Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56

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.

Issue: Steak and Oyster sauce was a common English recipe documented as early as 1815 ref The Times, 17 August 1815; Mendicity

My intoduction of the above refrerence has prompted the challenge I call bullshit on your Times reference.

I have uploaded the section : But could someone, with access to the time database confirm the validity of the refence? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it may be reliable, although it's hard to tell with that small snippet. I think you have an editing disagreement over what to include in the article more than a reliability problem. And this board doesn't do much with those. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I went into the Times Digital Archive and found the reference checks out accurately on column B of page 2 of The Times of 17 August 1815, in a report of the inquiry of a House of Commons committee into 'Mendicity in the Metropolis'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on improving the

Yes, that's reliable. Everyking (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FindArticles is just a consolidator, you need to look at the underlying article/author/journal/publisher. In the case, as you note, it is Business Wire which, while generally reliable, is often not independent of industry news releases. --Bejnar (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Bejnar. Dlabtot (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just interested if the

I would say yes.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are op-eds in major newspapers considered reliable sources for supposed events that no other reliable sources publish?

Specifically, I am taking about this source. The article paints a very negative picture of the Islamic Society of Boston. But the authors of the article headed organizations that were sued by the ISB, which, IMO, renders them non-third party sources. Not surprisingly, then, the article uses rather biased and non-objective words to describe members of the ISB and others associated with it: "purveyors of the most intolerant religious teachings on the planet", "a hate-mongering preacher", "warped views".

Further, it makes statements of fact that I find hard to believe: "[ he Yusuf al-Qaradawi ] ... has urged that the Jews be murdered “to the last one.’’ "

Qaradawi is quite controversial, but the above statement is rather unbelievable. Should we accept the above source as legitimate or ask for other third party sources that report (and not editorialize) statements.VR _talk 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tough one, at least in the issues it raises.

First, there is the general question of whether an op-ed can be a reliable source.

My two cents' worth is that it can if the assertion is credible and the publication is reliable. Boston.com is the Website of the Boston Globe which is certainly a reliable source, so a phrase such as "the Haitian earthquake of 12 January 2010" could be used as a reliable source for that being the date of the earthquake's occurrence. (Obviously, there would be thousands of more clear-cut reliable news sources for that particular piece of information, and I use it only as an example).

In this respect, newspapers' own editorials - which at the more reliable papers tend to go through an editing process not dissimilar to that given to the news - can be a reliable source. Individual columnists less so.

Then there is the particular question of whether a pair of guest columnists can be reliable sources for this rather extreme assertion apparently unreported elsewhere.

If you Google for the expression "kill them to the last one" it seems to be a fairly common turn of phrase in anti-Jewish Islamist circles - I presume it may originate from some historical figure. So that makes it less unlikely that al-Qaradawi has said it.

However, if there is not a single other report of him using those exact words, there has to be a fairly substantial doubt that he actually said it. It may that he said something very similar, and these authors are paraphrasing, and perhaps the Wikipedia article could do the same - American opponents of Qaradawi have suggested that he called for all Jews to be killed.

Which article is it, by the way? Barnabypage (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue no. An op ed is not news reporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnabypage: this started off at the article of Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, where this is bieng used to assert that Qadhi denied the Holocaust as of 2009. Qadhi did make statements denying the Holocaust in 2001, but retracted them, and as of 2008 stated that he fully believed in the Holocaust. (I brought this example up at BLP noticeboard seperately)

But I wanted to know whether such a source can be considered reliable at all. Wouldn't it be better to use unbiased and more serious reports?

Thanks for your response Wehwalt.VR _talk 21:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Op eds (and even regular editorials), can be used only to source opinions held by their writers/publishers and are not a reliable source of "facts". Such opinions should be weighed for

I understand what you're saying. But how do we judge dueness? I don't see the authors of this op-ed as very notable people (by contrast someone from the Anti-Defamation League would be a more notable commentator).VR _talk 21:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i've looked into this briefly. It appears that the Boston Globe ran two op-ed pieces with opposing views of the Islamic Society of Boston on the same day, the other by Michael Felsen.[1] One way of handling this is to briefly give both sides of the matter.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

VR, answering your question about "how do we judge dueness", here are some parameters to consider:

1. The amount of literature on the subject. If we have numerous books or articles written about a subject, highlighting a single op-ed may not be due. On the other hand, if the subject is relatively obscure, an op ed may provide useful content.
2. The authority of the source. For example, if the US State Departments issues an opinion on ISB, that will almost surely be worth including; ditto for a state official; or, a scholarly article or book published by a reputable publisher; or, as you say ADL; an op ed by relatively unknown authors, less so.
3. Whether the opinion has been cited by other reliable sources.
4. Whether the claim raises
   redflags
   . If a claim is singular or exceptional, we demand higher sourcing standards; conversely for a commonly accepted claim, the exact source used is less important.

The above points are generic (and, not exhaustive). For this particular article, my sense is that the inclusion of the Boston Globe op eds would be supported mainly by #1. The strategy, Will Beback suggests of citing the two contrasting op-eds seems sensible. The current version:

Reports of ties to radical Islam have been controversial.^{Boston Herald October 23, 2003}

is unacceptable, both in terms of the

non-specificity of the claim, and incomplete source information. Abecedare (talk

) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Will Beback's suggestion is important in the case of the ISB. But about Qadhi and Qaradawi etc. who are not discussed in the second article?

Also, how important is it to defend one's remarks than to simply state them without substantiation. WP:RS, on multiple points, calls us to use sources that have an enhanced process of "fact-checking" and not use sources simply based on "personal opinion". Thus, the very least a source can do to satisfy this is substantiate or source the claims its making. the current source does no such thing. I find this inexcusable, since sourcing one's facts (or hinting at where they come from) is practiced by scholars writing books to nobodies writing blogs.

And even in wikipedia, when we make criticism of people, we usually refer to sources that make a reasoned refutation of these people (whether the reasoning is correct or not), not simply those who place a label upon them, don't back that label, and move on.VR _talk 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<noindex> Is [2] a reliable source? Using an online translator it seems it is in Czech. It is being used to confirm a person has acted in gay pornographic films - "Czechoslovakian competitive bodybuilder and model appearing in several gay porn films". If this is not reliable enough can those looking offer an alternative source? Any help appreciated.

It's a tabloid, and a pretty low-standard one at that, judging by its front page. Not a reliable source for an encyclopedic BLP. --JN466 21:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a tabloid, as such I consider it unsuitable for contentious info, for confirming entirely trivial info, I would let it pass. The information in this case is contentious, as such Blesk is unsuitable. I notice that the claim is absent in the Czech article Czech article. There is a discussion here cz:Wikipedista diskuse:G#chybi zdroj, exactly on whther to use the Blesk as a source for the porn statement. The Gtranslate is completely garbled - with my limited Czech I read it as a total no-no, they do not accept the info from Blesk. (I would expect a bad source is "špatné zdroj" - "chyba" is more like an error, or a mistake, but my Czech is quite bad.) </noindex>. I would noindex this discussion, but the tag doesn't seem to work, piped his name instead. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure your efforts to hide the name of the individual are going to help, since they were listed for quite some time in

List of male performers in gay porn films with the Blesk link, a non-functioning link, and IMDB as references. I recently removed them, which was the impetus for the question here. Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, nice catch, locating sourced contentious info, when everybody is chasing their own tail, gravely concerned about unsourced (and mostly entirely innocuous) articles. Even if he did porn films in his youth (aged 18-21), for money, no regrets, and no family condemnation, according to the Blesk article, he now has a family and children, and he may wish not to have this posted on the global billboard forever. The fundamental problem though, is Blesk, not Wikipedia. The same info is in the Polish and Malay (??) articles. I will contact them later, must go now. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Web Gallery of Art a reliable source for information about a nineteenth century artist? --Defender of torch (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no: the only two staff biographies provided (at http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/ekren.html) indicate they are not qualified art historians, and the site is quite adamant that it is "not related to any museums or art institutions". (BTW, I am sure the site is well-intentioned and it probably is fairly "reliable" in the common English sense of the word rather than the Wikipedian one - in other words, it might if necessary be used to establish facts which you could then substantiate via a more Wikipedianly reliable source,.)

What fact(s) do you need attribution for? Barnabypage (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The book Holy Madness, by this guy Georg Feuerstein. At issue is this book is published by this guy, controversial guru Lee Lozowick [3], who uses the Hohm press, [4] to self publish his own books as well as the books of others. The book is being used as a source to bring in contentious claims about another controversial guru, Adi Da. Concern is that book appears to directly source internet attack sites and there are concerns that there may be editorial bias, or a lack of editorial oversight, even though technically not self-published. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Hohm press a vanity press? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is being used as the main source in several articles on dubious nutritional supplements. IT doesn't strike me as a reliable source. I have found blog references (themselves unreliable as sources for wikipedia) that said that the journal is funded by a guy who is himself a major sales person of "neutraceuticals" and is mainly used as a sales brochure for supplements masquerading as a scientific journal.

My own digging seems to support this and it would appear that the journal is not peer reviewed, is not affiliated with any sort of school and is - to be blunt - not an academic journal at all.

I thought it'd be best to bring this here before taking precipitious action (which will likely involve more than one stubbing and a couple of prods). Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to do our own investigations (which count as source-research, not original research). This journal is certainly claiming to be peer-reviewed and those listed as being on the editorial board include several working for prestigious universities. But I wouldn't recommend a UK academic trying to raise their profile in the REF to publish in it! One thing we would see for real academic journals is an academic publisher like Sage, Cambridge, Taylor & Francis, or Harvard, and I'm not seeing that in this case, which rings alarm bells. (These publishers do publish journals for organisations and learned societies so the involvement of the Nutraceutical Assoc. is not necessarily a problem in itself.) I doubt if it's listed at ISI, though it may be at PubMed, worth checking both as well as the electronic services like Ingenta and Gale. The citation index, if available, should always be a major guide for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got a couple of articles on even funnier fake journals mentioned here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdseeksblonde . "Peer" of course means just that, ad and sales people have peers just as much as medical researchers. If you try to highlight the evidence, while avoiding OR, issues with source quality should be apparent to reader. If source is notable, perhaps it has been critiqued by others and an article on the source would help the reader. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this page suitable for citation as a source on

Fine for uncontroversial facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A Request for comment which may be of interest to the reliable sources noticeboard:

Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was

• Used by the BBC as a source for movie theme chart positions
• Used by the Telegraph for information about Eurovision chart positions
• Used by Reuters in an article about Thin Lizzy
• User by the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" in an article about the Beatles.

This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by

Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using WebCite; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of fully meeting every requirement of

WP:GOODCHARTS is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.—Kww(talk

) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British charts excepted.

WP:GOODCHARTS recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.—Kww(talk

) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. Mister sparky (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or

FLCs. Goodraise

02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. Goodraise 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to

WP:RS

or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.

I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to

WP:CONVENIENCE. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.—Kww(talk

) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since

WP:CONVENIENCE leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Convenience links, which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a link in the reference to the original source (in {{cite web}} this is done using |archiveurl=), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.
If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.
At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. Goodraise

00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good link: BBC Radio One specifically recommends using everyhit.com to search British chart history.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to chime back into this discussion, this time for the correct reasons (and because I don't think this has been quite resolved yet). I just wanted to point out that looking through a lotta, lotta discographies - especially FLs - pretty much every one of them link to either ChartStats, or everyHit. So firstly, does the above link satisfy Goodraise (which I think ultimately could be considered a consensus on the subject), and secondly, if it doesn't, what should happen to the discogs? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

well i think general consensus has already been reached about chartstats and everyhit amongst the majority of editors and reviewers because throughout my months of working on discographies and taking part in flc discussions, so far User:Goodraise has been the only one to object to their usage. Mister sparky (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This still messes up once it gets to FLC's on discographies though, and I can see many of them taking the same course of action: Goodraise reviews, Goodraise doesn't like everyHit, Goodraise doesn't support, DaBomb fails it, end of discussion. I'm not slating his reviews, considering i can't argue against his judgement, I just think it would be good if this website ws established as good or bad. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no single link has changed my mind, nor did I expect that to happen. EveryHit.com is not only a self-published source, but also an anonymously published one. A handful of instances of usage by other sources and a one-line recommendation alleviate some of my concerns, but ultimately, they don't raise the website to the same level as the website of The Official Charts Company or, for example, a print magazine that publishes the figures. In your terms, the website will never be established as clearly "good or bad" (unless significantly more third-party usage/recommendation shows up).

Consensus can change. Even though the Black Eyed Peas discography was promoted while using it, there is no guaranty that the next FLC using everyHit.com won't fail because of that. It's the risk of using less-than-premium sources. Personally, I probably won't oppose an FLC if my only concern is the usage of everyHit.com, but I won't support either. As for Chart Stats (previous RSN thread here), that is another matter. I see no reason to stop opposing its usage. Goodraise

22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on ChartStats, I was never too sure about that website. So to conclude, you're fine with sources like this? As well as that, isn't it quite likely that most of the articles in Category:FL-Class Discography articles, now, shouldn't be? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reluctant to use everyhit.com as a reliable source for UK Singles Charts. While there is rarely errors is any of the main chart sites, if there is some it is in everyhit.com

In my experience reliable sources for

1. The Official Chart Company
   (short term archive only)
2. Chart Plus (but this is
   WP:PAYWALL
   ).
3. Chart Stats (Top100 only)
4. Music Week (not link friendly - subscription required. Top75 only, short term archive)
5. BBC (Top40 only, no archive)
6. Polyhex.com (not link friendly - have to search. Top75 only)

Other sites such as everyhit.com, aCharts and Zobbel are generally not as good quality and I wouldn't be adding them suggest instead using any of the six listed above to any FA type article. Regards,

talk

) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I realise the situation of finding an error in a chart source is akin to looking for a spec of dust on a pinhead. The above discussion of supposedly 'impeccable reputation' like the BBC made me laugh and put into context that in fact, a BBC news source is much less reliable. Chart information isn't open to much interpretation, it is fixed information, an exact thing that is verified and checked to the OCC at the time. That means very little historical error ever occurs. So I am open to pass even everyhit.com off as a

Its not as much solving a dispute; its more deciding what sources are reliable enough to be included in an article which passes FA or FL status. In the past, some of the above sources have failed these. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what articles previously failed and be able to read the related discussion to see if it applies in general terms. Charts in the 1952-1960 could be a sticky point because at time there was more then one chart(meaning you could have a conflict between say an old printed magazine and the official charts), also some old charts between Christmas and the new year did not actually get published at the time.

talk

) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

so basically, after all the discussions all over wiki that have taken place recently reguarding uk chart sources, other than the OCC and ChartsPlus, we're still no closer to a firm decision over what is acceptable and whats not. i guess they'll just have to carry on being treated on a case-by-case business, which sucks. Mister sparky (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is a Jerusalem Post article, reporting that Richard Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish comminity has plummeted following his UN report a reliable source,[5] or is it necessary to cite scientific polls to make claims about changes in the popular perception? For discussion, see Talk:Richard Goldstone (6, 10 and 15). --Jonund (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would attribute to the Jerusalem Post, inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is actually an editorial which should not be used for facts especially for a biography of a living person, because columns lack the fact-checking that an article would have. Also, it does not make any sense to use an Israeli newspaper for a South African subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an editorial; it's a news article. The journalist, Amir Mizroch, was raised and educated is South Africa. --Jonund (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be his blog entry, It would be better to source the origional articel. Is thre any reason to assume that this blog has any links to the Jerusalem Post? Also the JP link appears to go to the JP front page, not to any article, as such it clearly does not support the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the cache, which takes you to the specific article.[6] It's specified as: Middle East & Israel Breaking News » In depth » Front Lines - the week that was » Article. The advantage with sourcing to the bog that reproduces the article is that the cache is likely to expire. But the footnote should give information about the original place of publication. --Jonund (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the blog, http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/, a reliable source? What about http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx? The relevant article is

Just a bit of background on HPD - it appears to be owned/run by

Roxy Jezel and Abbywinters.com

.

ReadPlatform is a tricky one because it is an interview, so the question might be can we rely on it not to have just made up the interview? It might not be any use for demonstrating notability but it might work for sourcing information. Currently being used as a source on KASMs. (Emperor (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

A website used as a source on other Wikipedia articles does not determine that it's reliable. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

However, it does indicate that some editors found the sources to be reliable, and the fact that the sources haven't been removed from the other articles indicates that other editors found them to be reliable as well, or at least didn't care enough to remove them. Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And I wasn't saying it was reliable - what I was doing was providing background, including the fact these are already in use which makes it especially important that these issues are resolved here, rather than piecemeal in the AfD or on the other pages. The adult film articles would probably survive the removal of the HPD links but KASMs' sourcing is already poor and it could be problematic. So in essence I was supporting the move to discuss it here.

On the two sources:

• HPD might itself be deemed reliable and possibly notable but that piece on their site is really just a passing mention of the webcomic and is not an in-depth piece, you just wouldn't include such an article in a well-rounded and well-sourced article as it adds nothing. The fact that it is and is one of the few third party links is a cause for concern. The other articles are longer and more in-depth so could be of some use. It'd be worth checking out the writers to see if they have done things elsewhere which would help with the RS assessment.
• RP is a blog but the interview is relatively wide-ranging and would be useful in providing useful out-of-universe material. However, can we consider it reliable?

So I think there might be a case for HPD in general but not that piece and RP might be useful for that interview. (Emperor (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

• I agree that neither source can be used to establish notability. The HPD source does not have sufficient context about the webcomic, while the RP blog is clearly an unreliable source. The author of the RP blog is Robert Foster; a click on his name brought me to the page "All Posts by Robert Foster". The quote from Foster: "I'm a sham and my life is a shambles." and the subsequent link to Blogspot indicates that Foster's articles are not reliable. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Source:

1. http://www.britannica.com

Articles:

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/919613/Rashtriya-Swayamsevak-Sangh
2. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/254649/Hanuman

Complaint: I had quoted some material from the above source but some people think that the articles aren't reliable.

Parties involved:

1. sandeepsp4u
2. deshabhakta
3. nihar
4. unspokentruth

Concerned material: Encyclopedia Britannica labels RSS a "militant Hindu organization"^[1] and says that "Hedgewar was heavily influenced by the writings of the Hindu nationalist ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted much of his rhetoric concerning the need for the creation of a 'Hindu nation'. Hedgewar formed the RSS as a disciplined cadre consisting mostly of upper-caste Brahmins who were dedicated to independence and the protection of Hindu political, cultural, and religious interests."^[2]

Would appreciate a third party opinion.--Evox777 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica reliable. But if other good sources contradict it both sources / POVs should mentioned.

talk · contribs · email

) 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The concerned users have not put forth any credible source opposing the above material. All they do is complain about how "biased" E. Britannica is and have made numerous attacks on the author of these articles. Here are some other sources supporting my point:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/09/world/india-bomb-kills-10-in-offices-of-group-of-militant-hindus.html?pagewanted=1 Refers to it as "group of militant hindus"
2. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece Refers to it the group as "Extremist Hindu group"
3. http://www.france24.com/en/20081115-united-states-politics-obama-indian-slammed-with-extremist-link-accusations Refers to it as "part of a network of extremist Hindu groups"

--Evox777 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On invitation and for answering the complain of Evox777 i am hear and bellow are my counter claims and reference's which proves that the content of Britannica is not always correct and never be considered as fully neutral on few topics. Acceptance of Britannica about the mistakes on the articles of Hinduism and related org, they founded it wrong and promised to bring the necessary change which will take time http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 this is indian NGO who had asked Britannica to revive the content.This is another claim made by a 12 year old boy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article506346.ece and Britannica had to accept the claims about the mistakes made by there so called experts. This is the book written by Kister's http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aUhjQgAACAAJ&dq=0897747445.&ei=AZ5qS6bFCYOSkASAsvyuDQ&cd=1 who had beautifully compared different encyclopedias and had doubted about the neutrality of Britannica's articles.

Moreover This are journals published by University of Chicago written by George L Burr http://www.jstor.org/pss/1832843 in which he had clearly mentioned its neutrality and laughed at Britannica and its contents.

In this news link also the Britannica is doubted http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n. Irish news had alleged Britannica for providing wrong information about the history http://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html

My point hear is only that the information of Britannica can not be considered as authentic and free from biasness. Britannica is a form of corporate structure in which people are paid employee and no one can say that what mind set a person have writing the article on any person or organization. Regarding the complain of Evox777 this are his words and POV "reputation of an organization involved in mass killings, question anything remotely critical of the organization" which shows the users mind set while editing the article which is a dangerous sign while one is doing a selfless contribution to an open source, because one can't contribute neutrally if he/she had mind set for the particular person or org.

One more thing i will like to bring in the notice that the user had tried to fill the article with the references of Britannica only in different sections. My question is that how much advisable it is to use the same reference's again and again and filling the whole article. I can bring more reference's if asked by my contributer friend. regards --Sandeep (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article will clearly show the biased nature of Britannica Hinduism and its beliefs http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/

This is the article published by university of Chicago written by Amy Barverman http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml She had clearly mentioned that the so call religious scholars use to mis concept Hinduism and RSS is the social and cultural organization working in india for the prevention of Indus religions.--Sandeep (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. There have certainly been claims made that all three of these sources, the Britannica, the Times, and the New York Times, have biases. (The Britannica, for example, isn't too fond of us! :-) ) But that is not the same thing as saying that they are not widely and generally relied upon, they are. If we can find some similarly reliable sources that say that the RSS is neither extremist nor militant, then we should write something like "The Times, New York Times, and Encyclopedia Britannica call the RSS extremist[ref] and militant,[ref][ref] but The Daily Foo, Professor Bar, and The Baz Journal disagree.[ref][ref][ref]" Until then, though, these are pretty good sources. --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Britannica, The Times, and The New York Times all qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia doesn't demand neutral sources, since those are as rare as hens teeth, and generally in the eye of the beholder. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with our friend G.Ruban and that's what i was saying since long. I just want to ask that can a whole article be edited with a single source and that to in so much controversies. The same references is getting used in every section of the article just to make it POV. There must be some standard to edit certain things on the basis of discussion and considering the view points of every user with proper neutral references. If one references say that one is a murder and another says that he/she is a holy person then i think that we must avoid discussing about that issue and concentrate on other parts... what my friends says ????????--Sandeep (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You should use other sources to put counter claims into the article, you cannot remove valid cited content. If you think the article has too many negatives in it, which are all sourced by reliable sources, then you should put in some positive things backed up by reliable sources. You cannot continually remove others cited content from reliable sources because you disagree with it. --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Britannica's certainly reliable but it's just one RS and it even seems to disagree with itself as it uses a militant label in one article but not the other. I agree with other comments here. Labels like 'militant', 'right wing', 'nationalist' etc etc are opinions and there will be many different labels in different RS. As NPOV says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys.--Evox777 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As said by my friend Sean.hoyland that facts must be selected and not the oponions and this militant tag is the oponion of the Brittinica so how can we consider it as a fact. I also consider Brittinica a reliable source but it is little biased to some topics and that to about RSS it is confirmed by my refrences of Hindu Jan Jagruti's mail conversation http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 . So hear i will request all my friends that in this case we can't consider Brittinica as reliable source. --Sandeep (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Britannica has an article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) itself. But RSS is not referenced to as 'most militant Hindu organization' in it. Rather, in an article on an unrelated topic Hanuman, the author of article opines that RSS is most militant Hindu organization. So, there is clear inconsistency with respect to whether Britannica considers RSS as 'most militant organization'. Considering this, dear admins, will it be a good idea to mention in wiki that Britannica says "RSS is most militant Hindu organization"? Further, this stray remark about RSS in Hanuman article is not substantiated with anything related to it before or after it in the article. One more thing to note here is the quality of article Hanuman on Britannica. This article by controversial writer Wendy Doniger translates 'Ramayana' from Sanskrit into English as "Romance of Rama" which is completely incorrect. Admins, please suggest if you think it is good for an Wiki article to quote from Britannica's Hanuman article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the articles of Titchener which is included in the trusted archive of Indian University press the secondry articles of Brittinica are not adapted for intelligent readershttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1413113

I will also request admins to stop the user Evox777 using the references of Brittinica as this is still in discussion and yet come out with some conclusion.--Sandeep (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the Analaysis of Hinduism Studies of America AAR people who are famous for there biased nature on south east religions. AAR people not only holds Key positions in Brittinica but use veto incase of artilces related to south-eastern religion http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/71/52/

The fallowing article is clearly showing that due to few scholors like Dongear and Brittinica the Hinduism and its org is badly shown in west countries http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030314.htm--Sandeep (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Conclusions were: Not an RS for the song as recorded/released. Paysite should not be linked to. Cite only with attribution, mentioning that info is per sheet music published by the named publisher. --JN466 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am currently doing a GA review, and the

I am not happy with the fact that the link invites me to download software, "including 5 free songs", and I reckon the link has to go. The publisher is clearly reputable though, and theoretically the sheet music could be cited like treeware, without a link.

However, using sheet music in this way raises a reliability question. Does anyone know how faithful such sheet music is to the recorded version of the song, and whether it can be used as a reliable source for describing details of the song as released? I am concerned that the arrangement reproduced in the sheet music may be simplified, leaving out a lot of details (overdubs etc.). As far as I am aware, such sheet music is designed to enable amateurs to play a song at home. It is not designed to be a faithful representation of the song as recorded. --JN466 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is at least one FA that uses the same type of link: [8]. --JN466 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Musicnotes provides a digital copy of the published sheet music. It does require some freeware to view the digital copy, but I don't have any reason to believe the freeware is dangerous (I have it installed on multiple machines). In the cases that I have both a physical copy and a digital copy of the same song, the reproduction is faithful.

There are limits to using sheet music as a source. Some sheet music is specifically a transcription of a particular recording, and others are adaptations to make it playable for a given skill level or instrumentation. Generally, if the key has been changed, there's a note like "capo up to fret x to match recording" or something similar, but that isn't an absolute rule. I'm skeptical of using any sheet music that isn't specifically labeled as a transcription.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheet music is a curious thing. You can buy any piece of sheet music and, when played, it will certainly sound like the tune you wanted. However, I've found considerable variations between sheet music published from different sources, including chord structures, keys, and even timing. Even the sheet music that I have for The Dark Side of the Moon, replete with prism design and direct from Pink Floyd publishing (from memory) is noticeably different in places to what is present on the album.

I consider sheet music guide to the rough structure of a song, but unless its a well-known piece like "

Nocturnes" (and even then, timing, weight, and pace are down to personal preference), where differences would be instantly obvious, you're better off not considering it a 100% reliable source. By the way, I've bought plenty of things from musicnotes.com and the software is harmless. Parrot of Doom

00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with a good deal written here: I dislike pay-sites that read my location and software before requiring me to download software. Some pop sheet music is unreliable - more or less none would give the full score, but no statement on the page requires this - but the paper version would be preferable. On the other hand the site has an endorsement from the American National Standards in Music Education chairman and, it turns out, gives correct info, in that the song IS in E minor and runs at around 130bpm (though this latter depends on a very non-classical reading of the word "beat", since this means the song is taken as being in common time continuous triplets, whereas it really ought to be notated in 6/8). I must say here two tangential things. First, if the song's lyrics can be quoted without source, why would the above straightforward information be unacceptable OR?! Second, there are a few other problems I note in the article, such as describing the tempo both as "up-tempo" and "moderate", that are unsatisfactory, though not concerned with RS since here both seem to be OR!! Redheylin (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that 'sheet music' even when from the DIRECT music publisher is JUST the copyrighted version. The ACTUAL performed version by the ORIGINAL artist may vary somewhat and also the lyrics may vary a bit. I don't believe that it is appropriate or necessary for Wikipedia to provide details to re-create the music.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about sheet music, but if it was an official version provided by the artist or their company, you might say "The official sheet music says the song has 100 beets per minute" or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AGREED. If it has to be included at all, attribute it to "The official sheet music..." to distinguish it from the 'performance' version which may be slightly different.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with musicnotes.com as far as their viewing of the sheet is concerned. They have the transcripted different keys, which I havenot found in any other sheet music websites like Sheetmusicplus etc. Hence I generally prefer using Musicnotes.com only. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion so far

Thanks to everyone for weighing in. So, deriving a tentative conclusion from the above input, if we cite musicnotes.com –

• the link to the paysite/software download page should go, and the sheet music should be cited like treeware, without a link
• whenever we use the sheet music as a source for a song's tempo, expressed as x beats per minute, or for descriptions of any other musical details, we need to indicate in the text that we are citing
  Alfred Music Publishing
  's sheet music published by whoever the publisher of the sheet music is in the specific case, and not a source describing the actual song as recorded and released.

I believe the Madonna FA should then be updated accordingly, as it will otherwise encourage further inappropriate use of this source.

Unless someone wishes to argue that this summary is incorrect, I propose we can close this thread with the above conclusions. (I'll wait for a day or two before closing the thread to allow for further input.) --JN466 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that not all of the sheet music in Musicnotes is from Alfred Music Publishing, in fact most of them is from the

Hal Leonard Corporation. It really depend on each artist. Frcm1988 (talk

) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't realised that. --JN466 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just saw the link from the article you are reviewing, and that particullary song "Radar" is published by Windswept Holdings LLC, other Britney Spears' songs are published by Universal Music Publishing Group, and there is also another that is from Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The best way to know what company published the sheet music is to scroll down the page to the section Product Information, and then to the third option: Song Details, there is some information, composer, lyricsts, date and publisher. I know that some users just simply put the Alfred Music Publishing in all the references without even bother to look if that is correct. There should be some warning about this, because these could lead to some copyright issues. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! (Another thing I hadn't realised.) --JN466 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT the summary bullet points, if it is 'corrected' to reflect the subsequent discussion of checking which EXACT publisher/company is their source.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with this version as long as we attribute the proper publisher of the sheet music, like UMG for Britney's songs, WMG for Madonna's songs, Interscope for the Gaga songs etc. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct, the artist's record label is not the same as the publishing company. The music publisher is the one that owns the copyright of a song and is responsible for the payments to the composers and writers. For example Madonna's label is Warner but the company sold most of Warner Bros. Publications to Alfred Music Publishing including Madonna's catalogue, altought some songs like the ones from the soundtrack of Evita are published by the Hal Leonard Corporation. Lady Gaga's label is Interscope which is part of Universal, but her publishing company is Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Amended above, and added "in the text" to make clear that in-text attribution is meant. --JN466 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody marked the issue resolved, but I still have concerns. My concerns are these: 1) The references for the legal charge do not seem to be reliable for an accusation such as this. I have seen that numerous people try to push gossip sources as reliable, and I would like to see this one properly sourced. Since there is no disagreement that the charge was a real one, I am not sure why this request is unreasonable. 2) The editors that have been making these edits have been attempting to shut down the discussion on this issue by making charges of bad faith and refusing to engage in any discussion whatsoever. This concerns me because it seems to be the way that some people make bad faith BLP edits. I am not saying this is the case, it just seems to be. In any case, I would like to see more input about the use of these sources on this BLP before this issue is closed.--Jarhed (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue already is closed, Jarhed. You seem to be the only person who can't accept it. The article you refer to is extremely well sourced and starting thread after thread about its sources on this noticeboard as well as on the article talk page itself is only going to make you look petty and childish. 80.47.8.103 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That answers my concerns how?--Jarhed (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe there may still be a BLP concern there. The cited source says that he "admit[ted] public indecency and agree[d] to be bound over for a year for £100 at Kingston court, after an incident at a public lavatory". In our article, this has become "He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year." The source nowhere states he "pled guilty". As far as I understand, being "
  bound over
  " is not a conviction, nor does it imply any wrongdoing. "Being bound over for x amount of money" does not mean that the person was fined x amount of money, it means that the person will be fined if they violate the terms agreed, or that the money acts as a surety. Is there anyone with more legal clue than me who can clarify this?

• Beyond that, given that being bound over does not mean being convicted, I question the judgment of including this in an encyclopedia article. We are
  telling our BLP subjects that they can expect encyclopedic coverage from us, not journalism. Have we made good that claim here? I doubt any reputable encyclopedia would include such a thing. --JN466
  20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the material. Here is an explanation of what binding over means in UK law: [9] It is not a fine, but a cautionary order: it specifies a sum of money that will be forfeited if a defined type of misconduct should occur during a specified period. --JN466 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal for the reasons you cite.--Jarhed (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have honestly never read such utter nonsense. Firstly, to be "bound over" is a sentence that necessitates either a guilty plea or a guilty verdict for a criminal offence. People cannot be bound over if they are found innocent. Being bound over means that you have to sign a written agreement stating that you will be of good behaviour for a certain period of time after commiting an offence, otherwise you will have to pay a penality. You can also be fined and bound over for a further sum of money simultaneously - the two are not mutually exclusive measures (see this Metropolitan Police Authority document but Google a few court cases yourself if you like). The source you quoted says that Stedman Pearson "admited public indecency" at his hearing at Kingston Court. Admiting to a charge in court is pleading guilty. Honestly - what do you think pleading guilty means? And at no point did his article page mention the word "conviction", nor is that a necessary factor for the inclusion of these details. The article merely stated what he was arrested for, that the matter went to court, and the sentence the court gave him. One source says he was fined, another says he was bound over for £100. It would most likely be both, but regardless, this incident still happened and there were four valid sources to prove it. I think the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here. Roguana (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the inclusion of these facts in the article, but I disagree with you about the reliability of the cites that have been given thus far. What do you mean, "the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here". Are you accusing me of something untoward?--Jarhed (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If a person is found guilty of a crime, that is a conviction. A fine is a penalty. Neither applies to a bind-over. A bind-over is not a conviction or a penalty. An individual does not have to be convicted of a criminal offence to be bound over. The source cited (not a very high-class source at that) said he was "bound over for £100". --JN466 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To put a point on it, the sources given so far do not describe any of the official details, do not explain the charge, and do not give the official outcome of the case. All of these need to be taken into account when making decisions about the notability of the incident and whether such should be included in a BLP. I would appreciate it if the editors who want this data in the article would come up with a reliable source for the criminal charge.--Jarhed (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sure this has come up before. Another contributor feels it is essential to add "a liberal weblog" after

The HP is like a print newspaper, in that the authors are generally chosen for being authoritative or otherwise notable commentators. Is it really necessary, or even a good idea to append "a liberal weblog" to "Huffington Post"? Would we do this for a print newspaper?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That question is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Okay. Can I ask where you think I should have asked this question? Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You can ask at the article talk page, if there aren't enough participants you can ask for a

Wikipedia:Request for comments. Now that you're here already, maybe you can put a link here, and someone will follow it, because we're not a bureaucracy, but this really isn't the right place, it's a question of context, not reliability. This is the board you would go to to ask if a statement by the Huffington Post counts as a reliable source for a statement in one of our articles, but how it should be qualified next to that statement isn't this board's jurisdiction. The New York Times has been called liberal, and the Wall Street Journal has been called conservative, but as far as this board is concerned they're both reliable sources for most news statements. --GRuban (talk

) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is appropriate to ask such a question here, because attribution is part of the proper use of sources. It comes up fairly often with regard to citing political advocacy groups, that the best way to cite is often by qualifying it as "according to the liberal XYZ" or the "pro-LMN group QRS", as long as the labels are fairly universally agreed upon, that they help in introducing the quote, and we use a touch of understatement. i.e. it would be juvenile to prefix the Wall Street Journal as "conservative", but it would be appropriate to qualify an obscure anti-smoking advocacy group as such.

Which article is being asked about, and what is being cited? In general, it may be appropriate to include "liberal" with regard to the Huffington Post, because pretty much everybody, friend or foe, would identify it as liberal, it adds useful attribution to readers who might not be familiar with the source, especially if it was being compared/contrasted with a conservative source. On the other hand, the term "weblog" is probably not helpful, as it implies a personal website with no editorial control. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can other sites be considered "Reliable Sources"? I am currently in a discussion on the

GEPR & Progarchives - checking the about us and who wrote GEPR?, it seems that they are written/maintained by " fanatic progressive rock music collectors" and accept user contributions. I'd say not reliable unless the main editors/creators can be shown as subject matter experts, or the websites have been described as authoritative by other sources (music journalists/papers/journals). I wouldn't consider Amazon reliable for genres either. There are several books listed as references on the Progressive rock article, two in particular I think are very good, Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture, and The Music's All That Matters: A History of Progressive Rock. Perhaps checking these books can find material that supports your position.--Glumboot (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I will check into the background of the GEPR. The owner is quite knowledgeable and has written lengthy articles on the subject. I already have "Rocking The Classics" and have used it on the

Symphonic rock page. I will see if I can get my hands on the other book you mentioned. Firstlensman (talk

) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this content here Azax World magazine a reliable source it is reporting some content from this source, http://www.prnewswire.co.uk I couldn't see the authors name and it looked like you only need to register to upload content?

Material on PR Newswire is essentially self-published and thus not a reliable source for most purposes. If this court case is of any significance there should surely be a report of it in an Israeli newspaper? Barnabypage (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this Slashdot article, which was submitted by a Wikipedia editor, sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:Notability purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM#Pending Slashdot Story/Review. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A search of the archives indicates it has generally been ill-favoured as a reliable source. –xeno^talk 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not reliable. It's user/member submitted material that doesn't show any inidcation of reliability or editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• No real editorial oversight and no peer review, plus the fact that this "article" was "published" within hours of its "submission" clearly make the case (in combination with Xeno's comment about the archives) that this is not a reliable source.
  UnitAnode
  22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it does add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the notability of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts about the topic. LotLE×talk 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for AfD re JWASM, where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- spin^control 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• An anonymous person can sign up and submit an article. That is not reliable by any means. The fact that the article references Wikipedia shows it's not that reliable. Even wikipedia prohibits using wikipedia as a source.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia indirectly, i.e. for more information, in which was never done in the original submission but as apart of the editing process by

JWASM website and direct test cases against the tool. Please also note, that Slashdot does not allow for anonymous editors. Anyone can call up a news station/paper and submit a story, but whether they choose to verify and then publish it is an entirely different and controlled process. SpooK (talk

) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • They do allow anonymous submissions. They don't publish under real names. (Please spare me the odd example of a reliable source that uses an occasional psuedonym. How many RS's use nothing by handles?) There is no evidence of editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

When's the last time you refused to read a book or article because it was published under a pseudonym? Let's try to put things in perspective here. An attempt to correlate editors under pseudonym as unknown/unreliable people is not the same as an uncontrolled editorial process. Also, I supplied an example of editorial oversight, thus disproving such claim. The whole article doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten by an editor to be considered edited. Such assertions are merely examples of denying the antecedent. SpooK (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, you totally missed the point. I acknowledged that there are even psuedonyms in the media. (Yet you felt the need to point it out, as if I denied it). What I said was that it is more the exception than the rule for news sites to not use real names. Your example of editorial oversight is faulty. They take the anon submission, they add a few lines and publish. BTW, overlinking your responses doesn't make them more valid. Same term 3 times in as many sentences? Another one twice in 3? Bottom line, I say they don't meet RS. That is my contribution to the consensus process. Take note, I'm not the only one holding that opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was in the middle of writing my response when you edited yours to include the
  WP:RS, but make sure to back up any further assertions with solid proof and not mere conjecture. Accountability is an important factor in this situation. SpooK (talk
  ) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example of editing process seems to be a message board with such usefull comments as "I'm also a big YASM fan. YASM can generate object files for Windows, OS X, and Linux. That, combined with its macro features, let you write a single x86 file that can be used on all three platforms. I'll certainly take a look at JWASM, though!" Exactly how is that helping to improve the article? It’s a message board; one that does not appear to operates (for example) a non-soapbox policy. Moreover is there any indication that these posts are from experts likely to be able to pick up errors?Slatersteven (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the article (the top part) with the uncontrolled/edited responses. Think of the main article as a Wikipedia entry, and the replies to the article as the talk page of a Wikipedia entry. SpooK (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see so the example of edit process you gave was not an example of the process but of the end result. So we do not kn ow how they (or why they) added the new text just that they did. \forgive me but oyu use of the term editing process led me to assume that is what we were segin (a bit like seeing the edit history page on wiki). The main differance seems to be removal of text, why was it removed? I can't actualy see any alterations beyond this so it only an example of them editing text, not checking it.Slatersteven (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is weak-point in the Slashdot editing process, in that it is not as transparent as Wikipedia. I'll request the information about the process directly from the editor. I'll let you know what the response is, if there is any. SpooK (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a waste of time. A Wikipedia editor did not like the way an AFD was going, so he wrote a review for Slashdot, and then cited it as a potential "source." Sorry, but that is the definition of original research, saying nothing about the fact that Slashdot is not a reliable source.
  UnitAnode
  00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, I am not property of Wikipedia. I don't remember signing any contracts that state I cannot participate in other venues. Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main
  WP:AGF. SpooK (talk
  ) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  You have admitted, both here and in the comments of your "article" that the main reason you wrote it was because of the AFD. That's simply not on, and it's not acceptable for use as a source.

  UnitAnode

  01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  And a link where he admits that he wrote it in response to the AFD.

  UnitAnode

  01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  "My effort to write this review is a result of an AfD situation that occurred at Wikipedia, yes, but my desire to do so is for the sake of the tool itself, i.e. personal interest." (emphasis mine). That's a direct quote. This is simply not acceptable, and negates whatever shred of reliability Slashdot may have had, at least with regards to this issue.

  UnitAnode

  01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Main and only are two different contexts. This particular AfD motivated me to go ahead and do the
  WP:AGF can go a long way to a mutually understood and beneficial resolution. SpooK (talk
  ) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is obviously nowhere near a reliable source. If you even think it might be, you should not be giving opinions on whether sources are reliable. --TS 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see an experienced wikipedian drop by. Basically some folks were rules-lawyering whether JWASM was notable not not. So then some other folks figured heck, we can use slashdot as a reliable source, because if you ruleslawyer, it sort of does fit that description. ;-) Of course, if you just want to apply common sense, you can see how JWASM might be somewhat notable... ;-) (there's not many assemblers out there any more, I was surprised to discover) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to ruleslawyer; this isn't a unique situation. Slashdot is a secondary source like many other news organizations. However most articles are essentially letters to the editor, so they should be relied on very lightly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not

No, it's not. And my statement about AGF was only that once bad faith has been clearly demonstrated, there's no further need to assume good faith. And now a Slashdot vandal has shown his/her colors at my talkpage. The review itself was written in response and as a result of the AFD, and is not by a noted expert. It's by an anonymous username at an unreliable source. You're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse here, Lulu.

UnitAnode

01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And sorry if it sounds offensive, but if you want to be taken seriously it probably doesn't help to use adopted names on Wikipedia. Cunard, Spin, and whatnot are signs that you don't want anybody to care. Use your real name. Why not? Are you ashamed? --TS 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about a dozen reasons why people should use pen names on Wikipedia; in fact I'm of the opinion that they should have been mandated on WP from the beginning. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Those people work for slashdot. When wikipedia wants to start giving me a check, I'll happily use my real name. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to use our real name, that's not a fair criticism. I only use mine because I want to! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - slashdot vandal here. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, and I won't resort to personal attacks again. I'd just like to say that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day 123.243.237.83 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a good thing to do/say. If all slashdot vandals are like you, they're welcome to drop by and chat too! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So you want more people that react like this to those with whom they disagree? "Hi! I've come here via slashdot, and read your control-freak-like attempts to maipulate people. This otherwise normal user (and occasional positive contributer, although I don't spend my life on wiki) just wants to say you're a dickhead. Thanks!"

UnitAnode

16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A few points about using a Slashdot article as a source:

• It does count as a secondary source, though a "weak" secondary source. They only print a very limited number of the articles submitted to them, showing that the opinions expressed are at least notable.
• Slashdot cites would really be RS to back up statements such as "has received praise from the open-source community", or in cases where the Slashdot article performs an analysis of other sources that would fall just outside our WP:NOR policy.
• The comments are not RS, though there is a ratings system for comments. When making a convenience link to a Slashdot article, consider raising the comment threshold a few notches to include mainly the productive comments.
• There's still a guideline about citing yourself. Even if you're published in Nature, you should ask for someone else to add the cite. Though if it's under time pressure in an AFD debate I would forgive this.
• Use of pen names is not a problem, and is pretty common in some areas in computing, especially in some aspects of computer security. People use pen names for decades and can conceivably earn expert reputations under their pen names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The slashdot article is an issue of appropriate expertise. It may offend a number of Wikipedia editors but SpooK in fact has the expertise to write the review and that expertise comes from outside Wikipedia. It is a case of attacking a detached person writing a review beyond the influence of Wikipedia editors who has nothing to do with the JWASM project and did not write the original stub for JWASM. Content of a review is a technical issue, not an internal issue subject to the opinions of Wikipedia editors who don't want a topic to remain in Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue expertise, there is a provison called

WP:SPS that allows sources written either by topic experts, or subjects of a biography, to be cited as RS even in material that doesn't go through an editorial process, like a personal website. It sounds like there's some case to be made for either of those routes to RS, and I feel it is inappropriate to be removing sources in the middle of a AFD. That said, self-published material wouldn't count towards notability, and even if we decide Slashdot is a secodnary source, we really need several strong secondary sources for notability. I'd suggest merging to our article on WASM, especially if the syntax is very close. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• To address
  Unitanode's claim that the aforementioned Slashdot review/article is not written by a noted expert but instead someone anonymous, and further implying unreliability of said article source, please review the following facts. It can easily be seen that I am Odoital on Slashdot between my responses there to Unitanode and my alternate account here. A quick look at my Wikipedia user page and corresponding history page shows that my real name and personal website link have been posted at Wikipedia since 2007. My personal website lists the programming projects/endeavors that I am associated with. As a prime example, I fronted the initial/major effort in bringing 64-bit support to the Netwide Assembler, as well as implementing the 64-bit PE/COFF and Mach-O object formats. The operating system I have been working on, for nearly the last decade, has been and is currently developed entirely in x86 assembly language. The assembly language community and related forum, that I currently float the hosting bill for, requires more effort to maintain than someone with merely a inexpert/passing interest could offer. My previous and current jobs have employed me primarily as a professional software developer. I am currently pursuing a college degree in software development/programming to mach my current level of experience, i.e. the sheepskin that says I can do what I am already doing, full-time while holding a 3.9 GPA with a full-time job and full-time family. As one can see, I may not be a critically acclaimed "expert" in software development, nor do I think I am, but I am definitely not an "anonymous" or ill-informed person either; obviously enough of my peers (including ones that don't necessarily get along with me) agree that I am capable of producing a technically unbiased and objective review of JWASM in such a manner as I have. Again, accountability is an important factor in this situation. For those who may have made this slight factual oversight, please ensure that, in the future, you are presenting the facts and interpreting the rules... not the other way around. Thanks. SpooK (talk
  ) 08:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• No, Slashdot does not meet our RS guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a news organization with an editorial process, and is well-respected in the software community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "news organization", as no "news organization" would post a "review" from a non-staffer within hours of its creation. It is not a reliable source, and this "review" was basically an attempt at an end-run around the RS and NOTE questions raised at the AFD.

UnitAnode

15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is well-respected, and people in the software community treat it as a news site. It does meet the standards of a secondary RS, as there is an editorial board that selects maybe five of the hundreds of submissions to run each day. There is an issue that what's under discussion is essentially a letter to the editor that has been published in an RS, and there is still a question of notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Being well-respected and treated as a news site in the software community does not a reliable source make. I was a bit more open-minded about this up to the point where they posted this review within hours of its submission. No respectable news agency does such a thing.

UnitAnode

16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is "hours" a problem? There's a handful of editors, if they're all together or online they can check facts (online as well) and make the call as to putting it in. The new media works quickly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Submit a story idea, book review, movie review, or a software review to the New York Times website. See how long it takes to get published. Yes, the very fact that Slashdot published this within hours speaks to its lack of reliability as a source.

UnitAnode

16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the fact that the response you wrote to Squidfryerchef only took you 13 minutes speaks to its lack of reliability as to its content. -- spin^control 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be funny, if you weren't so serious. I'm a person, you know that, right? Slashdot is an organization, which posts various types of content. Comparing my response time to the time it took them to post a "review" is, well, frankly quite odd. Or simply a way of "spinning" (per your username) unrelated facts to fit your preferred conclusion. Either way, Slashdot isn't going to be considered a reliable source, and this article will be deleted soon.

UnitAnode

17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are merely carrying your partiality over from the JWASM AfD. It stops you from making reasoned comments on the issue at hand. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify, the article at AfD won't be deleted because of the lack of reliability from this site. It will be deleted because it's not notable. (Note that notable does not mean popular or useful). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about notability is irrelevant here. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• So? It's still part of the reason this discussion is even taking place. All I did was clarify that the AfD issue unitode mentioned isn't really reliability, it's notability. Lessen the confusion. But I didn't realized you'd been appointed the owner of this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is here. It's that simple. -- spin^control 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• So sorry for trying to clarify and make sure people didn't get those issues confused by the way unitode phrased it. But guess what? After 11,000 edits, I could have probably figured out where I needed to go on my own. Or maybe I just don't care to follow you orders. But you enjoy your
  ownership of the discussion my friend. Niteshift36 (talk
  ) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the confusion lies in that
  good faith and position of others, including the reliability of Slashdot, by asserting unfounded personal opinions/attacks instead of stating the facts (in which requires research/investigation if you don't know them) and reasonably interpreting the rules. Once again, a mountain has been made out of a molehill by Wikipedia deletionists instead of figuring out how to improve the situation to benefit Wikipedia and interested parties. SpooK (talk
  ) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot has no significant editorial oversight, and no reputation for reliability. As Dlabtot says: "Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reliability of Slashdot, they have a group of editors and an editorial process that's no different than what you would find at a print magazine. Except that yes they do work quickly, but that is the nature of the medium they work in. IEEE Spectrum did an article about a year ago on Slashdot which talked a bit about their editorial selectivity if we still want to pursue this. There is also the matter that most of these articles are essentially letters to the editor, which may make them a weaker source for some topics, but still meeting the bar for RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As this very thread has shown, Slashdot is little different than a

WP:SPS. If someone want to insert a "fact" into a Wikipedia article, all they need do is throw it up on Slashdot, and then cite themselves. Again, no significant editorial oversight, no reputation for reliability, and not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not just anybody can throw up a fact on Slashdot and then come back and cite it as published. This is a case where somebody wrote an article about a software program, a group of people at Slashdot check through the article, try out the program, maybe make some calls, and decide to run the story the next day. It's similar to a letter to the editor published in an RS, or it's similar to an article a freelancer might send in to a print hobby magazine about computers. Slashdot is not Associated Content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? How do you know that's what happened in this case? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of Slashdot

Spook said:

Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main

JWASM

or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD.

A look at the history confirms this [10]. Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of

I don't think an article on a product that is distributed for free could be considered "spam". There may be a problem with COI, but I'm going to assume these are new editors and aren't familiar with all the policies and politics of WP. More importantly, it seems like editors are trying to delete the material as "punishment" for a perceived breach of COI. If there's a COI problem, that can be discussed with the editors. But don't remove content that may be useful to the rest of WP's readership because of COI. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Free" is a red herring in this case. People spam charities on here, and we still remove it as spam. Secondly, this wasn't just COI, it was

gaming the system. Finally, Slashdot is a blog. They post links to other sources, and post opinions & interviews with no editorial oversight. Get an actual tech journal/magazine to publish the article, then we can come back to this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point being that whether an editor was "gaming" the system or not is not reason in and of itself to delete an article. It's a reason to have a discussion with the editor. We don't remove parts of the encyclopedia simply to spite people who we perceive as breaking the rules. But as far as being a "blog", it may be published in the format of a blog but it is not a personal webpage or a community blog where any member can publish. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions about the editorial review process at Slashdot - are based on what? Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. This was a DRV discussion about avoiding deletion. Once it became clear that finding reliable sources was the problem, the user

WP:GAMEed the system by trying to get an article published to support RS. And yes, Slashdot is a blog because its members have no editorial oversight. it doesn't matter if it's not open to the community in general... but it basically is anyway, given the "article" was published with no editorial process whatsoever. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not so. There's hundreds of thousands of members. You can become one tonight if you want. But they can't post a new article, only comments. For an article, whether a book or movie review, passing along a news tidbit, or a letter to "Ask Slashdot" to be posted, it has to be selected by the editorial staff. Slashdot has an editorial board, including some full-time staff, who select maybe ten twenty or so out of the hundreds and hundreds that come in every day. Perhaps the other day they felt that review of an assembler was important enough to run. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, here's the article in Spectrum[11], with four or five paragraphs on the second page about editorial selection. Here's some snips: Every day, Slashdot receives anywhere from 200 to 500 story submissions from readers, but it runs only 20 to 30 of them... Malda and his team judiciously fish out only the best.... If the story meets their criteria to be ”stuff that matters,” it gets categorized and placed into an appropriate section of the Slashdot site, such as Linux, Supercomputing or Geeks in Space. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a guy ("Commander Taco") and a few of his buddies (including "Scuttlemonkey", "Soulskill", and "Samzenpus"), running a blog on steroids out of his home. There are some really interesting blogs out there, and this may be one, but they don't qualify as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading slashdot for over a decade and I think Jayjg has summed it up best. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Every news source has to start somewhere. If we looked at, for example, a small hobby magazine, it would be started by "some guy" and a few employees. They would comprise an editorial board, and decide which articles to accept from freelancers. Slashdot is no different, other than that it's distributed electronically. And it would be appropriate to select movie and software reviews from Slashdot as secondary sources, because Slashdot editors decided the review was notable enough to print. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my previous description of the website is the situation today, not ten years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In 1997, it was just a blog. But according to our own article about Slashdot, it was sold a couple years later to a software publishing company, which eventually became SourceForge, for several million dollars. There's people behind the pen names, too, some of which have their own entries on WP: "...run by its founder, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, working out of his home in Dexter, Michigan. He shares editorial responsibilities with several other editors, including Timothy Lord, Patrick "Scuttlemonkey" McGarry, Jeff "Soulskill" Boehm, Rob "Samzenpus" Rozeboom, and Keith Dawson." With an editorial board, corporate ownership, and 13 years of respect from the open-source community, it's definitely more of a media outlet than just someone's blog. The only caveat is that most articles are essentially letters to the editor, and there's certain things I would use them for ( sci-fi movie reviews, technical details about software ) and certain things Slashdot would not be an RS for ( history, religion, BLP other than interviews of figures in the open-source comunity ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

...still run by Commander Taco out of his home. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as part of his duties as a salaried employee of SourceForge/Geeknet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who pays 'Commander Taco', Slashdot does not do fact-checking, which is why they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article

It looks like the the ultimate source for this list is The Oxford DNB but my question is, are these pages

No opionion on the source/COI issue, but any entry on that list should be a linked biog and the fact that they are from Reading should be independently verifiable from the biog's article. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the COI issue is a bit of a red herring, the list is purely being used as a convenient source which reduces the need for a large number of separate sources within the list. Both lists are good at stating the person's connection with Reading (which could if desired, be further checked against the ODNB), most look pretty solid, the only one which looks a bit tenuous to me is claiming Wilfred Owen. The definition of "great" the library list uses is probably narrower than our definition of notable, and might well exclude those who are more infamous than famous, but that doesn't seem to me to be a reason to exclude it as a source, just not to rely on it exclusively. David Underdown (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the official blog of Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi linked from hameir.org (e.g. http://kahane.hameir.org/content/blogsection/0/9/) and (while the site was accessible) from kahane.org (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://kahane.org). Therefore, this blog is a reliable source to the same extent as kahane.org and hameir.org. Per

talk

) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is their "official" blog. Even that first site you give isn't active. In fact none of them are active. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Blog states it was created to "KEEPING THE AUTHENTIC JEWISH IDEA ALIVE THROUGH THE LIGHT OF TORAH!"; virtually the same reason why this Yeshiva was created. The blog also links to to this website, a website of the Yeshiva. I never said that the blog officially represented the Yeshiva, only that they preach the same thing. Whether or not the website are "active" has absolutely no importance in this discussion whatsoever. Please keep your personal comments to yourself.

Kahane Movement.--Eliscoming1234 (talk

) 23:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sites are inactive due to government persecution. The fact that they are inactive, however, is not relevant, as both featured links to the blog while they were active. --

talk

) 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment is irrelevant. However, I will respond to it. Only www.Kahane.org was taken down due to "government persecution". www.Hameir.org connection died or something, and the Blog just hasnt been posted on in a bit.

Eliscoming1234: first, it seems that you do not distinguish between my comments (I believe that the blog is RS in this case) and those of Nomoskedasticity, who started this discussion. Second, the fact that one of blog editors calls himself David Ha'ivri does not prove his identity or link the blog to the Yeshiva. A link from an official or closely related web site does link the blog to the subject of the article, making it a permissible source, per section of WP:IRS quoted earlier - without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. So, no need to argue about expertise here. Finally, although it is not relevant here, a number of related web sites were taken down under pressure from US and Israeli governments on owners and/or hosting providers, including the original content of kahanetzadak.com. --

talk

) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if the links in question could be verified, I fail to see how they constitute evidence that this blog is the "official site" of the yeshiva. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are the people behind? Work on the Great Danish performed by an editorial team consisting of around 15 of Denmark's most talented public lexicon. All of them have years of experience in writing and editing the best lexicons. Our main role as editors is to assist and support users and experts to write so readable, credible and timely articles as possible. You can read more about the editors here."

talk

) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Power.corrupts is correct, that encyclopedia is edited. I believe they use a system that is somewhat similar to flagged revisions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I updated the article

WP:BLP policy? Power.corrupts (talk

) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the personally identifiable info part, the registration translation says:

Fill with username, your real name, email and password. The username is the name that you now wish to apply at The Great Danish. The user name can be your real name or an alias. The user name is unique and can not be changed retrospectively. Two users can have the same username. Other users will see your username and your real name, but not your e-mail address.

Also, it doesn't matter who is doing the edits, if it is a registered user or an "editor" since neither has cited their sources on that article, so any of it can be whatever they wanted it to be. It is no more than what Flagged Revs is on WP, and no one says that transforms WP into some more authoritative source. Also, "Redaktionen" in this context means any one of a dozen people, so we really have no idea who approved the content. Looks no different than a moderated web forum. MBisanz ^talk 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A "

WP:N discussions. It not only takes darn long time, but these sources are not readily available online, you either have to seek a library, or pay to get past the pay wall. Should we try to be constructive and non-dogmatic in these turbulent BLP times. Power.corrupts (talk

) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the exception in

WP:BLP) that we can use poor quality sources just because it is hard to get good sources. For the Poul Schlüter article, I don't see why these free sources were so hard to find as to rely on a self published wiki for sourcing: Danish gov't, NYTs, The Independent. Those three sources took me, a non-Danish speaker 10 minutes to find and none of them are behind a paywall, so I do question your reasons for relying on Den Store Danske Encyklopædi for the exact same benign, factual, information. MBisanz ^talk

03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perspective, please! It took you 10 minutes to source an innocuous article to your own standards on the longest serving prime minister in Denmark in the 20th century (please add the sources btw). It takes me about the same amount of time to source less internationally known individuals (still passing

WP:N) using less accessible sources; and much more time if the topic is difficult. I see BLP articles being PROD'd at a rate up to three per minute for being unsourced, I see you AfD articles with few minutes apart, and I'm told that 50,000 BLP articles are in need of urgent attention. I have cleaned up the backlog of unsourced Danish BLPs for 2007 and 2008, more or less single handedly I feel. What exactly are you thinking of with "we can use poor quality sources just because it is hard to get good sources" - in the present context, it's a comment from outer space. Power.corrupts (talk

) 09:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's based in the original paper encyclopedia, reviewed and edited by over 1000 experts selected by a reputable publisher and the approval status of each article is flagged. As described in our article: "While registered users may contribute with content and upload images etc. a professional and long-time editorial staff will maintain oversight over contributions.[5][4] The status of an article shall be clearly flagged, if it is user-generated content or if it has been approved by the editorial staff.[6]" This is enough for the approved articles to qualify as RS's, imho good enough for BLPs.John Z (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not however identify which editor reviewed it. Some of the editors have specialties only in images, popular culture, etc. That would be like saying WP has admins who review content with flagged revs and some of them have doctorates in religion, so therefore our articles imported from the Catholic Encyclopedia must be reliable. Just doesn't hold water to impute that accuracy when we can't verify the authorship or the authority. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Many encyclopedias' articles are not signed. A reputable publisher affirming that an article has undergone competent review is enough. Many newspaper articles are written and edited by unnamed staff, for instance.John Z (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only exception in

Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 is if the author is attributed, the author isn't attributed here, only a group of authors. MBisanz ^talk

16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't self-published.John Z (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you here Matt.

The Economist doesn't contain a single author name (except Letters to the Editor) but no-one really doubts its reliability as a source. (Do they?) The site claims to have an editorial oversight process, on what grounds do you claim the process is insufficient or erroneous? Certainly for uncontroversial facts, using them as a source shouldn't be a huge problem. Franamax (talk

) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tonight, I discovered via Amazon.com that a second digital release will occur for the song Bad Romance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I added the content to the article using the Amazon.com MP3 store page as the reference. It was reverted by Legolas2186 (talk · contribs) the first time around because it was a "retail link". I brought this up on his talk page where he suddenly changed his reason for removing it stating that "Amazon fails as a WP:RS" where the only discussion concerning this has been when I brought up the issue with his reverts on his talk page. The third time he stated that if I added the content back it would be considered vandalism.

A good portion of the other releases concern the content existing on iTunes, so stating that Amazon.com is a "retail link" and should not be used is pointless. He has told me that my addition of this information with a source is considered vandalism, and I have never encountered anything in

Basically, can Amazon.com be used as a reliable source when it comes to (digital) music release dates/content? And where the hell was there a discussion that says Amazon.com cannot be a reliable source, as Legolas2186 suggested?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not a particularly good source for future releases. The most appropriate source is the publisher of the material, and even then you should say that the publisher has plans to make the release. As we all know, publications can be delayed. In the case of books and recordings already published, then they are their own source. They should usually be found on Amazon, which will usually have the publication date correct, and will probably be in libraries as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But this is a music release, for which there is a defined date by which the content will be able to be purchased and downloaded from the website. This is presumably because the digital content is already available via the website, but not available for purchase.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Amazon may believe it will have the material available on a certain date, but that doesn't mean they will. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But the reference is to be used to show that the digital album exists. Not what the release date is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are selling it now, then it's reliable to show it exists. If they will be selling it, but they not yet, then it isn't reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So because it cannot be bought currently, but they state that it will be available for purchase in the near future and they list all of the content that will be available on this future date, this link cannot be a reliable source?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Very OR alert about my comment. Amazon often list items (such as books) that they say will be published then are not (they eventualy send you an e-mail telling you htat the book has not been published). As such I do not beleive that they are RS for future releases being released, onlt that they might be released.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The book thing happens with music, but it's not the retailer(amazon,itune,books etc) pulling/changing it, but the originator(labels/record company etc). In essence the problem is that future dates for music are planned dates and thus they are subject to change or cancellation. Maybe future dates in music are

talk

) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that I added a statement (or a list) that said that this digital album exists. I did not use the Amazon.com page to say when the album is going to be released but that it is going to be released. The reasons as to why Legolas2186 removed it seems to just be because the reference is to Amazon.com and not, say, the iTunes Store which is certainly not accessible to everyone. I have not gotten a good enough response as to why this particular link cannot be used, other than from Peregrine Fisher in that it should not be allowed just because the album has not been released yet. I think that this is ridiculous. Why should a link to the iTunes Store page following its release be the only reference used on the article? Why can't a link to an Amazon.com page prior to its release be used? And what if after the album is released it is only available via Amazon.com? Would I have to argue against Legolas2186's reasoning here that just because it is only available on Amazon means that the content cannot be added to the article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW Amazon mp3 download pages (as well as iTunes) are linked to from both lady gaga's official site discog and Interscope records release pages so whatever reasoning is given about licensing issues seems bogus to me.--Glumboot (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Legolas2186 reasoning is most likely incorrect, but he is trying to save himself time. The subject is perhaps best discussed elsewhere. Links to iTunes are likely the standard (or standard for that editor). iTunes has a website also, you can link to them without installing iTunes.

talk

) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the sites are reliable for release dates. Not because the site it unreliable but because for commercial/logistic reasons it is often advantageous to move the release dates at the last minute. I do think it's fine to use amazon as a wp:rs. I will comment more on the above issues when at a PC(currently on iPhone) and above section is to big to add comments.

One week later

• Bad Romance - The Remixes Part 2 on Lady Gaga's website
• Bad Romance (The Remixes, Pt. 2) - EP on the iTunes Store
• Bad Romance - The Remixes Part 2 on Amazon.com's MP3 store

Clearly, Amazon.com's MP3 store is a reliable source for information on digitally released music. Legolas2186 should not have edit warred to remove the link to the Amazon.com store, which was probably just because he does not want to use it as a source. It turns out that after he reverted me for the third time, he added a hidden comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And you instead chose to revert for the fourth time. Nice 3RR? Anyways the concern over Amazon which I feel is that its

WP:CRYSTAL ways as pointed out above. Many times I have noted that they start selling music, without any official release from the recording association and even selling starts, leading to street date violations. A similar thing happened to 50 Cent's latest studio album where retail outlets like Amazon, Walmart and some others started selling the album before release date compelling the recording company to push back the release, holding the street date sales. If so, then do we really consider Amazon a reliable source in that case? We need a consensus here instead of Ryulong going on adding it without achieving the desired result. I left a hidden comment in the Bad Romance article urging editors to contribute in this discussion. --Legolas ^(talk2me)

05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR concerns a series of three reverts over a 24 hour period. The last edit I made to the page before reverting your removal of the tracklist was on February 4. It is currently February 9. That is a 120 hour break between reverts. The article currently uses the iTunes Store's link as the reference, so you cannot remove it because now it is reliably sourced (I am currently listening to the MP3s I bought from Amazon.com). None of the editors who contribute to Bad Romance made any comments here. You didn't make any comments here until just now.

Clearly, when it comes to digital downloads of music albums, singles, or extended plays, Amazon.com's MP3 Store can be used as a reliable source until the album becomes available on the iTunes Store, after which the Amazon.com MP3 Store link can be replaced by the iTunes Store link.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL LOL! This is getting beyond ridiculous. So you actually want to add an unconfirmed link for temporary reasons untill the album comes out? Why can't we just wait for these few days and add the reliable iTunes link? What's the hurry? Are you affiliated to Amazon or something? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice, it is confirmed. If you aren't paying attention to what I am saying Amazon MP3 is a reliable source when it comes to digital music releases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is reliable for digital music releases. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to repeat Amazon is a reliable source. I see no reason to amend the source now or in the future. Lady Gaga's website doesn't have a date so that's not much use.

talk

) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per suncreator, crystal would only apply if the date was in the future, thanks. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 13:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would

WP:CRYSTAL apply to a tracklist of a digital album?—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 11:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Both future release dates and future tracks selections can change.

talk

) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Granted track listings change less often then dates - and most changes I've seen are to add an additional track, but if something happens like

talk

) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would

WP:CRYSTAL apply to a tracklist of a digital album where the website that is providing the digital album has samples for all of the tracks that are intended to be sold?—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I answered that already.

talk

) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Like to add this in while it occurs to me. This track which in the UK is only currently on the album Jay Sean Featuring Sean Paul And Lil' Jon - Do you remember. iTunes have recently revised the album date to 12 February 2010 - two days ago. However that is not correct it has been there for ages, it's been in the UK charts(based on album track downloads) for a while now see chart info (you'll find it as #23). So iTunes are not without faults!

This article currently lists a great many notable people as "Georgists." (Ambrose Bierce [22] Matthew Bellamy [23] Ralph Borsodi [24] William F. Buckley, Jr. [25] Winston Churchill [26] Clarence Darrow[27] Michael Davitt [28] Henry Ford[29] Mason Gaffney David Lloyd George [30] George Grey [31] Walter Burley Griffin[32] Fred Harrison William Morris Hughes Aldous Huxley Blas Infante [33] Mumia Abu-Jamal[34] Tom L. Johnson Samuel M. Jones Wolf Ladejinsky [35] Ralph Nader[36] Francis Neilson Albert Jay Nock Sun Yat Sen[37] Herbert Simon Leo Tolstoy[38] William Simon U'Ren[39] William Vickrey [40]. Frank Lloyd Wright[citation needed] ) The main problem is that some of the references are from a group dedicated to Georgism, and many of the other cites do not actually call the person "Georgist." It also relies heavily on such sites as "cooperativeindividualism.org" which is part of [13] the Council of Georgist Organizations , which also may not qualify as a third party publisher either. Can someone kindly review the claims made in that article about notables being "Georgists" whether or not anything outside the Georgist community makes the claim? I fear this is like using any organization's publications as proof that famous people were part of it <g>. Collect (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

cooperativeindividualism.org appears to be the

personal website of Edward J. Dodson. Or am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk)

21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask if because of this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail[14], which uses and recommends the self published Road Scholar website (but also is a verification that the author is an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation). Does this make that website reliable in any way? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It adds just a little bit to indicate that it might be reliable, but only that little bit. We have to apply our own criteria. As you'll see from

WP:RS, we're looking for authorship and for a history of fact-checking. Itsmejudith (talk

) 10:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article, however, helps. It says that Shragge was a professional writing for the Canada Department for Highways for 30 years. Looking around a bit more, seems he edited a book called From Footpaths to Freeways: The Story of Ontario’s Roads published by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.[15][16] That added to the Globe and Mail and

WP:RS. --GRuban (talk

) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look good based on this. Some of their writers may be experts and able to stand on their own, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I considered that as well but wanted to get a broader opinion. There is a listing of the "army of volunteers" here. Arsonal (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source as a whole. Most of the "staff" are just random animation fans, and it is primarily hosted content of other people rather than an actual legitimate content provider and news agency itself. One of the "site owners" qualifications is "I love cartoons". Its basically a large fansite that gives hosting to apparently anyone and I couldn't find anyone in the list who is an actual expert. While some folks may site them sporadically (those two ANNs are from 2002), I think it would be better to just citing the reliable sources rather than ToonZone (i.e. if the Chicago Sun-Times chooses to site them in a story, then we're trusting that the reliable source itself checked/confirmed what they reported). --

talk · contribs

) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a mutually agreed upon request from a mediation cabal mediation (parties: Bonewah, GRuban, mediators: Vicenarian, PhilKnight). The Wikipedia article List of charities accused of ties to terrorism has an entry for the Capital Athletic Foundation. The entry is based on multiple sources, but this RSN question is about this one: "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism", by Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006, pages 28-29. Is this a reliable source for the entry?

The arguments against are that:

1. this is an opinion piece, which is unacceptable per
   RS
   "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." The article even states at the bottom that this is "commentary" first appearing in Mr. Cole's blog.
2. the only place this editorial directly accuses the CAF of supporting terrorism is in the title, the statements in the body are weaker
3. that Juan Cole is a dubious source for such a statement, being a professor of middle eastern history does not make one an expert on everything that occurs in the middle east.

The arguments for are that:

1. the entire List is a list of accusations, not of facts, and is clearly labeled as such; it makes no statements of fact other than that the accusations are made. The facts of all accusations in the list are highly disputed, except for one which is admittedly wrong.
2. the title is an important part of the source article, and quite clear
3. The
   WP:RS "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", while the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 17 year old magazine, published in by some pretty heavy hitters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs
   )