics:
*Crush! Yiff! Destroy! - statistics for the site ranks it at ~~#1,056,173 in terms of popularity.~~

Master Zen Dao Meow Webcomic Book Club - this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic.

The Webcomic Overlook is a blog being cited in a small number of articles. Aside from being self-published, statistics for the site put it at 478 unique hits, total, indicating that it is not a popular or known website, certainly not popular enough to warrant its own article, much less to be used as a source. The majority of its uses are as external links, indicating that the author of the site has repeatedly added his own page to articles of comics he has reviewed. (
talk
) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

If C!Y!D! is a review site, then popularity isn't an indicator. Comparative review structure to relevant print media is. Your description of MZDWMBC is that it is not a reliable source as it lacks oversight prior to publication. TWO's self-published status is sufficient to mark it as not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that any of these sites are comparable to relevant printed criticism. From what I can tell, the author of TWO doesn't really read through the comics he reviews. The overtly negative reviews appear to have been written more to generate hits than anything; author is also belligerent towards criticism of his reviews. Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author. (
talk
) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
Actually, scratch C!Y!D! - I just noticed that it has some interviews with some known artists. (
talk
) 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements

On the topic on
UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, namely Shaopeng Huang and Henry N. Pollack
.
The report can be found all over the web (at least 98 hits when using Google’s search engine (source)), however I am not sure if it has been cited before. The report in its shortest form can be accessed for free in the following link:

http://www.econ.umn.edu/~arust/images/Environment/Huang/HPS1.pdf

Since I am not totally sure about what standards are required in order for a source to be deemed reliable, I would appreciate any input on this topic regarding the climate report above. Wejer (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?... if so, it definitely needs to be discussed... so, I would call it reliable for attributed statements as to what the report says ... but
WP:NPOV would require that these statements be ballanced by criticism. Blueboar (talk
) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?" - I did not intend to cite the report for the purpose of the climategate-controversy. However if it is used for that purpose, I agree that added precautions are valid. Wejer (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be usual to add the ref to an article, or discuss it on an article tlak page *first*: that way, you'll get the opinion of knowlegeable editors. I don't think you've done that (I'd expect to have noticed). If this is related to [15] or [16] then I wouldn't be surprised if it was controversial; it would depend on what wording you'd want to wrap around it. It might well be helpful to indicate where you ran across this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"It would be usual to add the ref to an article, or discuss it on an article tlak page *first*: that way, you'll get the opinion of knowlegeable editors." - I discussed the topic privately with some of my friends. I showed them the article, asked for their opinions, but they said they were not sure and asked me to post it here for input from the community. Essentially, I am looking for a definite answer either way concerning if the article is reliable or not. Wejer (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed article by established scientists. Published in Geophysical Research Letters. Hence "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. " Collect (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict) I think the problem is that it is quite out of date now. Moreover, it seems to be reporting results of preliminary investigations. Later papers by the same authors should be preferred. And in science articles, journal papers may be regarded as primary, this one would be particularly likely to fall into that category since it is a "letter", albeit a peer-reviewed one. If there are meta-analyses or overviews that include this paper then that is a point in its favour; the contrary is also true, in that if there are meta-analyses that omit it, its status as RS in this encyclopedia will also be jeopardised. In summary: be guided by how the paper has been discussed since it was published. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In many controversies, a timeline orchronology would not be unencyclopedic. So, if you have a tentative or even "unreliable" result ( say the Pons and Fleischman news conference announcing the discovery of cold fusion), it may be reliable for some claim but not a conflusive scientific result. A letter that was cited in legislation for example may have some significance to the article, you really need to examine context here. Undue weight and prominence relate to coverage, this may not follow scientific merit too well. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Letters" are considered as peer-reviewed in many sciences. The usual usage has more to do with length than anything else. The
WP:RS as the best possible level of source. Collect (talk
) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I should have probably checked what the OP meant but PRL, letter to Nature, letter to editor, scarlet letter, etc, could be anything. The comment was about a result being teantative and likely to have been superseced by something more current. Assuming that was true of the pub in question, I just thought it more relevant to consider ways a seminal or controversial paper may be included without being the latest and greatest opus magnum. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What article do you want to use this is? It can't be
global climate change because that is a redirect. Are you aiming for CC or GW? William M. Connolley (talk
) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to forcefully exclude the use of the report when it comes to one article but not to the other. Possibly, it could be useful in both instances. However, since I am not a qualified climate scientist myself, I much prefer input from others on this topic. Wejer (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those who have expressed reservations on the following grounds:

it's published in a letters journal

it's ancient history and there should by now be plenty of better research that should be cited in preference.

The briefness and preliminary nature of a research letter is good because it gets high impact results out quickly, but it isn't the kind of thing we would want to rely on. Moreover if it's an isolated paper the fact that it's a primary source is material--are there review papers looking at this field and synthesizing the results of a range of papers? Again, we should be looking for such material, especially after 12 years have elapsed. --TS 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that I have not linked to the whole report and that it is only a letter. However, I am not sure how to get acces to the full report (if it exists) - such data is often restricted to climate scientists only. And on the comment of the source's age, I must confess that I haven't found any abundance of reports showing temperature records over the last 20.000 years, which also feature such an extensive data of boreholes ("more than six thousand continental heat flow measurements"). Wejer (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a case where you or someone needs to do some more trawling through the scientific papers to find out where this research thread has led to in the last 10 years. On my reading, the letter was intended to make other scientists aware that this kind of research was going on, which is why the authors say they did not find any results that contradicted what was known from other methods. We would expect one of two things to follow: either the method was found to be valuable and further papers ensued (from the original authors and others), or it was not particularly valuable and interest simply petered out. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Letters journal" is not a problem -- the only difference between Physical Review and Pysics Review Letters is exactly thr length of the article. The requirements for peer review and for content are exactly the same. The article is not a "letter" in any usual sense of the word - it is a scholarly article under four pages of dense text on a large page. It is misleading and inaccurate to distinguish between the two journals. Collect (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's peer reviewed. But it's brief and really should, by now, have led to more substantial follow-ups. --TS 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to climatology, but on medical articles, situations like this were a major impetus for drafting
undue weight. MastCell ^Talk
20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to explain. And Tony Sidaway is right about the Letters publication. This is an academic, peer-reviewed paper, but whether and how it should be used must be decided in the context of papers that may have gone before and papers that came after. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, this is the only definitive study of this data set. It makes no claims at all as to causes of any climate change, and really should be quite uncontroversial indeed. Very few such studies get redone by others as the data should be unambiguous. Collect (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Um... looking at the Google search results ~~you~~ Wejer posted, this paper seems to be a particular favorite citation on "skeptical" blogs. Which, in turn, makes me skeptical about the uses to which the paper will be put on Wikipedia. Bloggers are, of course, free to mine and arrange the literature any way they see fit, but our usage on Wikipedia needs to defer to expert synthesis of the published literature - that's all I was getting at. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Results I posted? To what do you refer? WP:RS esteems scholarly articles from peer-reviewed major journals as RS of the first water. This article makes no claims about any causes of climate change, and can not be used to make any claims about it. Indeed, I find it singularly unadaptable to claims about causes of anything at all. It stands as RS on its own -- just like any other scholarly article in a scientific field. Collect (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken because in science articles scholarly papers do not "stand on their own". I learnt that the hard way through participation in the cold fusion debates, see the multiple archives. And MastCell knows it through editing hundreds, perhaps thousands of medicine-related articles. In science a single paper is in general to be regarded as primary. Would be interested to read further comments from those who edit science articles a lot. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm you say that "this is the only definitive study of this data set." - but that is incorrect.. whats wrong with these rather newer papers[17]?
Pollack, H. N.; Huang, S.; Shen, P. Y. (1998). "Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective" (PDF). PMID 9765150
.

Huang, S.; Pollack, H. N.; Shen, P. Y. (2000). "Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures" (PDF). PMID 10693801. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help
)

Huang, S.; Pollack, H. N.; Shen, P. Y. (2008). "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters. 35 (13): L13703.
doi:10.1029/2008GL034187. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help
)

As far as i can remember, the only thing that distinguishes that particular paper (the one Wejer wants) is that it does some extrapolation further into the past, that all later papers (by the same authors with the same datasets) have dropped. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(out( The 2008 paper points out that the 500 year report used a smaller set of data than did the 20,000 year study. It also maintains the HPS97 data and graph of temperature in Figure 1. It does not in any way contradict or reinterpret the 97 data, hence I do not regard it as being anything more than expository of fitting measured temperatures onto the graph. Or did you miss Figure 1? Collect (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And did you miss what they say about the MWP and misuse (by Deming)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And why are you ignoring fig. 2 - and the text about it:
The reconstructed peak temperatures in the MWP appear comparable to the AD 1961–1990 mean reference level, with the bold mid-range curve slightly below. None of the reconstructions show MWP peak temperatures as high as late 20th century temperatures, consistent with the conclusions of both National Research Council [2006] and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2007] about the warmth of the MWP. The LIA temperature minimum shows an amplitude about 1.2 K below the MWP maximum, and about 1.7 K below present-day temperatures.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period

It was painfully obvious that Wejer was fishing for some text here so that he could push his POV off in some article. He was rather shy of saying where, but the answer turns out to be Medieval Warm Period. His text there is grossly POV [18] and has been removed, of course. Wejer has quoted Collects comment of 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) above; but oddly enough none of the other feedback he received William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"grossly POV"? I simply quoted from their publication. I figured that since I received enough positive feed-back, I saw that as a go-ahead. Also, your accusation that the quotation is orginal research is totally unfounded - I cannot see how any rational individual came to such a conclusion, when I obvisouly have provided a legitimate peer-reviewed source. Wejer (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, this was the quotation I used:

”(…) A warming followed [in medieval times], yielding temperatures that averaged 0.1-0.5 K above present in the interval 500-1,000 years ago. From the peak of this warm period some 700-800 years ago, the temperature declined until about 200 years ago, reaching a minimum of about 0.2-0.7 K below present-day, at which time a warming commenced that continues to the present.”^[3]

The quote speaks for itself... Wejer (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the speed at which the science has been advancing, a primary source from 1997 should not be given anywhere close to equivalent weight to a study published in Science in 2009. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I really can't agree that you got enough "positive feedback" here to allow you to add a point based on this source to an article. Right from the start I advised you that this was an old paper and that you should see how its findings had been treated in the intervening 10 years. Others repeated that advice, and we were willing to take the time to explain it all to you in detail. And not telling us where you wanted to use it - what was all that about then? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Wejer is being fundamentally dishonest. He did not simply quote; his addition begins This contradicts an earlier study, conducted by
IPCC climate scientists... [19]. I really don't know why he is bothering, because this is so obviously not going to work. Can we just close off this discussion now? We're all agreed that the source is, in and of itself, reliable: it is a bona-fide published scientific paper. We're all also agree that does not of itself entitle it to appear in a given article; whether it does or not depends on other issues - more recent research -that is best discussed in the context of the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk
) 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And you have still ignored the 2008 paper by HS&P - specifically you are (still) ignoring this in the abstract (emph. mine):
Below we describe their respective datasets, and show why the results of HPS97 cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century. We then proceed to integrate the two datasets into a new reconstruction, one based on the combination of the climate information carried by the independent data sources of these two previous studies, as well as the 20th century instrumental record

Can you explain why? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As the first paper made no claims about causes of global warming, it should be considered a nice neutral source. There was no change made to the findings of the first study - indeed they affirmed the first study for the 20,000 year period. Nor has anyone published an article on the 20,000 year timeframe which shows that the graphs provided are wrong or incorrectly found from the data. The quibble appears to be "but some people are reaching conclusions about anthropogenic global warming not directly drawn from the article" or thereabouts. In short -- the article is clearly conceded to be RS, the quibble is how the article is to be used -- which is not really an issue for RS/N. Collect (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Family foundation School article

Please review the new addition to the Program section of the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Foundation_School It is being discussed on the talk page whether the blog posting from the owner of the facility on their child website of their main page can be considered a reliable source. the blog is straight from the leadership team (including owners and administrators) who post responses to the recent controversy surrounding their facility. I think the blog and its contents are extremely relevant to the article and believe that the blog site can be considered a reliable source since it is directly owned and operated by the Family Foundation School administration.

Thanks in advance for your reviewing this. Flyboi9 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Please provide the source you propose to add to the article as a
wp:RS
.

I think you are referring to this source, but I am uncertain.

Further, you have introduced this into the article, though it appears to be unrelated to the subject (no mention of the school). I have removed it (
wp:SYNTH), but restored it based on the possibility of input from more knowledgeable editors. You might seek support for that here, but I am very unsure this is the right forum. Since people who watch this board are likely to be interested in sources, one or more might be able to help- Sinneed
16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an EL that I had opposed, www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com. It is a strongly anti-school self-published site, and it appears to be claimed as written by one of the editors ( article suffers from possible
wp:EL for this article.- Sinneed
16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I did not even realize there WAS a Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. The EL question probably belongs there.- Sinneed 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The external link needs to be on the article. Since its inclusion is not in the article, and many editors do not consider it a reliable source (yet) for reference, it should be included in the EL. It is an important part of the article, just like the suicide EL that was fought hard to keep out of the article. In the end, fighting an anti-school site's inclusion in the article is not keeping the article neutral. It needs to and should be included in the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, many MANY anti-everything sites are excluded from articles. Just because a site hates X does not mean it needs to be mentioned in the article on X.- Sinneed 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped the part not related to FFS.

The site's comments that were specific to it in the article, I remain dubious of using. It is presented as a blog, being used to provide pure opinion about a business, and would not add it.- Sinneed 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The website that SINEED is speaking about is www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com and should be considered a reliable source for this article. There is evidence posted on the website to back up the claims that it says and the website is already spoken about in a published newspaper article and on the CAFETY website which means these two organizations consider the website reliable and so should WIKI Flyboi9 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Books/Gale Research

I feel like an idiot even bringing this up, but various admins insists on it. Gale Research is one of the largest and most reputable publishers of reference works in the US, if not the world. I added a routine birthdate citation to the Chase Masterson article, citing a Gale-published reference work available through Google Books [20]; Worldcat shows nearly 1000 library holdings, in case anyone wants more indicators of reliability for this reference work. A serial vandal with 75 edits to its name, mostly personal attacks on me like this [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] reverted the addition as vandalism, denying both the validity of the reference and attacking the reliability of Google Books as a source, and insisting the matter is giverned by a nonexistent talk page consensus after a months-old discussion including examination of various naked pictures/screenshots of the article subject. (But now I'm getting really cranky.) I don't see anything of substance to discuss here, but further input seems to be needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a reliable source, although of course it could be mistaken. If there's another reliable source saying something different then you probably have to report both versions. You're clearly not an idiot, but you might be getting a bit personally involved. Can you and the other side go back to the Mediation Cabal, as they will be able to defuse the situation. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There aren't any reliable sources for any different date. I added this cite because it recently became available through Google Books. I don't have any personally involvement in the underlying dispute, but I can tell you that it's extremely frustrating that after months of personal attacks from this user and his various socks, another recurrence of his personal attacks is apparently handled with kid gloves, and a thinly disguised 3RR violation has been ignored. Take a look at the recent history of my user and talk pages, and notice that granting the user's request in this dispute apparently triggered another round of turning my userspace into a free fire zone. (irony alert) With this level of attacks over basic policy enforcement, maybe I ought to be named an honorary admin (end alert). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any of these help? [26][27][28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I do wonder what the source of Gale's information is, and it's possible they're wrong, they're certainly a reliable source. I can't see any reason for deleting the date of birth with that reference. It's ridiculous that anybody would delete it once, much less persist in doing so. Incidentally, Masterson appeared alone on the cover of Femme Fatales Volume 6 #2 August 1997 and in a group shot on 12:3 July/August 2003; I don't know if that constitutes a distinction. Don't think I'll support the honorary admin campaign though :-}
talk
) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable as used. May be a tertiary source though. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Major publisher of references - clearly scholarly references are specifically RS by WP guidelines and policies. Tell the other person that they can as an NPOV issue <g> give references which meet WP:RS for different dates. Googlebooks is not a "source" -- it is a tool used to examine huge numbers of books quickly, and, as such, is not an issue. The source remains the book which is so found. Collect (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Midwest Today and power line health effects

Is Midwest Today, April/May 1996 "DO HIGH-VOLTAGE [sic] a reliable source for the claims about power line health effects found at Electric power transmission#Health concerns? I am concerned because an old article from the popular press is being used to make controversial claims, rather than a recent article from a scientific journal. Also, I am unfamiliar with Midwest Today and don't know how good a publication it is. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable see
WP:MEDRS Fifelfoo (talk
) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The [sic] is inapt as the title is "Do high-voltage power lines cause cancer" which does not appear to have any misspelling. Midwest Today is a current magazine, and hence not self-published, etc. RS by WP guidelines and policies. See [29] if you want a BMJ article from 2005. Collect (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a news article or an opinion piece?

Certain sections read like an opinion piece, but it's published in the Science section and not the Opinion section. Or is it an opinion piece that passed editorial review and counts as a news article?[30] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The first part appears to be written as "news." As soon as it goes into first person narrative, it departs from being a news source and becomes a personal column. Anything written in the first person is attributable only to that person, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be an opinion piece written by a journalist to lead off a "blog" type discussion. Therefore treat as an opinion piece. It starts off by rehearsing factual info, which seems to be sourced to AP, therefore you could use AP instead. It does seem to be increasingly difficult to find out where the line is drawn between news and opinion even in the most reputable media. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found a straight news article from The Chronicle of Higher Education [31] that I can use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropographia Publications

This is some confusion and disagreement at
WP:SPS? Thank you for any assistance and feedback in this matter. Vassyana (talk
) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not an easy one. My instinct is no. He seems such an interesting scholar, but what actually is his field? Why's he turning to self-publication or publication with a minor press? It doesn't fall clearly into the category of an established scholar with a string of related publications who has one non-reviewed publication. Any other opinions here? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anna Di Lellio on Kosovo

There's a dispute at Miloš Obilić as to whether a book by Anna Di Lellio (a sociologist, not a historian specialising in Balkan history) is a reliable source concerning his origins considering that no other sources have been found confirming her assertions. Outside opinions would be appreciated.--Ptolion (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate

Is the editorial content at:

"Science & Technology Web Awards 2005". Scientific American Online.
3 October 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help
)

reliable for any purpose other than the opinion of the
WP:UNDUE
weight for the quote.
Previous discussion thread at Talk:RealClimate#Scientific American (editorial) quote, and other preceding threads in that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion is relevant to the article, and Scientific American is a reliable source. Of course we want to mention in an article about a science web site what other reliable science publications think of the site. It's no different from including reviews by recognized book critics in an article about a book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American is definitely a reliable source... but as the quote comes from an editorial, there should be in text attribution ... something like: "According to Scientific American... 'blah blah blah'" Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Or say, "In 2005, Scientific American named RealClimate one of the top 25 science and technology web sites." It's factually accurate and automatically has in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The attribution is already (and has been since at least Jan 1,2008): "In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing: ....". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. Didn't somebody recently try to remove this from the RealClimate article, or am I misremembering? --TS 14:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Zoroastrians.

Hi,

I had along exhausting discussion on Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia, with User:digitwoman over the issue of validity of information given on certain Zoroastrians websites about harsh persecution of Zoroastrians by Invading Arab armies in 7th century. The wesites mentions this, but Mainstream academic sources don't mention them. I mean if this was a universally accepted point of view then there must be no problem in finding this topic in modern well reputed books. But so far there isnt any source (western thrid party source) in my notice or in User:digitwoman's knowledge which have mentioned these atrocities by invading arab armies and in immediate aftermaths of the conquest, however there is a lot of reliable sources that talk about harsh persecution of zoroastrians at the hands of later muslim empires like later Abbasids, turks and mongols (Muslim mongols).

My question is that in these circumstances when no academic source supports the views of those websites, should the views of those websites be considered reliable or extremist ? These websites dont have any references to the source of their articles and provide no bibliography. Following are those websites,

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

Following are the books that i have consulted and are already mentioned in the article as references to the section Religion...

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

These sources mentioned the immediate status of zoroastrians as dhimmis and thus protection of their temples and religious belives by paying an additional tax called jizya. Believes of those websites generally seems opposite to this. regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

we have this source[[41]] and this [[42]]. So it would seem that it is some book sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the five sources you raise. The BBC site is an RS. Economic Expert appears to take its material from Wikipedia, so it is not an RS. It is unlclerat whether Encyclopedia Iranica will be an RS. It appears to be self-published, although an editorial board is mentioned. Becasue they are clearly partisan, Fezana and Vohuman would not be RSs for political claims, such as claims about historical persecution, although they could be RSs for other facts. --FormerIP (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Also two of the contradicting sources do not in fact contradict the persuecution.

Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices Make mention of such things as having travel forbidden to htem, it also only appears to cover the 19thC.

The Jews of Islam refers to them being subject to frequent vexations and persecutions. And that if the three main non Muslim groups in Iran the Zoroastrians faired the worst.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The books by Boyce, Lambton and Lewis are your reliable sources. Stick to them. Not the BBC for this - great for news, but this religious history stuff is just a basic introduction, doesn't compare with academic scholarship. The bar needs to be set high for history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Itsmejudith. The BBC can be used for information which isn't sourced in the other books mentioned (Boyce is considered probably the best extant source on Zoroastrianism, by the way), but otherwise the books are preferable. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it would be really helpful.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks. Some questions. I understand that books might be 'preferable' to BBC, but does that make BBC not
WP:RS
? BBC might be less 'preferable' than academic sources but I would still like to cite it since in my opinion it is a quite notable and credible, 3rd party source and I do not own physical copies of any of the books mentioned. Please clarify since there seems to be a confusion about this here, as another user said above that BBC will qualify. Secondly, there is also an article on Britannica.com regarding this topic, what are your thoughts about that? Would that qualify as
WP:RS? Lastly, I would like to reference the article from Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America
for the following historic claims:

All non-Moslems were made to pay an extra tax called the Jizya. The penalty for not paying, was death, enslavement or imprisonment. Even when the Zoroastrians paid the tax, they were subjected to insults by the tax-collectors.

And:

Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.

Would those be acceptable? Please clarify.
Lastly, I would also appreciate a clear yes/no response regarding
WP:RS. It is a project run by Columbia University
according to the wikipedia article and hence, appears to be an academic and neutral 3rd party source.
Thanks and appreciate your help in advance for sorting this issue out. digitwoman (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify regarding BBC, I only want to use it as a reference for the following claims to make the Religion section of the article NPOV by also giving the Zoroastrian side of the story, currently this section appears too biased in the favor of muslims):

Many libraries were burned and much cultural heritage was lost.

There were also many other laws and social humiliations implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam.

digitwoman (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the BBC is an RS, as stated previously. It has been said above, taking the same information from books would be preferable.

I don't think any Zoroastrian website should be used to source claims about the historical persecution of Zoroastrians, including the two statements above. If the claims are correct, it should be possible to find them in an RS such as a book about the history of the relevant period, and this should be used as a source instead.

The Encycloaedia Iranica, looking at it again, seems to have the bleesings of Columbia, but doesn't seem to be actually run by them (ie it would be misleading to say it is published by Columbia University). It does seem to have an impressive list of contributors, though, and an editorial board. So that means, IMO, it looks like it is an RS, unless anyone knows of any other reasons why it isn't. --FormerIP (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What are your thoughts about the Britannica.com article?

I will drop the Zoroastrian source (Fezana) article. Looking forward to hear if anyone has any objections to Encyclopedia Iranica. digitwoman (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Think Britannica is an RS. It is also a paysite, though, which means, IMO, it would be more helpful if it can be avoided as a source (ie if the same info is available somewhere else, why not use that instead?). --FormerIP (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have limited time available to do this research since its volunteer work. Hence I would like to use the sources I've already spent the time looking for as long as they meet
WP:RS :). Regarding Britannica, being a paysite will not affect its reliability, I believe, since the article being cited is freely available to browse. Furthermore it is not promoting any particular political agenda and remains neutral. What are your thoughts?digitwoman (talk
) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I hv given u a link to the book, its only 2 pages tht u need to read it will take less then 10 minutes. why dont u do tht ? i hope it will be helpful

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

@Adil, I will read those pages and see if they can be cited. Regarding Encyclopedia Iranica, I thought I should mention that the Wikipedia page for it says that the
wikipedia page for it
does say that it is published by 'Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University'.

digitwoman (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "Diskus" RS?

I'm asking about Diskus (an online journal) as an RS. In particular, the article here, by Bryan Wilson (who is a long-time, internationally respected scholar in the field of New Religious Movements). The person who wrote the article seems RS, but I'm not certain about the site, and I don't have access to the Indian Missiological Review which originally published the paper. • Astynax ^talk 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The site has an ISSN number (online parallel to ISBN). This places is well above the "blog threshold" for being RS. As such, it is listed in British National Bibliography 1994. Edu sites list is as a publication, hence I would regard it as one. RS. Collect (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This got my attention after making other comments about the "Real" review process of some online journals. A complete library may carry works of fiction or tabloid, but that doesn't give the publications a reputation for fact checking. A somewhat tautological claim, "A says B about C" can always consider "A" to be reliable as there is no real fact checking to be done but even here tense is important- "We told you that D would happen" can not be assumed to be true. Online journals may not be blogs but peer review may be advertized beyond what is actually performed. I'm not impugning this source, indeed I know nothing about it, just pointing to a larger problem. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Peer review" works (usually) for scientific topics. By the very nature of this journal, it is not on scientific topics. By definition, this is a "publication", and not a "self-published" source. Thus this is RS for any reasonable use of the journal. Collect (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine Telegraph; Adallah's Newsletter, Electronic Intifada, Journal of Refugee Studies, Dissident Voice, and Islam Online

Would appreciate input as to whether these are RSs or not:

The Palestine Telegraph[43] for book review (of author up for AfD)

Adallah's Newsletter[44] for ref to article written in it by author in article "selected works" list (article on author is up for AfD)

The Electronic Intifada[45] for book reviews (of author up for AfD)

The Journal of Refugee Studies[46] for book review (of author up for AfD)

Dissident Voice[47] for interview of author up for AfD

Islam Online[48] for book review (of author up for AfD)

--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer this, we need to know what these are being cited for.... how they are being used. Would you link to the article (or better yet some difs to show exactly how they are being cited). Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary response: The Electronic Intifada is biased and not in line with the facts, support terror groups like Hamas and hence a very problematic source. Adallah's offices are located in Israel and formally it's an Israeli organization but I would not count on it, I think that it have a bad record with facts and would look for information on that when I've free time. As for the others, don't know them but in general Palestinian media have a very biased approach (examples: [49][50][51]) you can also find information on many Islamic/Arabic/Palestinian media sources here[52] and here[53]. For the meanwhile I would recommend to avoid usage in any of these sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: Bias does not necessarily equate to unreliability... as I said... we need to know context. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, so allow me to rephrase it, there are many documentations of false information coming from Palestinian media sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please provide some specific examples of 'false information' coming from specific sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

True... which is why we need to know the exact context of how these particular sources are being used. We can not simply say: "Every Palestinian media source is unreliable in all circumstances". Instead we need to look at the specific source and the specific circumstances. For example, are they being used to support a bald statement of fact (if so what fact), or are they being used to source a statement of opinion (if so, who's opinion)? Are they being used to source a quote (and if so who are they quoting)? Their level of reliability is going to be different in each of these situations. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

..has come up before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#The_Electronic_Intifada which includes multiple examples of reliable sources citing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)..and let's not forget their role in Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First, as for electronic intifada, even if it was cited by many reliable sources it still doesn't mean that there are no examples of where it provided false information (but indeed it's usually more biased than fallacious). Also, I didn't say that we can't use Palestinian sources, just suggested that based on their controversial reputation they will be scrutinized more carefully.--Gilisa (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just saying there are examples means nothing. You have to actually provide those examples for your words to carry any weight. Dlabtot (talk)

Sean.hoyland, the wikilink to CAMERA is really unrelevant for this discussion (what more that it would be ridiculous to assume that there are no such groups on the behalf of the Palestinian issue, or that just motivated by anti semitic agenda and likewise-in fact I would be surprised if they are not taking part in it themselves[54]). I think that this discussion will became more scathing after false reports examples would be given. As I told, I would search for suce soon.--Gilisa (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the context in which reliability is required has not yet been specified by Epeefleche, you are not in a position to say whether it is relevant or not. However, I expect the context to be this book review for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very bad example, we were not discussing on such cases where there is a direct link between subject and source. So, back to the issue, as I said-if source is proved to be unreliable it's not even about the context as whenever one cite it he/she would also be expected to provide other sources to support the already-fishy source and in any case they would have clear advantage and replace it...So, there is no point in your context argument.--Gilisa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sean, you only provide context for one of the texts questioned above. Do you know why the others are being questioned? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't say for sure. I'm just guessing that Epeefleche's questions relate to the sourcing for the Jonathan Cook article because the source list matchs in many cases and Epeefleche has been involved with the article and associated deletion discussion. I assume Epeefleche will come back and provide the context for each source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, if Sean is correct, then what is being cited are reviews of Cook's books from these sources. (I assume they are being used to establish notability). A book review is always reliable for a statement of what is said in the book review. Whether the review is worth mentioning is another issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added, to the initial entry above, the context in which these are being considered now--most for book reviews of books written by an author (Jonathan Cook, as surmised above), whose Wiki article is up for AfD. If they are RSs, they would count towards his notability; if not, not. But as these sources may be used as RSs in other wiki articles generally, where possible it would be helpful to get input as to whether they are RSs or not (as a general matter). I recognize that they may not be RSs for facts or for book reviews by non-notable people (for the same reason that a blog book review by a non-notable individual blogger's website would not be a RS for inclusion in a wikipedia article), but may be acceptable if (which is not the case in the above, I believe) RSs for the purpose of reviews by notable people. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK--to spur conversation, let me share my view. I've looked carefully at these sources. I should preface first by saying that I am (at this point) voting to keep the Jonathan Cook article, as I believe other sources that have surfaced are sufficient to evidence his notability. I believe, however, that none of these six os an RS, and that none of them are acceptable as a book review unless the book review is written by a notable person (not the case in the Jonathan Cook article). Should any of them carry a book review by a notable person (say, the leader of Hamas), I would on the other hand view the source as an RS. Does anyone disagree with any of that? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might disagree... Let's remove the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the equation... if Cook were an author who had written books about Alpine politics, and the cited sources were book reviews from Swiss media sources... would you have the same objections that you do now? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. As I said -- I'm voting to keep the Cook article. I'm on the side of those arguing for his notability. I just don't think these are RSs. (I think there are RSs sufficient to support his notability). If Abdullah's Newsletter were instead Hans Federer's newsletter (or Joe Smith's Newsletter, or Hogarth Pinkerton V's Newsletter, or Judah Levine's Newsletter) I would say its a personal blog non-RS ... no question about it. I reach the same conclusion as to the others.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Palestine Telegraph is a relatively new online newspaper based out of Gaza. I don't see why it does not constitute reliable source. It has been used as an information source by mainstream news sourcess like the BBC.

It appears to be a non-notable 23-year-old's blog-like work, its predecessor self=identified in the past as a blog, with an all-volunteer staff of volunteer reporters[55] that includes "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media".[56] Is barely mentioned by mainstream sources.[57] This seems to fall squarely into the non-RS category described here, and in general doesn't have the indicia required by
wp:rs.--Epeefleche (talk
) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Adalah is a legal NGO based in Israel that advocates for the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. I don't see why it cannot be used as a source reviewing Cook's work.

I don't see how the fact that it has filed a registration form to be considered an NGO makes Adallah's Newsletter a RS. There is nothing indicating that it meets the requirements of wp:rs. Here is a list of 53,750 NGOs and other development organizations; do you believe they are all RSs? NGO, by itself, does not an RS make.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada
, while certainly partisan, is a reliable source for reviews of Cook's work.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand the objection to The Journal of Refugee Studies at all.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dissident Voice may represent a minority viewpoint, but provided it is not given undue weight, I don't see the harm in including its reviews of Cook's work, given his greater popularity in non-mainstream circles.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Islam Online is a perfectly fine source for reviews of Cook's work, just as would be Christianity Online or Judaism Online, if they existed. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. You're basing your view that it is an RS on its name (and the same with Christianity Online and Judaism Online)? Frankly, I don't think that's the criterion. Furthermore, if the publication were limited to subjects covered by its name, which of Cook's books do you believe are on the subject of Islam? I don't see it. Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets? I don't see evidence of it on their site. And articles such as this one don't encourage me to think they are an RS, quite frankly, as elements of it (beyond the bare headline/main topic of Irving's release] appear along the lines of fringe theory support.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll insert my thoughts under your references to the pubs. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is hard to respond to because people seem to want to know a) if the sources are good to establish notability of an author and b) how they are generally. And most of them are complex cases and only possible to comment on in context. The exception is the Journal of Refugee Studies which is an academic journal published by Oxford Journals and reliable in virtually all circumstances. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Palestinian Telegraph meets Wikipedia's definition of a questionable source. Its use of "citizen journalists" and its recent history as a simply a blog. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" - Wikipedia:Reliable sources (emphasis mine).Cptnono (talk)

http://dissidentvoice.org/ looks to be the same since it is a "radical newsletter for peace and social justice". It looks like they take [submissions so I don't know what their vetting process is. I would question their willingness to provide neutral information. I wouldn't trust them as a source for what books I was going to buy.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[58] also take ssubmissions. They have such an axe to grind (in "combating pro-Israeli, pro-American spin") that I would not trust them.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)::

The Journal of Refugee studies gets some credit for being academic. They admit to being biased (in that they are trying to accomplish a goal through promotion) but that shouldn't completely prevent its use.

Islam Online appears to have a full staff. I would assume, just from a quick look, that they are professional enough. They try to assert this all over their about page.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are saying in regard to bias in the Journal of Refugee Studies? Academic journals like this are the best sources that we have in WP. This one comes from a centre at the University of Oxford, is published by Oxford Journals and refereed in the normal way. I don't understand why you think it might be biased (although even if it was, that would not affect reliability). This does illustrate how the way that the question is framed here makes it difficult to answer. The status of these sources in general is a different question from that of whether they are appropriate in a particular context. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
They are biased in the fact that they have a "commitment to improving the lives and situations for some of the world’s most disadvantaged people". It sounds morally just but it doesn't mean they don't have an axe to grind which is clearly shown on their website. That ebing said, they use "world-class academic research" and are part of a reputable institution. I find them reliable but felt it OK to point out that they aren't a neutral source.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Please don't be mistaken about our sourcing policy. Bias is not a barrier to reliability. For example, both the
Ha'aretz have editorial viewpoints but both are good news sources. If there's one thing certain to ring alarm bells with RSN regulars, it's questioning the status of academic sources. Unless of course they aren't really academic, in which case we will all join in. Itsmejudith (talk
) 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure on the context, but in general Electronic Intifada and Adallah are unreliable. 'Dissent Voices' describe themselves as "newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press" which makes them nothing more than an advocacy blog with little to no notability and not much of a wiki-reliable source. There's probably issues with the other sources since there seems to be a common theme here but I don't have the time to give them a proper look-see. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the context is only whether reviews in these sources indicate notability of Jonathan Cook. And since the AfD on that article has had extensive discussion and seems to be moving towards conclusion, then I don't know that there is much else to concern us here. Except that to inform our future discussions I would just restate that per policy academic journals are with few exceptions good sources while internet advocacy sites are likely to be problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This is actually still useful since these sources are being used in an article that will more than likely be kept.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Reviews by unreliable sources as an indication for notability? I don't know. It doesn't sound like a good measure. Imagine a person is smeared by unreliable websites and someone wants to create an article based on just that. This one seems more like a question for the notability forums than for the reliability forum. The sources, in themselves are not reliable. I would like to hear other explained opinions and thoughts on the notability issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like an update is in order. The article is good to go since there is coverage from sources. What about the potentially bad ones? Of the list up above, are there any that are not RS. I personally feel that a couple of them are so biased without a proven track record of proper editorial vetting that there is no way they can be trustworthy in my opinion. I would prefer the Barnes & Noble or Amazon websites over Palestinian Telegraph (don't be fooled by the name) and dissadentvoice.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It's called The Palestine Telegraph and the spelling of the latter is dissidentvoice. Please try to get the names right. Tiamut^talk 12:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Screw 'em. I misspelled a whole lot here. I even said Seatl the other day. I think we are above boohooing over that. Thanks to Epeefleche for trying to clean it up. I didn't realize how bad it actually was until checking the difference!

So misspelling aside (was in Opera w/ out spell check and was too lazy to check), what is up with the sources?Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I'm looking at the sources one by one. A review in Electronic Intifada is being used to source the fact that Cook authored a particular book. Simply leave out, because the book itself is the source, so long as publication details are given somewhere in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Next one I have looked at is Dissident Voice. An interview sourced to this is given in "Further reading" but isn't currently used as a source for the article. The interview is an English translation of a German original published in WP:EL. On the face of it, a very good source that the article should probably be using. Itsmejudith (talk
) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to look up any more? The article seems to have some source-savvy editors actively working on it, but if there is anything you need an outside opinion on, just say. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to a reply on the talk page, I will comment on all the remaining sources. Of course others are very welcome to comment as well. Here's the next one. Palestine Telegraph. Not currently referenced in article, so nothing else to say at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Next one. Adalah's Newsletter (note the spelling). Cook published an article in this in 2004. It's not used as a source in our bio of him; it's simply listed among his publications, with a link to the online version. I would say it's too minor a publication to be worth including, so take out. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Having checked them all out now, here is my summary:

Palestine Telegraph - not currently referenced, no issue

Adalah's Newsletter - take out the bibliographic item it references

Electronic Intifada - not necessary, book is its own source

Journal of Refugee Studies - scholarly journal, reliable

Dissident Voice - English translation of article in die tageszeitung, quality newspaper, reliable

Islam Online - convenience link to review in Holy Land Studies, scholarly journal, reliable

The book reviews are not currently used as well as they could be in the article. I will edit accordingly. If there are any further questions about these sources calling for more input, I suggest that a further post is made here as this one is quite old now. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "further reading" expectable? And it is only quite old due to improper diligence.
There isn't any "further reading" any more. Improper diligence? We're all volunteers here. Some questions unfortunately get no answers at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

News of the World

There's a dispute on the The Beautiful Life article about News of the World being used as source. Even though the article isn't a BLP, the source is being used to cite something (a, IMO, very trivial point) about a living person. It was my understanding that papers like News of the World and The Sun shouldn't be used as they're tabloids and considered unreliable. Another user claims they're a-ok. Opinions please. Pinkadelica ^♣ 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See the archive. LeadSongDog come howl 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've read that and another post in the archive which I used to support my removal of the content. Just to be clear, the consensus is to not use NOTW, correct? Pinkadelica ^♣ 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus" wasn't quite established, but as I read it the NOTW certainly should not be considered a RS for anything remotely sensational. I suppose that leaves the football scores.LeadSongDog come howl 04:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinkadelica ^♣ 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree... NOTW might be reliable for a few specific things (and there are probably better sources even for these)... but not in general. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Disagree - There's nothing in
WP:RS or any of the other guidelines that exclude it as a reliable source, in the same way as other British tabloids such as The Mirror are not specifically excluded. It's important to realise that British tabloid newspapers are considerably different to US-style "supermarket tabloids", and the term refers more to the size format than it does the content - Even The Times now publishes in a tabloid format! And until such time as there's a list of major sources that are specifically excluded as reliable sources, it should remain as a permitted source, and the question of inclusion/exclusion should depend entirely upon the specific information itself. And as Pinkadelica has omitted to mention, the specific information in question here is from a celebrity interview (and contained in the paper's colour supplement magazine, rather than the paper itself), and not some sensationally-headlined frontpage story, I'd say that puts it more into the "football scores" category mentioned above, and therefore more reliable than Pinkadelica asserts. So does the fact that the reference in question is actually a celebrity interview from the paper's companion magazine, rather than a news story from the paper, change anyone's view on source reliability? Emma white20 (talk
) 18:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly the format has nothing to do with reliability. The lack of a reputation for reliable fact checking on the other hand, has everything to do with it. Is there any reason to think that
News International has higher editorial standards for fact checking at Fabulous Magazine than at its parent News of the World? LeadSongDog come howl
20:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't rely on News of the World, The Sun, etc. To put the case in a kinder way: don't rely on any single source. These particular newspapers (The Mirror, Daily Mail, and other tabloids too) often report bits of gossip as fact, and most newspapers have a horrible record on facts. If using newspapers as sources, use multiple independent sources, and if such sources aren't available consider that parroting something only found in one report in one newspaper means placing excessive reliance on a news gathering organization that makes a lot of money from selling sensational interpretations very loosely based on facts, and less money from reporting the bare, unvarnished, verifiable truth. --TS 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Is Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists a reliable source in discussions about the difficulties of permanent disposal of high level radioactive waste? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you speaking of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? If that is the case, it would depend largely upon whether the source being used is an article or an op-ed. In general, though, yes that's exactly the sort of topic for which that magazine is an excellent source. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As always, make sure that opinions are cited as opinion. Too often that fine point is elided in articles. Collect (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue should be elucidated further.

I'm currently engaged in an edit dispute over this issue, in the article High-level_radioactive_waste_management. I am disputing the presence of an extended quotation from the Bulletin.

The quotation in question has the following problems, IMO. The quotation was taken from an opinion piece in the Bulletin but was treated as fact in the article. The quotation was taken from an issue of the Bulletin entitled "One-dimensional ecology: a debate", but was not labelled as opinion. The quotation is not counterbalanced by any other opinions, despite the highly politicized and controversial nature of that topic. The quotation includes factually inaccurate claims that are starkly at odds with claims from scholarly sources which I have presented. The quotation makes claims which are repeated as facts in subsequent text. The quotation is heavily over-weighted, since it serves as the sole basis of the first section of that article.

The Bulletin sounds like a peer-reviewed journal, but is not. It's an "award-winning magazine...we reach policy leaders and audiences around the world with information and analysis...With fellowships for students and awards to young journalists, we help educate the next generation." (taken from the "purpose" section of that magazine). The Bulletin has sections for op-ed pieces, for columnists, for analysis, and for "roundtables", but no section for reporting the results of research.

I do not object altogether to the presence of the Bulletin in that article. I wouldn't mind including opinions from it, written by notable people, in a section called "controversies" or "opinions", as long as we counterbalance them with other opinions according to their weight. I do object, however, to the placement of quotations from that magazine, in the beginning of the first section of the article, and then treating claims from those quotations as agreed-upon facts, when they are not only disputed, but factually wrong.

At present, I am trying to remove the disputed quotation, and the text which treats its claims as fact, from the article. If we later add an "opinions" or "controversies" section to that article, then I'll re-add the quotation.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate noticeboard to discuss this issue. It may be more of an issue of
WP:undue.Twerges (talk
) 19:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if one reads the article High-level_radioactive_waste_management one will see it does not assert the opinion of a Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist is true, it merely asserts that he said it, and discusses the ramifications of his statements. What one alleges here is not an accurate description of the manner in which the quote is used in the article. It is used appropriately. Please see for yourself. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing neutrality tags from "Chris Gorog" article

How do I get a neutrality tag removed. I have updated the "Chris Gorog" page extensively, including adding many 3rd party (neutral) sources/citings. I added a comment to the page discussion, but I am curious if I need to do anything else to highlight this and how long it will take before it is reviewed. Thanks. Jennifer Wilbur 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have addressed the concerns that led to the article being tagged in the first place, and think the article is now neutral in tone... then just remove it yourself. Of course if someone reverts you, don't get upset or go into an edit war over it... just continue to ask questions to see what the remaining problems are, and then work to resolve them. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks so much! Didn't realize I could do that. Learning is good. ;) Jennifer Wilbur 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Midwest Book Review

Disclaimer -- this post relates to a content dispute between myself User:PelleSmith and User:Cirt at the entry for the book Twisted Scriptures.

Is the Midwest Book Review a reliable source for independent reviews or simply a PR resource for small publishers? Other than what they claim on their own website I can't find much of anything about them -- a news search results in next to nothing, and a book search results in either examples of their reviews or a variety of books giving advice on how to get PR for one's self-published book. Our entry on them has been unreferenced since it was created, and tagged for almost a year now. The only talk page edit was by someone who pointed out that Midwest Book Review puts thousands of reviews on Amazon and according to the poster they are all 5 star reviews. My more specific question is whether or not it is appropriate to use reviews from this group as examples of the "reception" that a book we have an entry on has received.PelleSmith (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their reviews are littered with critical comments like these, which certainly do not help their credibility -- [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], etc. Here's a great Amazon review that 3/4 people claim was helpful yet it reviews the wrong book!PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this sorted. In an AfD, an editor commented (no source, so just opinion) that it is "a PR publication of the small press community." At
talk
) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a valid source for book reviews. Coverage in other books, Recent news, Archived news. Cirt (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt can you explain what you mean by "valid" because I don't think anyone disputes the fact that they put out "book reviews". Regarding your links, I've already explained what "coverage" in other books amounts to -- listings in "how to get your book published and sold" type guides. Most of the "recent news" hits you post seem to be links to their reviews via pay service Highbeam with others being from PR wires and not news sources. Do you have any reliable sources writing about them as an organization in a way actually speaks to their credibility? Comments on their Amazon reviews are often like the ones I posted above. Look at them ... these negative feedback comments point out things like the fact that the Midwest Book Review mistook
A Streecar Named Desire for a "musical" and in another instance reviewed the wrong book. Others just point out that the reviewers appear not to be familiar with the books they are reviewing.PelleSmith (talk
) 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Meets RS. Not a highly notable source, but certainly acceptable and usable. Valuable because of its focus on smaller publishing houses and less widely reviewed books. Should be considered less desirable than more prominent review sources where available. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain by what criteria you know them to "meet RS" and is there any independent verification of that fact? I do not question your motivations here at all, but this is the second time you've supported User:Cirt's POV in the larger content area this dispute regards so I would really appreciate something more than simply a vote of confidence. Thanks kindly.PelleSmith (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like how you badgered me for umpteen explanations for what is meant by "false analogy"? No, I'm done offering increasingly detailed answers, pandering to your desire to waste my time in pursuit of your disagreement with Cirt. I've agreed, and disagreed, with virtually every Admin on this site. Spin that any way you want, but you need to stop short of accusing me of favoring individuals over the encyclopedia, or else supply some very strong evidence when you accuse me. I suggest the correct venue to be
WP:RFC. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice
17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hang on a mo. This is at RSN now and you have uninvolved people trying to answer. I'm still unconvinced per Doug and would like to hear a more detailed argument referring to objective measurements of reliability for this source. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is that to me? I'm uninvolved, as I've never edited that article nor used them as a source. I rgularly comment on this board. However, if you are adressing Cirt I'll let him answer that. Regrding my rationale, MBR "accepts no financial donations from authors or publishers in exchange for our services, in order to avoid any conflict of interest issues." They're established, having been around since 1976. They've been used by libraries. They're volunteer, so some of their reviews suck more than others, hence my "less desirable" caveat. Let me know if this does not ddress your questions. If the question was not directed to me, apologies and suggest you give a name when you instruct others to "hang on" and ask questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I meant, hang on everyone. It wasn't meant to be incivil, sorry if you or anyone took it that way. Thanks for presenting the arguments. Having read them, I'm still not convinced this is RS. Hope some more uninvolved people will post cause there could be other angles on it. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As KC writes, the website claims that Midwest Book Review "accepts no financial donations from authors or publishers in exchange for our services". I wonder how they generate revenue (for the "staff" as opposed to the "volunteers") since they also have no advertising on their website. Does Amazon pay them for content? Do authors or publishers pay Amazon in return to have reviews listed on the website? Just curious in case anyone knows. I know next to nothing about these things.PelleSmith (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazon does not pay for reviews. Staff can be volunteer as well as paid. Why don't you go research this yourself, instead of raising straw men? You could have checked the Amazon question as easily as everyone else. This is not raising objections, this is pestering. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking a question I don't know the answer to. Isn't that the idea here? The Review's general revenue structure, which I cannot find out about on my own, is of interest because they seem to have an unofficial policy against publishing negative reviews (something attested to by the editor and chief himself in interviews). The editor and chief also distinguishes between "volunteers" and "staff" explicitly as two different categories of reviewers in these interviews. Unfortunately neither interviewer asked, (or published at least) anything about the company's revenue structure, anything about its employment structure and certainly not any questions directly regarding any business relationships with booksellers. Their website makes it clear that they have no direct relationship with publishers or authors, but says nothing about booksellers or any other entity that might benefit from the sale of a book. I'm assuming that someone here would know if having such a relationship is highly irregular or unheard of in general even if they know nothing about this company. That's why I asked the question. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On the cached pages of a blog I found a repost of a blog post/Q and A from the editor in chief in which he states that foundation grants and the sale of "review books" to libraries and bookstores pays the bills -- [65].PelleSmith (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote I came across these comments about Midwest Book Review -- [66] and [67]. These sites are of limited reliability, notability, etc. but I'm having a hard time finding non-industry sources commenting on this group at all (e.g. things other than "how to publish" websites and books.)PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments

ISSN 0524-0581
.

ISBN 0838909965
.

OCLC 439279392

Cirt (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

All true - it's an excellent way to publicise a book, perhaps particularly self-published books which can have a hard time, and is an interesting source of reviews. Certainly in my opinion for anything that might otherwise be reviewed in a professional journal it should never be used. I'm worried about the idea of relatives reviewing books (something I saw recommended about Amazon, ie I saw a site today suggesting that authors get friends and relatives review their books favorably but without gushing). I think any use of it has to be justified for the particular use - in other words it should only be used when an editor can show that in that particular case it's a RS.
talk
) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I think some random IP post on a talk page about this source is less reliable than for example Book Review Index. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but that source, like the other two you mentioned, don't remotely address any of these issues so how are they relevant to what this person claimed?PelleSmith (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
They're relevant, but the complaint - the allegation with no evidence, not even a an asserted name, in the middle of a name-calling mudfight on another talk page is simply weightless here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
They are relevant only to what they assert, and as I stated they make no assertions regarding the issues raised by this IP editor. That said we clearly should not take some anonymous editor's word for it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) re Dougweller: I'd be a little more lenient. I would presume neutrality unless there is evidence of non-neutrality; keeping in mind my earlier caveat that other, more mainstream, sources are to be generally preferred. Given that all reviews are inherently POVs, a NYT book review is an opinion by a more notable person than a small concern's, but unless actual bias can be shown, this is a longstanding publication with no serious allegations of bias I have been able to locate. Proving lack thereof, which is what you seem to be recommending, is akin to trying to prove a negative. If you think it necessary to "show" lack of bias for individual instances, perhaps it would be simpler to simply say you don't feel its an acceptable source at all, as that would likely be the net result. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well from what we do know their reviews are at the very least creating bias within larger contexts, whether or not the exact allegations of this IP editor are true. The editor in chief makes no bones about the fact that he interviews does not publish negative reviews, and outside observers out there in cyberspace have reached similar conclusions on their own. Indeed it is quite obvious if you check their reviews on Amazon, which aren't just "all positive" but are also, per the editor and chiefs own policy, all 5 star rated. Above and beyond the fact that he does not publish negative reviews he claims the five star uniformity is due to Amazon's flawed rating system (see the cached blog post above.) Yet he clearly works within this system with the knowledge that readers of the reviews are not aware of his philosophy and therefore are obviously going to read his 5 stars as superlative as opposed to through his novel way of disagreeing with Amazon. This also causes a problem here on Wikipedia when "Midwest Book Review" is cited in the "Reception" part of the encyclopedia as having received a book favorably. This clearly means something very different from stating that a book was favorably received in the NYT book review, and that is a problem because to our readers this difference is undetectable.

However, there is a bigger issue here, which the IP comments relate to more directly, and that is the possibility of serious reliability concerns. Perusing the reviews on Amazon that have been responded to by others does not leave one with a lot of optimism on that front (though clearly such an exercise is not equivalent to verification from a reliable secondary source). Doing so I quickly discovered the review in which they called
Street Car Named Desire a "famous musical", and what is supposed to be a review of a book about Bram Stoker in which they actually posted a review of a book about the Battle of the Crater. Magically 3 separate and clearly illiterate people tagged that completely erroneous review as "helpful". That's just the kind of thing that makes one say, WTF? The others I linked to above, and many more like them, complain that the Midwest Book Review reviews seem like they were written by someone who didn't read the books. These complainers are all different Amazon users, most of whom have multiple reviews and comments of their own (so there is no reason to believe that these are not legitimate complaints by different people). All of this is rather alarming. Given the lack of substantiation from reliable secondary sources either way it is ratehr easy to believe that the IP editor is onto something, even if s/he is exaggerating in her/his claims.PelleSmith (talk
) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The biggest issue is the wall of text with no cites you've pasted. Beyond that, though, your complaints are all about the Amazon account, not the publication. We don't use Amazon reviews. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
They are not apples and oranges. The Amazon reviews are written by people considered "staff" within the organization and posted under the organizations name. The editor and chief considers the Midwest Review as a free content provider for Amazon in terms of book reviews. The review of Twisted Scriptures, which spawned this conversation is not from one of their print publications as far as I can tell, but directly from Amazon, and cited only to the parent organization. You may be confused by the name, but Midwest Book Review is not a print publication itself, but an organization that puts out other publications and also posts reviews directly to Amazon. While the Twisted Scriptures review appears as a reprint review blurb and not a standard user review like the reviews I've discussed above, there is absolutely no indication that it is treated by its author any differently.PelleSmith (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dougweller; doubtful reliability, seems more like a promotional aid. Its very home page has prominent "Become a Reviewer!" and "Get a Book Reviewed" links. [68] --JN 466 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey of Amazon.com reviews with comments

Collapsed list of responses to Midwest Book Review Amazon reviews

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looking at the Amazon reviews I mentioned above that have comments on them is quite frankly astonishing. Going back only to the beginning of this November (in terms of when the comments were posted) here is a list of reviews in which the commentators do not believe the reviewer could have read the book or else found some odd error with the review:
Questioning if the reviewer read the book (or simply copied promotional material) -- [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]
Found some obvious error with the review -- [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]
Noticed that the review was for the wrong book -- [86] [87] [88]
One of these commentators repeated his/her criticism, essentially spamming it onto multiple reviews, but I only posted one of those above. I should also note that at least half of the reviews with comments are not like this, but close to half are. Again, I think this is rather astonishing for a review journal we are meant to respect as reliable for a meaningful assessment of a given book.PelleSmith (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey of Amazon.com reviews are pointless

This is quite silly. These Amazon.com reviews are not reliable or secondary sources, and certainly are worth less weigh and merit when stacked up against things like Book Review Index. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

According to what you wrote above Book Index indexes reviews for two of their print publications -- Bookwatch and Children's Bookwatch. How does that fact relate to the overall reliable of reviews that are not print published in either of those publications? I'm asking about reviews that are simply attributed to the Midwest Book Review, like the review of Twisted Scriptures. And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that my exercise is anecdotal, but it is nevertheless informative.PelleSmith (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are not RS. You've been answered about this several times. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said the review in question is only available on Amazon. Does that mean it is not an RS? By what criteria are we to distinguish various reviews made by this organization?PelleSmith (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No, there is an OTRS notice on the talk page of the article confirming that the review appeared in a print publication, I forget which, and IIRC your response was to the effect that you didn't care. You have been answered and answered again. I am now done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The OTRS notice simply confirmed that the review linked to at Amazon was accurate and could be attributed directly to them. If you look it lists Midwest Book Review as the publication generically, and I've already mentioned what that means a couple of times above.PelleSmith (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering which of the many meanings of "IIRC" KillerChihuahua had in mind? - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If I Recall/Remember Correctly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

International Inter-Society Research Committee (on Nuclear Codes and Standards), IMO. Protonk (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I thought it might be If I Really Cared, which seemed a bit harsh. Personally, for the past two years here on Wikipedia I've wondered whether IIRC meant cabal members discussing things in Internet Relay Chat. Any acronym that ambiguous is bound to cause problems one day. - Pointillist (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Just poking fun. ;) I guess I've never seen it used any other way than to mean "if I recall correctly". Also "If I really cared" doesn't make sense in "...the review appeared in a print publication, I forget which, and IIRC your response was to the effect that you didn't care. You have been answered and answered again." Protonk (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I'd been trying to think of a way to way to say everyone should just walk away from this one. Perhaps IIRC=if it really counts? - Pointillist (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's just note for posterity that every single one of Midwest Book Review's 50,000 amazon book reviews is "five stars", and that they ask publishers and self-published authors to submit a "publicity release or media kit" along with the book they would like reviewed. What this means is they can simply copy the publisher's blurb, without actually reviewing the product. And there are cases where they evidently have not reviewed the product; as in the case where they describe a recording of Tennessee Williams' play "A Streetcar Named Desire" as a musical.

According to statements by their director, they make their money from selling the review copies to booksellers when they are done. So there is a clear conflict of interest involved -- if they were to give people 1-star and 2-star reviews, and these would appear in amazon and elsewhere, they would no longer get books to sell.

As far as I can see, mentions of Midwest Book Review in google books are either advertisements, toutings of 5-star reviews, or the books have titles like "Make Money with Books", "Get Published Today", or "Plug your book".

As someone who only publishes positive reviews, Midwest Book Review is engaged in promotion. It is not a reliable source for literary criticism. --JN 466 13:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very hard to take seriously a journal that has so many '5 star' reviews. I remain of the opinion it should be used only in exceptional circumstances and I can't at the moment think of what those might be.
talk
) 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider it essentially a self-published source. It's reliable enough for the facts of publication, just as an author's website is, but not for establishing notability, or as a source of critical reviews. We librarians use sources like this because we need to establish such facts even for non-notable books, but Wikipedia usually does not. Librarians are prepared to perform OR in a professional context to establish such facts, and to take account of even unreliable opinion, but not as Wikipedia editors. If it is used, it should be in a limited way, and the author of the review must be specified,along with any relationship. In the particular case at issue it's being used for opinion, and that is not at all acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ChristianityToday, LifeNews, Charisma, ChristianTimes

Are these (and similar) sources reliable if an article is based solely (or primairly) off of them (they obviously have a strongly-religious POV)?--SuaveArt (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at each individually, but my immediate reaction is to say that they should be used with extreme caution, and the source specified if used at all, and in the case of LifeNews and Charisma, specified that they are Christian publications. Example: An article in LifeNews, a Christian publication, reported that.... " But they're not neutral, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I think what SuaveArt is aiming for is, are they sources that can be used to determine
notability. He/she is disputing whether they can be used to judge the notability of a subject, specifically Christian films. —Farix (t | c
) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. That's a bit less clear, and I'm not certain this is the correct venue. Determining notability is more than simply whether the sources are RS; and we're speaking of notability within the Christian community, rather than at large, which would be demonstrated by mentioning in those publications. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. An example would be the article
Pure Flix Entertainment (which only uses 3 Christian sources as references). Another is the film Sarah's Choice (which was a DVD only release and has no Rotten Tomatoes reviews at all), it has a passing mention in a newspaper, but the rest of the sources are from Christian websites.--SuaveArt (talk
) 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Does being reviewed in Fangoria say anything about the notability of a slasher film above and beyond the fact that the review is an independent reliable source on the film? If it does, then some other film being reviewed in Christianity Today should say much the same about that film. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case of the above film, I'd say definitely not. And I fail to see how the genre adds any relevance to the issue. Obviously it does not matter whether a film is slasher, Christian, or both (
Passion of the Christ for example is obviously notable and has been heavily covered in mainstream publications).--SuaveArt (talk
) 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If these Christian-based sources are reliable with regards to Christian subjects, then I would presume that there wouldn't be a problem using them to determine notability.
WP:NOTE only stipulates that coverage of the subject be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. SuaveArt argument is that because they are a specialized (niche) sources instead of "mainstream" sources, they should be ruled out. To me, this is a rather silly argument to make. I routinely deal with a niche subject area, anime and manga, and we had no problems with using anime and manga publications to determine notability. Several articles have survived AfD with the only coverage coming from these niche sources. But this isn't the only subject area that extensively uses niche sources. Mathematics, sciences, the arts, all of which make extensive use of niche sources and many articles are entirely derived from such sources. I don't see how throwing in the "Christian" label suddenly changes the equation regarding the use of sources to determine notability. If it does, then it is probably the result of editorial bias on the part of the editor arguing against using the sources. —Farix (t | c
) 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources which are "specialized in a field" (especially religion) can almost always be dismissed as biassed -- but they may be the only sources to establish notability of something in that field. This means using RS criteria strictly may end up being a Catch-22 -- which means, IMHO, that such a reading of RS is a misuse of
WP:RS. This apploies to many areas. POV is a concern only for opinions on controversial topics, not for notability. Collect (talk
) 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Virtually all publications are specialists in one field or another. It seems pretty sweeping to say that specialisation means bias. Or did you mean something more particular by "specialised"? Barnabypage (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
In terms of determining notability, the Christian nature of the publication is only a small element. Obviously there are some religious publications that are read very widely and really do help to establish notability. The Christian Science Monitor comes to mind, or the Jewish Chronicle or the Catholic Herald. The real concern is - has it had a lot of coverage in serious and significant publications or only a little bit of coverage in minor publications. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am in a hurry and not responding to OP but just to last comment. Are you claiming that Ted Turner is not biased and everything they produce is "serious?" At issue is the intellectual independence and I think there is this implicit assumption that "All religious sources are intellectually dependent on ech other" as if they all follow the Pope. Significant coverage from intellecually independent sources is all that is required to establish notability, not approval from an arbitrary community. Certainly intellectual indpendence is an issue, but taken liberally it is hard to call people who need to write proposals independent of political agendas. I've made this point more eloquently before but don't recall generating much discussion at the time. A source is reliable for a givene claim and biased sources can be reliable to expound on a given POV not establish factual accuracy of a given POV ( which is not usually a goal here anyway). The existence of small communities that have taken is note is probably one reason to have an encyclopedia- if it needs to be on MTV to be notable then "everyone already knows" and wiki becomes irrelevant. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're replying to me, then obviously my reply wasn't clear. What I meant in a nutshell is it depends less on the Christian nature of the publication than on how well regarded it is. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarded by whom? It is supposed to have a reputation for fact checking but expressions of opinion and untestable claims may be items to be documented in a wikipedia article and it needn't accurately reflect a physical fact- look at any articles on rock bands or athlete for example. A notable clown is still notable and sources about the clown may not have claims traceable to NIST. Specialized communities can include IEEE or the American Cavers assoc ( or whoever the affinity group is for people who like to crawl into caves) , unless you have seen them appear on VH1 lately. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to be shifted to
WP:FRINGE). Blueboar (talk
) 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, the fact that a source has a POV is not sufficient reason to conclude that it is not reliable. Christianity Today is generally a reliable source. The other three in the section title I don't already know the answer for. You'd no more dismiss these sources out of hand for holding to a Christian POV than you would Dawkins for holding an atheistic point of view. The question is always going to be "is this specific reference in this specific portion of the source, a reliable source for making this specific statement in this specific way in this specific Wikipedia article."
GRBerry
19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Essentially my question is, if an article is notable (and even then only slightly notable) within a specific community (such as the evangelical Christian community), but has virtually none anywhere else, does it deserve to be included on Wikipedia? My opinion would be no in such a case (I would recommend taking it to a specialized
Wikia site specifically for that subject..--SuaveArt (talk
) 08:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If the subject can pass
WP:NOTPAPER. —Farix (t | c
) 12:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a confusing section -- discussing sources, topics, and content -- conflating reliability of a source (
WP:NPOV). One discussion at time, please. If the question is "Are the above named publications to be considered a priori not to be reliable sources?" The answer is an obvious "No." patsw (talk
) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If, as seems indicated by the above, the discussion is about films and the like, I would think conducting
the Film WikiProject might determine if additional sources exist. Otherwise, regarding the issue of whether notability can be established from such sources as these, I would have to say the answer is "yes", if the sources also provide a reasonable amount of information on the subjects, and that does not rule out the articles potentially being merged later if people come to think the content available doesn't merit a separate article. John Carter (talk
) 17:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

reliable source

hi, i'm wondering if this a reliable source for the sungazing page ?
http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Staring_At_The_Sun_____Sungazing_a841.html
thanks!
J929 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Writer is underqualified for giving health advice. I suspect this is drawn closely from sources, possibly including Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The proposed source is almost certainly a rehash of the Wikipedia article, and the site appears to allow anyone to register and post stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time!!
J929 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Text from the BLP Lynne McTaggart: ["The Field" has been characterized as pseudoscience and her understanding of quantum physics has been described as a misconception.] [89] Sometimes personal blogs can look pretty professional. Is this one of them? Or is it a legitimate source for this text?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a personal website, akin to a personal blog. Ngchen (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The blog gives no information about Dimitry Brant is or what his qualifications or what his field is, so I would say no, not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Neo4j

I would like feedback on the sources proposed in this post: [90]

If those are blogs, the answer is generally the same as at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Self-published sources, they are not reliable. A column in a magazine, whether paper or electronic, is slightly better, but all too often they too are based on press releases or other unreliable sources. Reviews of software that compare and contrast a number of products are more likely to meet the reliable criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

wordpress.com

Is [91] a reliable source to cite features of the product? I would think something not written by the company would need to be used. 16x9 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is fine, as long as the facts on the wikipedia page are neutral (as the wordpress site obviously isn't), and verifiable. A third party source is reccomended, but if that is the only thing you can find, I'd say it is fine. See
WP:SELFPUB. TheWeakWilled (T * G
) 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?

In an article about fiction novels, is it appropriate to cite Wands and Worlds "Author Chats" as reliable sources, since they technically are direct statements from the author? See here.
Thanks,
Brambleclawx (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are thinking here of citing only the comments of the authors themselves in these discussions, not any comments made by other parties, right? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure comments made by others almost definetly cannot count as reliable, unless the author says they are correct. Brambleclawx (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not generally reliable, but my be cited for non-controversial facts that are likely within the scope of knowledge of the author, like his birth date. See the specifics at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Certainly, any self aggrandizing statements or puffery should not be quoted or cited. --Bejnar (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Brambleclawx (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for whomever might be watching regarding non-controversial material. If, in such an interview, the author were to say explicitly something like "Character X is based on Character Y", or anything else which might be within the scope of knowledge of the author but might be the subject of some controversy, notable or otherwise, in the scope of those interested or following the subject, would those comments qualify for inclusion or not? I'm not sure this question is particularly relevant to this particular instance, but might welcome having some sort of opinion "on the record" anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the answer to this depends on asking some other questions... For example, can we be positive that the person writing is in fact the author in question? If we can, then I see no real difference between what the author says on the forum site and what he/she says on her/his personal web page... I would consider it a reliable self published comment, with all the cautions that go with such. However, many times we can't be positive that it is in fact the author writing (are they posting under an anonimous user-name for example), then we can not use it. In other words, once again, we have to look at the specifics and can not make generalized rules. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

canonizer.com entries in several philosophy articles

canonizer.com is used as a source in the articles
Philosophy of Mind. The site references were added by someone who appears to be its creator, User:Brent_Allsop. The basis for including it seems to be a belief that it better reflects philosophical consensus on these subjects than an overview of expert opinions would, and that many of the contributors of the site are experts. The site attempts to aggregate supporters of various POVs to gauge their relative popularity. However it seems to be little trafficked and underdeveloped, with the very most active topic having 27 members who have given any opinion at all. Brent's argument in favor of using canonizer.com as a source can be found at http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/104/2 . Personally I'm inclined to remove all refrences to canonizer.com as it doesn't seem reliable or useful even for the consensus measuring purpose claimed in its current state. Any perspectives, pro or con, would be welcome. TsukiToHoshiboshi (talk
) 11:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a reliable source at all, and I think it's being unfairly promoted here with a conflict of interest from the editor who writes about it. It doesn't have any reputation within philosophy or debating as being able to sufficiently analyze debate positions and from looking over the page I think its methodology is very poor. The references to it should probably be removed from whatever articles it appears in. Them From Space 11:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link from the external links sections of
WP:EL. External links are out of the subject of this board. On the other hand, Qualia has a sizable portion of its content devoted to and cited from canonizer dot com, so this thread is still relevant to that article. Them From Space
12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
From what I can tell, it's not all that sizable a portion... the David Chalmers section essentially uses canonizer.com as a link to 'further reading' on his views, and ditto for Ramachandran and Hirstein. I'm going to remove them for now, if there's any objection it's simple enough to revert. The Chalmers section may be too brief, but that was already true even with the canonizer link. TsukiToHoshiboshi (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me just give a pointer to Talk:Philosophy of mind#Proposed link to canonizer.com open survey topic on philosophies of mind, where the idea of linking to that site was discussed before the links were added. (Brent and I were the only ones who participated in the discussion.) Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, what you were saying there makes sense. I do like the idea of canonizer, if it were a well-developed site I don't think I'd have any objection to using it, but it looks like it hasn't grown since the original addition, which seems to have been on the basis of what it could become, not what it already was. As it is now (and was then) it's certainly not the scientifically quantifiable measure of consensus it hopes to be, and while some of those posting may be experts, their published papers would be a better source of their individual views than the canonizer camps system anyway.TsukiToHoshiboshi (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Using YouTube video as source

There has ensued discussion in Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley regarding the use of YouTube video of a subject as a source on that subject in a biographical article. I'd like to have this clarified since the policies on self-published sources and sources for biographies doesn't mention this. The argument against goes that if a video has not been published or authored by the subject in question, it can't be used as a source in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons for an article about that subject. In my view, however, this is a far too narrow interpretation of the policy. It seems to me that the purpose of that policy is to make sure that a blogger, tweeter, etc can't be used as a source of information about a subject. Only if the subject is the author can a blog be considered a reliable and good source. However, in the case of a recorded video of a subject, shouldn't the actual speech be considered as the source? While quoting someone incorrectly is very easily done in text, fabricating a video of someone in a convincing way is virtually impossible, so reliability shouldn't really be an issue.
The case in question regards a controversial statement made by Lord Monckton, for which there exists qualified sources documenting the event. There exist on YouTube I think two videos in which Lord Monckton himself clarifies the background and motivation for this statement, but there do not seem that there exists any textual sources or similar that mention these, most likely because they are amateur-filmed videos so they don't exactly get any widespread circulation. In light of all this, shouldn't these videos be considered as valid sources?
--Cpx86 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Precedent is clear -- videos on YouTube do not qualify as secondary reliable sources. They may, in some cases, be primary sources, subject to the limits on such. YouTube changes make it difficult to verify, especially when a speech is partial. Best source for a speech or interview is a transcript published in a secondary source otherwise reliable. Don't blame me - the entire area has problems. Collect (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the video is not by the subject of the article - it's by a third party group of which the subject is strongly critical (and which has criticised the subject in return). It's a self-published source and
WP:BLP is clear on such issues: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". Clearly this video hasn't been written or published by the subject. For all we know it could have been edited in such a way as to make him look bad. -- ChrisO (talk
) 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Concentrating on youtube is misleading here. Youtube is not a publisher - the uploader is. The video may appear to be the utterence of the subject, but in fact it has been released, unauthorised, under the editorial control of the uploader. So the question becomes - is the uploader a reliable source? If the uploader is anonymous the answer must always be "no", and if the uploader is not anonymous (and can we verify that they are who they say they are) then it becomes a matter of whether they are known to be trustworthy. I know the BBC does upload some stuff toc youtube - so I guess we should trust that - but such instances are rare. If, on a rare occassion, we do know the uploader is a reliable source, then we need to attribute to the uploader rather than to youtube. However, I suspect that instances of such reliable uploaders will be rare to non-existent.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, how about Breitbart.TV? I'd venture to say it's a fairly established media outlet by now. http://www.breitbart.tv/lord-monckton-defends-his-comparing-eco-activists-to-hitler-youth/ Cpx86 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the video, which is here, it's credited to an outfit called SustainUS and the description (which is hardly neutrally worded) says: "After our visit to the Americans for Prosperity event Wednesday night, Lord Monckton came to the SustainUS booth at the UN climate negotiations to lecture us with his false climate change denier propaganda. Then he called our Jewish Communications Director and all U.S. youth "Hitler Youth". For more information on U.S. and international youth at the UN climate negotiations, visit www.sustainus.org and www.youthclimate.org." This does not sound like a reliable source or something that we should be using in a BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is very hard to see this as a reliable source. More to the point, without this matter being covered by someone other than this essentially primary source, I don't see how it can be construed as being actually relevant to the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is secondary coverage. For instance, the Guardian reported this exchange -- see In denial: Lord Monckton's climate change rant at activists and Viscount Monckton calls young climate activists 'Hitler Youth'. RolandR 08:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was already cited to secondary sources in the article. The claim being made by some editors is that the secondary sources are somehow "biased" and must be "balanced" or replaced entirely with the video as a primary or even a sole source. That is how the content was being sourced in the article before I took the video out and replaced it with the media sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's clearly the right thing to do. If the argument then is "but all the media sources are biased here, so we need to work out neutrality for ourselves", then I'd point a stick at
No Original Research.--Scott Mac (Doc)
09:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the arguments of other editors, but my issue was simply whether or not a video recording of a person should be regarded as a source authored by the subject. That is, a general policy issue, not related in particular to this subject. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because that section is removed anyway due to irrelevance to the biography. Cpx86 (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As a general issue, that something is published on You Tube does not necessarily make it unreliable, but it would take evidence that it was posted there by someone who is a recognized authority, or by a publisher with acceptable control. Basically, I agree with Scott Mac. (I also agree it is not a good source for the particular use here, since there are better) DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources are preferred to primary sources (such as the video), and Youtube videos are usually inherently unreliable, since they are self-published by non-verifiable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of iFight365

I'm currently using iFight365 as a source in my
Not a Talk Page
) ^{- Afkatk} 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... It appears to be more than just a fan site (which would not be reliable)... However, I could not find any "about us" link that tells us who the publisher is. My call... If at all possible, find another source for the same information. If you can not, go ahead and use iFight365... but be understanding and accepting if someone challenges it. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help.
Not a Talk Page
) ^{- Afkatk} 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?

I want to write about a company. Is information from the company website a reliable source?

See
WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk
) 21:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
One additional thing to note... you will need more than just the company website to pass the notability criteria set out at
WP:ORG
.

Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds

Are any of these sources indicators of
Soxwon (talk
) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is any of their news false or outright lies? How are they less a news source then what you want to use?

For those reading Soxwon is only asking as he is one of the right wing editors here that keeps removing anything negative about Rush, Fox, etc… and these sources have printed true stories against his POV. He wants to be able to remove things that are backed up by them. Look at his edits and it’s pretty clear. His pretext that he is trying to work things out is false and his agenda should not be supported. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm such a biased editor, that's why I asked
Soxwon (talk
) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I did contribute by pointing out you have not shown any false and/or lies that would show these sources as bad. The only thing you have done is show they do not support your POV and you don't like it when they point out bad things from your biased POV. These sources are good and meet the reliabile requirments by even Wiki's standards. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point, I never said they were factually inaccurate, merely that they perhaps blew incidents out of proportion that received little attention from MSM publications. I could easily have included Free Republic and World Net Daily into this but they aren't the sources being discussed at the moment.
Soxwon (talk
) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a definitive answer here. I think it certain cases they might be reliable, others not so much. If they're being used in criticism sections, I likely think they are okay, since they are staffed by valid and well known political commentators. AniMate 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the question here...
WP:UNDUE. RS require sources to have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy", NPOV requires that Wikipedia presents the issue neutrally (not that the source itself be neutral), and UNDUE requires that the source be presented with due weight. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c
) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that AniMate's answer will have to do. Each source will have to be judged on an individual basis. Blaxthos, what I am referring to is that do HP, FAIR, and MMFA, by themselves, qualify as Op-ed pieces on issues that may or may not warrant coverage, or are they on more of a level of say the NYT, WP, or USA Today.
Soxwon (talk
) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, thank you for clarifying. Singular criticism in any one of those sources I mentioned isn't prima facie evidence that the relevant incident is inherently significant... so to answer your question directly, no I don't believe that "just because MMFA published a criticism, that criticism qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia." However, in most cases their criticisms are either republished or referenced by other reliable sources, or that criticism is raised separately by other organizations (for example, MMFA and FAIR and HuffPost often seem to all criticize the same things). Both of those circumstances would generally indicate sufficient weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Material which is editorial in nature is RS only as to the fact that the source has an opinion. This includes most of HuffPo and similar sites. Where a factual claim is made within an editorial, best practice is to find a non-editorial source for the fact. In most cases, HuffPo provides proper links for citing facts - but where they do not, it is not proper to give HuffPo as the source. Collect (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
All of those media outlets can be cited if their work is sourced and they have proof of their statements. There should be caution when pulling the opinions from partisan organizations, but there is absolutely no reason not to use any of those organizations as reliable sources if their material is true.
talk
) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not remotely the case. This relates to their use in
WP:BLP#Self-published sources is clear on this point: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". -- ChrisO (talk
) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would not call the Huffington Post "self-published" (except possibly for material that is actually written by Ariana Huffington herself)... we have long understood that there is a difference between a personal blog and award winning news commentary sites that publish in "blog format". Yes, the material there is political commentary, and so should be presented as being "opinion" and not "fact"... but it is reliable when used as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) It's quite possible that an individual article on the Huffpost would be reliable -- say, a sober, neutrally written piece on an uncontroversial topic, written by an expert. But most are opinion pieces, scandal, breaking news, gossip, etc. In addition to the liberal bias, another problem (I think - I may be wrong) is that they don't do any fact checking or editorial oversight on their articles. It's basically user-submitted content, with some very high profile users. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) I agree with Soxwon and to some extent ChrisO on this. Even if it weren't a BLP, blogs... and most reliable sources for that matter... don't bootstrap themselves above the threshold below which
WP:UNDUE says they aren't noteworthy enough to mention at all. To make an extreme example of it, suppose the North Grand Rapids Chess Club Beacon reports that President Obama is a lousy chess player. Yes, for purposes of verifiability we can look to the publication itself to back up the statement "Several local papers, including the NGRCC Beacon, reported that Obama was no good at chess". But looking directly at the source does not lend any weight to the statement. On the other hand, if the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and Le Monde all said that "several local newspapers, including the NGRCC Beacon, made negative comments about Obama's chess playing", then that gives it some weight. That's without the BLP layer of analysis, just the sourcing part of things. - Wikidemon (talk
) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with that and believe it's a misreading of that policy. The
Huffington Post, like I wrote, it depends on what's being reported. Without one of the staff at that establishment there would never have been any 'bitter-gate' controversy. Since it was Mayhill Fowler
who not only broke the story, but provided the audio. Are we suipposed to ignore obvious credible information coming from a news outlet because some people don't like that outlet?

talk
) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who founded it or who runs it. Their own website describes them as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.", so by their own definition they are a biased source and any quoting from them should be suspect. Rapier1 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

General comment. I'm not sure about the others because they don't come up that often here, but the HP is a reliable source, even for BLPs. They're not the tops for controversial BLP stuff, but they are quite good. Maybe the same for the other two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's always the case, I've read things coming out of there that sound like they were written by someone for the Democrat Underground. Their editorial review, while good, still isn't as good as say a more mainstream publication.
Soxwon (talk
) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
More mainstream like Fox News? As I've noted elsewhere, your continued assertion that Huffington Post is some sort of
edge view is not supported by the evidence. //Blaxthos ( t / c
) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is rather ridiculous to claim that Huffington Post is not mainstream. [92]. Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking isn't the same as "arriving at conclusions everyone likes." Facts in most fields are limited, ignorance allows you to make up stuff. If their facts are accurate, then they are probably reliable for some claims. Their conclusions ( " so we should ban free speech since it makes people feel bad") are opinions or hypotheses and can't be tested by editors here. Notable or prominent opinions or beliefs are still candidates for inclusion. All sources have bias, even with "fact checking" editors are free to cherry pick facts to support their own theses. Minority or fringe views may or may not turn out to be right, which is why I argue for passing mention or low weight rather than exclusion, aside from the fact that confirmation bias is a big problem in most places and being able to read what people thought and why they thought it can be instructive ( "so everyone believed in astrology because A, and B and C"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is a biased channel in the worse way...they masquarade as neutral. There is a discussion ongoing at Fox News Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Sources on why Fox News is allowed to be quoted but not Huffington Post. It is ridiculous. Both have news and opinion sections, both are represented in the press corps, but HP has a much larger audience. But Fox mixes their opinion with their "news:, whereas legitimate news agencies clearly seperate commentary from their journalistic presentations. But this allows Fox to be quoted when they are stating opinion. Worse, as semdem stated, Fox uses their opinion shows as springboards for their "news" portion ("Critics say..." or "Some people say..."). The "anchors" make comments just as bad as hannity or o'reily. Sem posted this clip that everyone should watch, featuring Fox anchors, not their opinionators..http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake- My point is that if we are going to not allow Media Matters or HP as a source, then we certainly should not allow Fox News.155.95.80.253 (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this one, but Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is not a normal BLP. As an article about conspiracy theories, I would expect it to cite more opinionated content than a normal biography would. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scribd links?

I see from the archives of this page Scribd.com has been mentioned a few times before, but it's not clear to me if anything was definitively decided. Does scribd constitute a reliable source? I realize that people might take things that are reliable sources and post them there, but when the path is through scribd, can it be considered reliable? I.e. when accessing a journal article through a database such as
talk
) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also meant to ask: does Scribd make sure things are not posted there in violation of copyright? If they do not, is linking to a copyright violation a problem? Is linking to something that is not a copyright violation on a site that has other things that are a problem?
talk
) 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I assume by Scribd links you mean putting offline sources online so other editors can verify your claim. In this case, it is not about whether Scribd is RS, but rather it is about the reliablity of the offline source. I suggest you treat Scribd links like offline source, which the author, publisher and tracking number must be established before the Scribd document is accepted as valid. As for the concern that the Scribd document may be forged, since we are technically refering to an offline source, the best approach would be to consult the offline source directly instead of relying on Scribd links. Jim101 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I had in mind a situation where a document not uploaded by a wikipedian was found there by a wikipedian who then linked to it, but your hypothetical is not terribly different. Given a situation where there is a document on scribd that either contains within it the author, publisher, etc. info, or where a Wikipedian has supplied that separately, and the existence of a document identified by that information can be attested to by reliable sources, I still think it's problematic to link to it, because of the, I don't know call it the
talk
) 05:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If one has the document, just cite to it, and don't add a link to scribd. If one doesn't have the document, don't link to scribd.

If the Scribd document is under dispute, this would be the best approach. Jim101 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying this is what I think should be done regardless of whether the Scribd document is under dispute. If they're unreliable you don't choose to trust them, and choose not to trust them only if a question is raised. If they're unreliable you choose not to trust them in the first place.
talk
) 05:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think WP:Convenience link is relevant to this discussion. Seems to me that such a link can be legitimate and useful (or not) according to the criteria set forth there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That unindent is a neat trick I never saw before, I'll have to remember that! Yes, I saw in the archives that the essay WP:CONVENIENCE had been linked. It remains a question of reliability for me; a convenience link to a journal's own website if they have it there in addition to its having been published, or something like Google Books makes sense to me; GB is doing so by agreement with authors, publishers (and libraries and archives I think), and a staff of employees known to them is doing and overseeing the process. There is no such agreement between authors, publishers and scribd, the uploader can be anonymous, and there's no managerial oversight of the documents by scribd staff AFAIK.
talk
) 06:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The policy with legal considerations
talk
) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think
WP:LINKVIO is a strong issue with this website, under the circumstances. But blacklisting entire sites can be problematic. For instance, Youtube is notorious for its copyright violations, but it also carries properly licensed material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. 'egregious copyright infringement' seems to be the claim. I've found [93] which says scribd generates the most copyright complaints but is fast at removing infringing documents. But this doesn't make me feel confident at all. How should we handle such a situation in practice? We can either assume there's no problem until it's shown that there is one, or assume there should be no link until it's shown that there is no copyright problem. I prefer the latter.
talk
) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea why we're even considering scribd might conceivably ever be a reliable source. As I understand it, anybody can upload any document to it. Scribd links should be avoided, and removed where found. --TS 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit to being confused on the point as well, but that it wasn't decisively settled when brought up here before and that there are links to it from Wikipedia articles (is there some easy way of determining how many and which articles have them?) indicates that not all editors have a problem with it. I believe there had been at one point one in the
talk
) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No need for a huge discussion (which will often attract uninformed opinions from people unaware of Wikipedia policy). There is absolutely no reason ever to link to scribd. Even self-published sites such as blogs are often more reliable because at least one can sometimes trace secure ownership to the domain registry entry. Person X can open a scribd account in the name of Person Y and post any old nonsense purportedly in person Y's name. That's ridiculously against Wikipedia verifiability policy. --TS 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This shows how to find what links to scribd are in Wikipedia: Go to Special:LinkSearch and enter *.scribd.com in the box. After searching, you can click (say) "100" to show up to 100 links, and then you can edit the URL in the address bar, for example to include "limit=5000". That shows there are 2,384 links. I totally agree with TS: anyone can upload anything which may or may not be what it purports; not reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Tony is exactly right here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Scribd is only the channel, so being on Scribd doesn't make a document any more (or less) RS than if it weren't on Scribd. It would technically meet WP:V, as there would be a document out there to cite, but by itself it wouldn't meet another kind of verifiability, that is being able to verify who it was posted by. It's the same situation with YouTube.

A document on Scribd could be RS if it was linked to or cited by another RS, for example if a news organization or a recognized expert published an appendix to a report on Scribd, and they had links from their own site pointing to the pages on Scribd.

As far as copyright issues, I don't believe there is any need to blacklist an entire domain as long as it's not primarily used for copyright violations. But for individual articles, we should be wary of anything that appears to be paid content unless it's something like a sample article uploaded by a publisher. We should certainly not be uploading offline or paywalled content except for what's well within fair use law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A document on Scribd might be notable if it was linked to or cited by an RS. Whether a RS would link to scribd, I am not sure. Why would a publisher need somebody else's website to publish? An unreliable channel does make a document less reliable. A law article in a printed law journal: reliable. That same article accessed via LexisNexis: reliable. Something purporting to be that same document on scribd: not reliable, because there's no reputation or oversight guaranteeing the document is what it claims to be, or that if it is, that it was not altered, or that if it was not altered, that the site has the legal right to (re)publish it. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States" is not ambiguous, and as a policy page with legal considerations isn't up for alteration by consensus as Tony Sidaway notes above, unless somebody cares to put the issue to Wikimedia's lawyer(s). There is an unstated irony here I wonder if anybody else has picked up on besides me, or maybe it's so obvious it goes without saying.
talk
) 09:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm familiar with a number of local newspapers that occasionally post video to Youtube, because theire website isn't really set up to host video. If we wanted to cite one of those videos, a link from the newspaper to the video would show authorship and ownership, so long as the newspaper is reliable. It's the same situation with Scribd, and that's one reason why a document there might be cited. The others would be if an RS quoted from a Scribd document, which would make it a primary source, and finally if a Scribd document somehow became notable enough to have its own article ( say if it was a "Pentagon Papers" type of situation ), then it would be a primary source in an article about itself.

The original example of a paywalled academic paper that someone posted to Scribd is neither of those, and would presumably be a copyvio, and we don't link to suspected copyvios. However the entire domain would not be a "site that violates copyright", just the one document. The example given in the policy is of a site that hosts music lyrics, of which we could assume 95% of the content will be copyright violations. It would not apply to a generalist site that occasionally receives copyright complaints. That would exclude every information service that acts as a passive repository of content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If a reliable source posted to a site and nobody else was able to edit their submission, that would seem to minimize some of the concerns. I am really not sure linking to a scribd doc or similar item would be done by a reliable source; perhaps they would make their own archive of it, if rules did not prohibit that. The example given says "hosting the lyrics of many popular songs." It doesn't indicate how many "many" is, or what percentage of the total content of the website it represents. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States" seemed unambiguous to me; the example of
talk
) 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I could see something like an experts mailing list ( assuming it was an RS under SPS ) using a service like Scribd or Google Docs to store attachments such as word processing or spreadsheet files. As far as the example, I'm positive they're referring to the various lyrics sites out there without singling one out; they definitely don't mean a general site that might have a few dozen pop lyrics out of a million files.

The case you're referring to was one where the defendant website apparently hosted the material in question, was ordered to take it down, which it replaced with links so people could download the material from other sites. It's unclear from our article whether the resulting order from a district court to also remove the links set any kind of precedent, but every case I'm aware of where contributory infringement came into play ( i.e. Napster ) was again a situation where infringing content was being linked to directly.

WP:LINKVIO says "do not link to that copy of the work". They're clearly talking about linking directly to copyvios, and in the next sentence they discuss sites that are predominantly copyvios. Nothing about linking to non-infringing content on sites that have few copyright complaints. For instance, we wouldn't take down all our links to Google Books because some court in France issued a judgement against them scanning some French content. Squidfryerchef (talk
) 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Living relative of Eric Wujcik, recently deceased game designer

hey, I'm Matt Wujcik. Eric Wujcik was my dad's cousin, and I'd like to add a little to the Alter Echo Article. I didn't see him often and being 16 now I don't remember much of what he said, but I'd like to put in a little something. I Think I remember seeing something about groups on this site, but don't know how to get there and which group I should talk to.
Also I'm very new here (as in I just made an account) so bare with me.
And now I made two of these. I realize a requirement for this site is to be intelligent but that really doesn't mean it can't be user friendly. Wujcik (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't include material such as your recollections here, however true and relevant they may be, unless you can point to a
published work by someone independent of the subject (such as a newspaper story, but not a blog or other self-published work) that contains the same material. —David Eppstein (talk
) 06:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a website that backs up my claim [94] Where do I discuss it?

Matt, you don't have to seek approval of sources before making an edit - if the source is a good one and the material you're planning to add to the article is appropriate to Wikipedia, go ahead and do it! Barnabypage (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good to be cautious when editing articles regarding people close to you
talk
) 10:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

^ http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2006/04/hamas-adopts-nazi-salute.html

^ ^a ^b Wong, Catherine (Summer / Fall, 1999). "St. Thomas on Deprogramming: Is It Justifiable?". The Catholic Lawyer. 39 Catholic Law (81). The St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research of St. John's University School of Law. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

^ “Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements” (page 3 of 4)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51&oldid=1142577881"

[1] ttp://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2006/04/hamas-adopts-nazi-salute.html

[wong-2] Wong, Catherine (Summer / Fall, 1999). "St. Thomas on Deprogramming: Is It Justifiable?". The Catholic Lawyer. 39 Catholic Law (81). The St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research of St. John's University School of Law. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[3] “Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements” (page 3 of 4)

[2]

[3]

Need for WP:MEDRS/N noticeboard

disputed ref on the Pete Townshend page

Psychoenergetic Systems

Article from textbook on Critical Psychology

Ask.com

Question about citing "about the author" type material

Adam Gay Video Directory (RfC)

Cruise Reports

World Magazine

Book published by Lulu.com

Bowling for Columbine

TMZ

Establishing notability of YouTube videos

Another PhD question at Entrepreneurial Mindset

http://www.american-automobiles.com

Forum postings

Letter from the editor a valid external link?

Kew railway line, Melbourne

Far right

Radio Ga GA

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Season 9)

Several questions regarding sources used at Twisted Scriptures

Discussion of Question 3

Sources for drug articles

Anglo-Celtic.org

Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist

Guidestar.org

British national party

Use of journal articles as sources for MigrationWatch UK article

Publicintelligence.net

Webcomic Reviews

Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements

Medieval Warm Period

Family foundation School article

Google Books/Gale Research

Midwest Today and power line health effects

Is this a news article or an opinion piece?

Anthropographia Publications

Anna Di Lellio on Kosovo

Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate

Persecution of Zoroastrians.

Is "Diskus" RS?

Palestine Telegraph; Adallah's Newsletter, Electronic Intifada, Journal of Refugee Studies, Dissident Voice, and Islam Online

News of the World

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Removing neutrality tags from "Chris Gorog" article

Midwest Book Review

Survey of Amazon.com reviews with comments

Survey of Amazon.com reviews are pointless

ChristianityToday, LifeNews, Charisma, ChristianTimes

reliable source

Is this a reliable source?

Neo4j

wordpress.com

Reliable?

canonizer.com entries in several philosophy articles

Using YouTube video as source

Reliability of iFight365

Reliable?

Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds

Scribd links?

Living relative of Eric Wujcik, recently deceased game designer

Book published by
Lulu.com

Use of journal articles as sources for
MigrationWatch UK
article