Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 68

Internet forums don't meet the criteria for

WP:RS. I don't see why the other regular source on there can't be used. For instance, on List_of_Ghost_Whisperer_episodes#Season_5:_2009.E2.80.9310 where the pifeedback.com ratings have been removed, tvbythenumbers.com gives the rating 10/9/09 (8.60 million) [74]; it gives the rating for 10/16/09 (8.21 million) [75]. For the same dates pifeedback.com gives the ratings to be 8.78 million and 8.05 million, so there is a discrepancy there. One of the sources has to be wrong. Is there a reason why tvbythenumbers.com isn't being used to source the remaining ratings? Betty Logan (talk

) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I am going to sound Geeky, but the difference between TVBTN and PIfeedback's post is that PFB posts the finalumbers, 24 - 48 (in GW's case, about 72) hours after the preliminary ratings. I have asked Travis where he has gotten the information from and am waiting for a response.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Funnily enough, TVbytheNumbers' reliability as a source has been discussed previously.[76] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The TV ratings can be found on the LA Times too. For those two weeks we have Ghost Whisperer on 8.78 million [77] and 8.05 million [78] which are in line with pifeedback.com. I think this obviously proves the pifeedback.com forum is putting up the right numbers and Chaosmaster's explanation that they are revised figures makes sense. Whether this makes pifeedback a reliable source or not I don't know, but it seems to be reliable in this instance. Personally I would try to source the figures with the LA Times data, and if any can't be sourced then perhaps fill in the blanks with the pifeedback numbers but add a citation needed flag in those cases. If we have the correct figures, we may as well use them - if their numbers correspond with the LA Times numbers then this would seem a legitimate instance to invoke

WP:IAR where we have gaps. Betty Logan (talk

) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million [79] and 8.29 million [80]. Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there's no doubt that TVbytheNumbers gets their data from

The Nielsen Company. See the bottom of page with the ratings that say: "Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2010 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved." The forum, I'm still unsure about. Mike Allen

20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is all a matter of fast overnight ratings or the ones published weekly on nielsenmedia.com and apparently reprinted in the LA Times too. Just by looking at the air date of the show and the publication date on tvbythenumbers for ratings of said random show it is pretty clear that most are overnight ratings. The weekly final numbers once all markets are factored are typically the preferred numbers to cite long term with the overnight being a placeholder subject to revision in an article since it is itself a placeholder number subject to revision by Nielsen. However people don't often think to check the fast overnight vs the final numbers for discrepancies once a rating is in an article. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that LA Times do line up with Pifeedback also. And here, I agree with Betty Logan, using the LA times in most cases where we know for a fact that is a reliable source and then using Pifeedback's for the rest with a citation flag sounds fair to me. I do agree with Delarious about people not checking ratings once its published in an article. Many articles state "This show had 5.5 million viewers" one day, the following week there is a more precise number such as 5.48. Its a matter of whether or not you are using prose to explain the ratings or if you have an episode table, in which case the later would be better fit with the precise number.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Would it be okay to use [81] rather than flaging every single rating (which would also cause the table to be disproportinate to the other four)?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Three of the 6 editors who have posted here have discounted use of pifeedback.com outright, as has the editor who replied to the May discussion. Another editor has made no comment on pifeedback.com. Only one editor proposed use pifeedback.com if the figures were not available for the LA Times but prefaced her comments with "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for

WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The information needs to be sourced to reliable sources or not included in the article at all. --AussieLegend (talk

) 04:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop. I was pointed at this discussion from my talkpage. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Wikipedia currently suffers from lack of RS use in the arts and entertainment articles. This is a good topic and may this WP:RS be used for the improvement of such articles. --Sulmues (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here by User:ChaosMaster16, though (or perhaps because) I have no connexion to this at all. All my opinion is, why can't the figures wait for the LA Times and Nielsen Media figures to be published (as they are both presumably RS)? There's no great hurry. And if the overnight and adjusted figures are both valuable, have them both. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a response to Hipocrite, this is being discussed because

Using unreliable sources is not what's best for Wikipedia. I have closed this discussion as it is clear that a strong consensus exists that this forum is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When we have the numbers to list, why not use the source? No other source has the numbers but Pifeedback when LA Times fails to use the numbers.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Furthermore, that is why it is best for wikipedia: We do have the information, and it has been proven to be at least 98% acurate, yet we just ignore the information simply because its on a forum? If the information on LA Times can be used, we will use it, but if not, we should use Pifeedback.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

(Comment requested by

the website requires the "www." but it just leads to the weekly top 10. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but it's a weekly top ten, and has no archive making it pretty useless for citing. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also been asked to comment by ChaosMaster16. I don't think

original research and something that the reader is not privy to. Maccy69 (talk

) 13:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that pfifeedback.com is necessarily any less reliable than other source of ratings data, short of getting the numbers directly from Nielsen. A lot of the data seems to be posted by Mediaweek's staff writers, and I can't see an indication of bias that would cause them to fudge the original Nielsen figures. Obviously anyone can post to to the pifeedback.com forums, but there's an apparent level of editorial oversight from a notable media outlet. The company's

talk

) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Like User:Si Trew and User:Maccy69, ChaosMaster16 asked me to comment on the matter. Allow me to point out that when students ask their teachers if they can cite Wikipedia, the response in almost every case is to instead use the primary source cited by Wikipedia. I think that we have to do that here. Myself, I see it as something of a slippery slope (or, if you are on the other side of the coin, an evolution) wherein TVBtN is barely inclusive as a source, which opens the door to a far more questionable source like Pifeedback.com. Maybe their info is accurate; it isn't the point. It's a blog run by two guys who - at best - might make a mistake which isn't held up to scrutiny by internal fact-checking. At worst, they might fudge the numbers by a decimal point or a 100th of a percent to favor a particular program.

IAR often fails as a skeleton key in bypassing policies and guidelines, which is true in this case as well. It isn't a valid argument to use here. It doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or the reader if their perception is skewed by crappy data sourcing. That would be like using a source that says that 75% of people think that Obama is a sleeper agent for the Jihadists. If its's sourced

reliably, then it can be used. However, if the source is a tea party or some such nuttier group forum, the numbers are clearly being skewed. It's an extreme example to be sure, but the prevailing principle is the same. We present neutral, reliable and verifiable information to the reader, so they can form an idea based upon good information. Fan forums and blogs do not meet that criteria as there is little in the way of provenance for their resulting viewpoints. - Jack Sebastian (talk

) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jack Sebastian, I understand where you are coming from. However, to me, it sounds

Unintelligible to know that there information is acurate and not cite them. In all reality, Wikipedia credits reliable sources based on acuracy. If there was a situation similar to yours that stated Obama didn't smoke, but was posted on Jokes.com, a site (for this exapmle) that has a repuatation of posting inacurate information, why would we cite that? If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback? If however, someone cites Pifeedback for purposes other than ratings, like a post saying "American Idol was canceled in the spring of 2010," that would be proven inreliable beacuse of the reliable sources we have to prove that it wasn't caneceled. ChaosMaster_Chat

15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blogs/chat forums/etc rarely meet RS standards. I'd say get rid this one too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I was similarly directed to this page from ChaosMaster, I have no background on this matter. However, it seems to me that this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances.

"If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback?"-- ChaosMaster16

Most likely they won't post accurate ratings, as they've done in the past. LA Times is preferred, and if the only source that we have is largely unreliable, then we don't cite it at all. As you say, we don't post information from sites that have a history of inaccurate information. It is not likely, nor even preferred, for a site to be referenced though the data might be accurate for one instance, and the

WP:RS; it hasn't before, and it won't now. :| TelCoNaSpVe :|

16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me Pifeedback does post acurate ratings as proven by the ratings currently sourced on here compared to the ratings from pifeedback, here. To make it easier to compare, here is the difference in revisions. There are only two differences: the March 5, 2010 episdoe (Org. had 7.36 vs. current 7.35) and the January 8, 2010 episode (Org. had 9.00 vs. current 8.94). Honestly, wave the March episode, and of the eleven numbers that LA Times posts, ten of them prove Pifeedback as providing reliable information (the January episode is off by .06 million) and if you count March, then nine of the eleven (March being off .01 million). ChaosMaster_Chat 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment - regardless of actual accuracy of checkable numbers, a forum is extraordinarily unlikely to be any sort of a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same thing. If the ratings can be cited by the LA Times or something other than Pifeedback, that would be ideal. But there's clearly no consensus that Pifeedback is a reliable source. Cliff smith ^talk 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to both comments: If the forum is proven to be reliable in the past, specifically one user, it should be reliable in the future. And I, again, agree that LA Times should be used where possible. Other than that, I feel Pifeedback has proven reliable, unless there is information that proves otherwise. ChaosMaster_Chat 03:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As previously noted, it's a slippery slope, CM; we let in one forum/blog-type site, and the next thing you know, folk will be arguing for the inclusion for a host of other, increasingly suspect sites. It's best to just follow the citations presented in pifeedback to their source, and cite those sources. That way, pifeedback is still useful without messing with the reliability of sources policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pitfeedbacks source is Travis Yanan, were this person gets that information from is unknown, but proven accurate, and cited by TV by the Numbers occasionally, which is generally accepted. If Pitfeedback is considered unreliable then TV by the Numbers is also, and then some 75% of all the ratings can be deleted. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can someone link to this magical LA Times that keeps getting mentioned? Or another source that is considered reliable? I for one have only seen three sources for episodic ratings, TV by the Numbers (most for recent shows), ABC Medianet (most for pre 2007), Pitfeedback (few). I did a search and the last article with an actual list of shows and the ratings was from March. I see no problem waiting a week until final and reliable ratings are in but these ratings appear to be nowhere (except TVbtN/Pfb) except the sporadically averages. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million [82] and 8.29 million [83]. Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the discussion is above (below the first quote box). ChaosMaster_Chat 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to google the site to find them rather than use the site's internal searchg but LA Times = Los Angeles Times a major newspaper in the land of television and silver screen dreams. Try googling using this format: site:articles.latimes.com/YYYY/mmm/ "SHOW NAME" [84] or remove the month and year if you want all results. The weekly numbers come out i believe Thursday of the following week. For older shows it would be handy but for current episodes people will still want to use the overnight ratings that are well available the next day so as to fill that blank spot in the episode list. Also i seem to have not found any ratings for May 2010 sweeps; maybe bad googling, maybe not published. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I already saw the google trick and know what the LA Times is. I was looking for a site section with the ratings in it. Also see next post. I looked for the ratings for the two last episodes using google search in may, came up with nothing. LA Times seems to be completely inconsistent in there postings. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that was a response to me, but I already saw that and not really relevant, I'm asking about recent ratings. LA Times only posts ratings (when they actually do) of primetime shows, leaving a whole bunch of shows out. Besides that the LA Times website is just horrendous to find something on. I did some more searches and this is what LA Times has, (didn't search earlier) March 1–7, March 8–14, two missing weeks [?], March 29–April 4 and nothing after that… [?]

Were does everyone get those numbers from? Nielsen doesn't put them on there website, and Travis Yanan is clouded in mystery. What's with all the secrecy? In the UK BARB just puts them on there website (although in an annoying non-hotlinkable form). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that there are two more ratings that were proven correct on Pifeedback by LA Times. In response to you, I was on Pifeedbaack and came across an interesting post by TY, stating that he "gets" the ratings? I could entirely be misinterpreting the message, but it sounds like he is subscribed to a site or some type of information that lists all of these ratings. I just thought it was interesting. And frankly, I think it would be a whole lot easier to have the posts on the site of the company that does the research too, but I think it is because of a deal or a discrepency between NBC and Neilsen that they don't: I think. This is the really unhelpful site for the Nielsen Research Company. And this seems to be the only ratigns on their site, which doesn't help us much at all. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You buy the numbers from Nielsen, or the access to them. It is their commodity. TVBTN turns what they pay for getting the numbers into a website with some advertising and a lot of business, from well us for one, that appears to more than offset their expenses in acquiring the numbers. In Canada the only thing that BBM seems to make publicly available is the weekly top 30; anything else must be bought. And that top 30 includes the 11pm newscasts too. UK ratings are by far the easiest to find.

So sorry to have bothered to try to answer your query about the magical LA Times. You do know that this page has the no-edit-conflict happening here. I had no knowledge of Chaos' response to you until i eventually saved my post and saw his come in between. If you wanted a site section you could have just asked for that instead of making me think you never heard of LA Times before. Forget searching their site. It is the worst construct of a news/business website i have ever seen. And yes, there has been nothing for a long time now. You might look into searching the paid archives if you really want to find ratings; the abstracts are free. Otherwise the LA Times is just as randomly useless as pifeedback is an unreliable forum. Maybe the WMF would be so kind as to buy us a subscription or whatever to the full Nielson numbers so we can use that :P and get Canada's too! delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So that means no matter what Entertainment site we go on, they all pay for it? Meaning they are ALL unreliable? Which also means we would have to deleate millions of TV ratigns from even 12 years ago. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off the track here. The fairly clear consensus seems to be that pifeedback.com doesn't qualify as

WP:RS. Are you convinced yet? --AussieLegend (talk

) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not getting "off track". And Frankly, I don't see why I or anybody else would need to be "convinced" on this discussion, which is ongoing. Convinced of what exactly? If you want to convince someone about an issue, Wikipedia isn't really the place to do so. Anyway, if the entertainment buisness pays for their information, there is absoultely no way to confirm what they report, much like Yanan. And even if we can check them with information with more reliable sources, like LA Times, there is simply no way to know if either source is acurate. So, since Pifeedback (rather, Yanan himself) cannot be a reliable source even though their numbers are proven acurate, it cannot be used, just like LA Times, TVBTN, Entertainment Weekly, exc, and therefore all ratings, even just mention of ratings in prose format, should be removed. Of course, I disagree with this and like the consensus agreed upon earlier (use LA Times first and then Pifeedback), I think we should do what is best for wikipedia ignoring select rules and allow all of these sources to be used to report ratings on American televison because the information is an important part of a program and the buisness, whether it be for comparison, research or simply to report how a show gets canceled. I think it would be wrong to ignore these aspects on Wikipedia, and using Pifeedback, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, all sources that are proven to list correct information, we can continue to list the ratings on articles that deal with TV. I personally think the flag would be redundant in this case, and think we should remove that also, specifically on List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, where Aussie reverted edts based on consensus earlier. ChaosMaster_Chat 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Convinced of what exactly?" - Convinced that the overwhelming consensus is that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Obviously you're not. You're still insisting that four editors have agreed that the pifeedback.com sources with citation flags be used when there was only ever one editor besides yourself who suggested that, and even she said "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS". Two editors is not consensus when 12 other editors have outright rejected pifeedback as a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whats your take on none of the entertainment sites bein reliable? ChaosMaster_Chat 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an entertainment site and due to constant bickering about reliable sources and original research it is right up there at the top of unreliable. In my opinion it is the pretence of enforcing reliability that makes Wikipedia not so reliable. If one cannot trust themselves why should anyone else trust them. In the matter that prompted this discussion, for anyone who saw seasons 1-4 of Ghost Whisperer and liked it and who was in jail or war or whatever kept them from seeing season 5 the ratings taking a dramatic dive is the quickest explanation as to why there is no season 6. Removal of all ratings is the utmost counter-productive course and need be avoided at all costs. Honestly, the longer this goes on the more inclined i am to agree with Chaos to the extent that requiring a wikipedia-reliable-source when there is not one is counter-productive to the mission of containing the sum of all knowledge that anyone can edit. All of these policies have at their core the principle of accurate information. Noöne is questioning pifeedback's accuracy that i noticed in the long discussion. This is entirely over what website to reference the information to. Does anyone else recall the good old days when references where essentially a bonus to an article. For what i read i can not think of a single article that is better for all of the policy that has been developed since 2001 but it has resulted in a lot of in-fighting, creation of noticeboards, and retirements. As to ratings being bought and sold i have no proof but hey common sense says a bakery does not give away all desserts if you buy a loaf of bread. Nielsen wouldn't be in the business if there was no 'business' for the business. Personally i prefer to use TvByTheNumbers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am trying really hard to refrain from capital letters, so I'll try to make this breif. This whole conversation is about Pifeedback's accuracy (speciffically Travis Yanan). When I looked at Aussie's initial message that started this discussion, it seems he misunderstood the fact that we are using one user, not the whole page. Therefore, this disussion is about the accuracy of Yanan's post, as he is the one that posts the ratings that are linked to (we do not need to link to pifeedback if they link to something, so its not a discussion about that). TvByTheNumbers is fine, and I agree we should also use that too, but this is a discussion about Yanan's posts on Pifeedback. And I would also appreciate if we used common sense on this issue, especially since this has obviously has gotten to the point where Aussie has to report me for every single thing that I do on Wikipedia. (So I apoligize for anything I am doing wrong in this post) I love your bread example. Travis Yanan obviously isn't just pulling numbers out of his butt, so I honestly do not see any problem with using his posts. "Removal of all ratings is the utmost counter-productive course and need be avoided at all costs. Honestly, the longer this goes on the more inclined i am to agree with Chaos to the extent that requiring a wikipedia-reliable-source when there is not one is counter-productive to the mission of containing the sum of all knowledge that anyone can edit." - That is exactly what I am trying to prevent (removal of all ratings). But if you can't use Travis Yanan's posts, then why use any by any other website? Its the same exact situation, might not be a forum, but we can't prove its right. And if we can come to a consensus for the best of wikipedia, not just because five different rules prevent something from being done, we should go ahead and do it. ChaosMaster_Chat 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand anything at all. You can't cherry-pick posts and say these posts from a forum are reliable and these are not. It's the site as a whole that is the subject of this discussion, which is why the title is "Pifeedback.com" and not "Travis Yanan's posts on Pifeedback.com". It's quite clearly stated in the opening paragraph that "the internet forums are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages." It's just you that's made it only about Ghost Whisperer. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What didn't come across so clearly in my earlier posts is that while one person may post accurate information he is not the only one posting information. Forums are open to, typically, anyone. For that reason the blanket approval for pifeedback is not going to happen. Isolating approval for one forum poster to the exclusion of all others would trigger so many issues it isn't even funny to imagine. TVByTheNumbers may at times use Travis' information as posted at pifeedback but the site is not open to posting from anyone. In that sense the group that runs TVByTheNumbers maintains a level of editorial control, site-wide, that is not found on pifeedback. Wikipedia's reliable source approval is not to an author of The New York Times but to The New York Times as a whole. Citing Travis' posts directly opens that can of worms. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is a correct way to present his posts. The difference between this and this is that the first one does not directly link to Travis, while the second one does. The first one would therefore be the unreliable source, while the second one would be just Travis's post. I don't see how we can't use the second one, as the second one is usually the one Tvbythenumbers posts themselves. You mean that the only difference between this and this is that the other is a repost that is not on forums? Travis states himself (also here) "Travis Yanan is an online alias I used to post on Marc Berman's PI Feedback forum." Plus links to his Pifeedback forum posts here (example). The only other thing left for him to do would be to join this discussion. ChaosMaster_Chat 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A FAQ from visionsofjoy.com ([85]) has been repeatedly reinserted at

Clearly, (pardon the pun), no content from or citation to visionsofjoy.com could be legitimately used in any way anywhere on Wikipedia, unless in a hypothetical visionsofjoy.com article. Dlabtot (talk)

Well, this is definitely not a reliable secondary source but given the context - that this is an article about the Bates method (which I've never heard of until now, apparently it's some minority or fringe theory), I think it's acceptable as a primary source with all the usual caveats and disclaimers about using primary sources. I mean, we're allowed to cite 911Truth.org in an article about

9/11 Conspiracy theories, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has the right take on this. An alternative solution would be to delete from the article all reference to See Clearly Method, as it has no relevance to Bates Method. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We're getting off topic here. Comments unrelated to the application of WP:RS should be made on the article talk page. --

talk

) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Promotional, POV, website contains the usual disclaimers to the effect that the author is not an eye doctor and shouldn't be trusted as far as they can be thrown, the information is for "educational" purposes only, etc. Warning - off topic: Sam, it clearly states in that section that the SCM contains exercises adapted from Bates although the marketers behind it do not endore Bates "overall". How is that of "no relevance to Bates method"? Famousdog (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice an editor removing a ton of references from articles [87], and while I have no doubt they're acting in good faith I'm questioning whether this really is not a reliable source. From appearances, it looks like a fairly run of the mill entertainment industry magazine that also has a website [88]. Here's their URL [http://www.iaemagazine.com]. Opinions? Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that the reason it was removed was not due to reliability, but because Newsfeeder (talk · contribs) was using Wiki for advertisement by spamming links to the site all over the place. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure I saw that, but is that enough of a reason to revert what would otherwise be a reliable source? I could see removing them if they were just dumped in the external links section or placed indiscriminately, but based on the Statham ones these actually seemed to help support the material in the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't really strike me as reliable. It seems to be a

self-published online magazine, and doesn't seem to have any claim of notability. As to using it for the text in the Gossip Girl article, there are other sources out there that could be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I don't feel especially strongly one way or the other but it seemed ok to me. That's why it's good to get other opinions before you go and put everything back. :-) - Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the rationale for the removal was the spamming; the other was because the site itself does not appear to be a reliable source, and would likely not even be accepted as an externmal link even if the spamming wasn't an issue. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is resolved, but I had a look at the first couple of edits and it is classic

WP:REFSPAM: add an inconsequential or obvious factoid with a reference that just happens to be a link to your website. If these were not reverted, we would end up with ten fake references in every paragraph in every article. Johnuniq (talk

) 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any substantive resolution to 75.2.209.226's question on the subject prior to its archiving, so I'd like to pose the following followup questions in response to the defense presented for these sources:

1. Wrt someone's private, self-run non-peer-reviewed non-commercially-published website: Does documentation that a reliable source mentions the existence of the website, or repeats the fact that it made an allegation, prove that said website is now a reliable source?
2. When said website is the personal ad-funded property of a Wikipedia editor who argues for its continued inclusion, is that not a massive conflict of interest?
3. When numerous traditional reliable sources are available other than said website, why does
   WP:IAR
   demand its inclusion as if it were the only reliable source that can be found?

For the record, I'm not arguing that either "side" in the previous discussion was right or wrong about which nontraditional sources should be accepted as if they were reliable. I'm saying neither should be, absent a logical rationale. And for that matter, I would accept CPRR as a reliable source in a heartbeat for most questions on the Central Pacific Railroad, assuming a dearth of other reliable sources on a field that's mostly of interest only to collectors and buffs. But I don't understand why the website's owner wants to use it as a reliable source on Stephen Ambrose. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

CPRR.org is a non-commercial, not-for-profit site that does not charge anything to its users to access it or its content. While it has a few sponsored links on a very, very small number of the over 10,000 pages on the site, none of these were solicited and they produce miniscule amounts of revenue all of which goes to help cover a fraction of the operating expenses (i.e., webhosting) of the site. The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR. (The page also carries no sponsored links.) Also please see the AN/I discussion located here for a full accounting of the years of misconduct, disruptive editing,

"sockpuppetry", and Wikiststalking practiced by anonymous IP User 75.2.209.226 on Wikipedia as well as his/her apparent motivation in "challenging" inclusion of the link to the paper in the Stephen Ambrose article in the first place. Centpacrr (talk

) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. By using the third person, are you asserting that you are not in fact the owner of the website, which uses ads for funding and therefore profits from increased traffic?
2. I would ask that you refrain from further false ad hominem insinuations that I'm a Wikistalker or a sockpuppet, whether or not 75.2 was. I'm about as provably innocent as you can get, given that I'm on the other side of the country and leave my IP open for everyone to see. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• The above reference to wikistalking, etc, is not to 76.22.25.102, but is instead to 75.2.209.226, the anonymous user who posted the original "complaint" and who has stalked me and many other editors on Wikipedia since at least 2007 using many anonymous IPs (all of which resolve to SW Connecticut or adjacent areas) as well as several named accounts. My posting above is not meant to imply that there is any relationship or connection whatsoever between that user and 76.22.25.102 whose IP appears to resolve to Washington state. I am also not the owner of CPRR.org, but am instead only an unpaid contributor to it who derives no income or other pecuniary benefit whatsoever from the site. The very small amount of income derived from the few persons who asked to help sponsor the site is not based on traffic. Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to match the information located in the page source code (which contains links to akamai), or the site's about page cross-matched to your user page. However, the CoI question is turning into a derail massively out of proportion to its importance in this specific issue.

First and foremost: Why, in the presence of several other unquestionably-reliable sources, should

WP:IAR necessitate using either the highly-questionable warchronicle site (a blog which reads like a collection of letters to the editor) or CPRR site (a nominal museum / amateur hobbyist blog with a specialization completely unrelated to Ambrose)? For the record, my primary objection is actually to warchronicle. But the CPRR site seems equally out-of-depth, albeit more properly attributed. 76.22.25.102 (talk

) 00:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with the Warchronicle site nor am I expressing any opinion here one way or another as to its reliability. The only page on the CPRR site (a site with which I have fully disclosed my association on my userpage since registering on wikipedia in 2006) that is linked to the Ambrose article is to a December, 2000, paper that documents more than sixty factual errors in Ambrose's Nothing Like It in the World, his August, 2000, book about the building of the Pacific Railroad of which the CPRR constituted the Western portion built across California, Nevada, and Utah. (The corrections to the errors contained in the paper were all accepted and incorporated by the publisher in the book's paperback edition published in 2001.) By the way, the CPRR website (which has been online since February, 1999), is not an "amateur hobbyist blog" but a comprehensive compilation of period writings, scholarly papers, original source materials, Government and railroad company reports and documents, hundreds of maps, thousands of period photographs, and many other papers, articles, on-line exhibits of artifacts, etc, that relate to the CPRR, UPRR, and Western US railroad history. Altogether the site hosts more then 10,000 separate web pages. Centpacrr (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your forthrightness, but the lack of connection between CPRR and the topic of Ambrose is exactly what disturbs me. If the CPRR site were being cited as a source for the history of the CPRR, I'd probably have no issue with it at all. I don't doubt that it's attracted a great deal of interest from the railroad history community. (Which does make it a hobbyist subject, at least according to these pages [89],[90],[91]. And if it's not being used as someone's main source of income, then it is amateur.) That makes it functionally close enough to peer-reviewed to make me think it's a great RS for non-controversial assertions about the CPRR. But it's not being used as a source for a CPRR article here. It's being used as a source for an article on a modern semi-historian.

Absent spending a ridiculous amount of time cross-checking the paper versions of the book, we have only your word that Ambrose or his publisher accepted and made all of the corrections in the essay cross-posted in CPRR, unless I missed seeing where you have a source which states that. If not, then that assertion needs to be struck from the article as unsourced. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please refrain from using this noticeboard to attack other editors, praise other editors, or discuss other editors in any way whatsoever. Please limit your discussion to the reliability of specific sources for specific citations. Dlabtot (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• My comment was not for the purpose of attacking other editors, only to point out that the original charges made by 75.2.209.226 against the reliability of the source in question contained misrepresentations and the reasons therefore. Centpacrr (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...Regarding CCRP, their About page[92] says that this is a "family run" web site. I don't seem to see an editorial policy, or any credentials of the authors. However, it does seem to enjoy some sort of following within education circles. According to the

Thank you for the input, and for spending the time to look up more information on the subject. It definitely helps.

Separately, my apologies - I should have made it clearer, but it's being used as a source for

Stephen Ambrose's bio page, not the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear from the beginning, given that RS-iness often hinges on who knows the most about a specific topic. 76.22.25.102 (talk

) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the whole matter as to relevance would be completely answered in the affirmative for anyone questioning it simply by looking at the one page on CPRR.org that is linked to the Ambrose article which is exactly on the point of the section of the article in which it appears, i.e., inaccuracies in Ambrose's book on the history of the CPRR and the Pacific Railroad. Centpacrr (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, the very fact that this is the only area where CPRR presumes authority on Ambrose is exactly the problem. If a railfan tells me that Reading Railroad should be pronounced "redding", you can bet I'll take their word for it. But if they tell me that reading aptitude scores in the United States have dropped 37% as a direct result of Obama's presidency, I'll take it with a grain of salt because they're speaking well out of their field of expertise. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect, that's just a

"Inaccuracies and falsifications") in which it appears as a source. Whether or not the authors of this particular fact checking paper were paid or not to compile it has absolutely no relevance as to its reliability, it is the documentation and sources upon which the paper is based that does. The three "railfans" (as you call them) that prepared this paper all have decades of experience in researching and writing about the history of the CPRR and western railroads, and even if they have not done so "professionally", an objective review of their paper demonstrates that they are far more reliable sources on the subject as "amateur" historians than Stephen Ambrose proved to be in this case as a "professional" one. And that's exactly the point that the paper demonstrates. Centpacrr (talk

) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time this IP has brought up this issue, to two different noticeboards. Each time, it's led to a rather lengthy debate. I would not object to the IP having the discussion once. Three seems excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I am not the IP you're accusing me of being. Please note that even CentPacRR has conceded this, and feel free to verify it for yourself as he did. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, please note that the IP you're accusing me of being was arguing for the inclusion of warchronicle (if I understand correctly), against CentPacRR's quite true arguments that it wasn't any more of a reliable source than cprr.org. I don't think either of them is a reliable source for this topic. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept the assertion re identity, though I would feel more comfortable if your user contributions showed either an interest in Ambrose, the Central Pacific RR, or reliable sources in general.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have an accusation to make, make it. If not, I would ask that you not find cute ways to insinuate it and pretend you didn't. Yes, I know this is practically an invitation for you to get me checkusered, but I don't have anything to hide. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(checks own browsing history) If it makes you more "comfortable", I ran into the discussion at NPOV Noticeboard while checking on my own question there about Chernobyl. After digging a little, I thought that the NPOV allegation was on shaky ground, but not the RS question. While looking up more information on the topic, I discovered that it had been brought here but wound up ignored due to TLDR-ing. (Possibly also due to the absence of the originating editor; I didn't look into the timeline of exactly when he got banned for socking.)

I suspect that if almost any editor went through their own contribution history, they'd find material just as likely to get them accused of being a sock when they wiki-walked into a new topic area. Given only one degree of separation, I'd hope for a little more AGF from someone who's tool-enabled. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, thank you very much for the collapse. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the actual topic: Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think the historical context for this question warrants some consideration in how it is handled. It was raised by editor 75.2.209.226, who has now been indefinitely blocked (i.e. see his Techwriter2B ID). 75.2.209.226 engaged in severe wikihounding of several editors, including Centpacrr. One aspect of this harassment involved starting threads on multiple forums (I believe at least 16 threads primarily directed at Centpacrr), for which 75.2.209.226 apparently received a forum shopping warning (and he received other warnings as well). This is one of those threads. To further perpetuate this process (which was designed to harass an editor) is, I think, rather problematic. Incidentally, I should mention that I was pretty much a neutral observer in this (never had direct conflict with 75.2.209.226 myself, though several days ago I posted about the situation at AN/I, which resulted in the indefinite block being placed).

On the merits of the question. Centpacrr is neither an author of the paper nor an owner of the website, nor does he derive financial benefits from the website (nor has Centpacrr ever been harmed by Stephen Ambrose). So there doesn’t appear to be a reasonable case for COI here. The contents of the paper appear to be straightforward factual information and quotations of text from Ambrose, with primary sources cited for the material included in the paper (i.e. high verifiability). Importantly, the contents of the paper are limited to the intersection of Ambrose and railroad history, with rail history constituting a topic on which the paper authors (and website) have clear expertise. Your “reading score” analogy is thus entirely flawed. The authors of the paper don’t presume to make inferences regarding Ambrose in other ways (e.g. his health, his political beliefs, his writing style, etc.). They only speak to the accuracy of his statements writing about rail history (i.e. their area of expertise), and the paper is only cited in the WP article in this regard. Eurytemora (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Minor point - I also would tend to disagree with the characterization that the topic "wound up ignored" here when originally posted, since looking at the archived thread I see an intensive discussion lasting over three days (00:58 May 12 - 09:27 May 15) and involving five editors (with 75.2.209.226 commenting heavily for the duration). Also, regarding the speculation that it might have gotten dropped "due to the absence of the originating editor" 75.2.209.226 - he was only blocked on June 23. Eurytemora (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eurytemora, could you explain why the fact 75.2 brought up the question makes my bringing up the question suspect, unless you're claiming that I'm 75.2? This is getting increasingly reminiscent of the "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are wrong" argument, a guilt-by-association variant on ad hominem. And it's particularly tiresome because I'm not 75.2, and I'm tired of answering for his/her behavior as if all IPs are alike. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Struck because I was probably being hypersensitive [after repeated insinuations by other editors] about why Eurytemora brought up the point. I'm glad Eurytemora's present, and wish I'd known to contact him/her via talk page notice or via cross-posting a notice to the Stephen Ambrose discussion board. Speaking of which, I'll go do so - better late than never.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question "Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose?" I see that another editor said "The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR." If this is true (and it appears to be) then shouldn't the scrutiny be on the authors of the content? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Publication at CPRR is tangentially relevant (e.g. the paper is not self-published). I should also point out that one of the authors of the paper (Edson Strobridge) has a commentary (on the precise topic of this paper) published at HNN. The various authors appear to have multiple publications concerning railroad history and their work/expertise appears to be cited by others in the field. Eurytemora (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. This discussion, in common with the previous ones, is framed as "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose". In fact, it is "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose talking about the Central Pacific Railroad". It is no different than a website about Nixon pointing out errors in Ambrose's bio of Nixon. Self publication, editorial oversight, yes, these are factors we consider pursuant to

WP:RS, but those are not the only factors. It is in my view a reliable source on the railroad. Thus, to the extent that Ambrose stuck his nose into the area of expertise, it's a reliable source for that as well. I do not think it would be a reliable source, on an unconnected aspect of Ambrose's life or work.--Wehwalt (talk

) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The scrutiny in this case should be on the demonstrable reliability of the facts and their sources that were cited in the paper, not on whether or not the paper's authors are "professional" historians or not. The whole point being demonstrated by the section of the Ambrose article in which the paper is cited is the abject fallacy of blindly accepting statements made in Ambrose's writings as always reliable simply because he was paid to make them and they were then published in a book. Whether or not those who were able to objectively prove that many statements of "fact" Ambrose made in the subject book were false were then paid by a third party to do so -- or, for that matter, whether or not they have the same academic "credentials" as the late Dr. Ambrose -- just has no baring on that question. Demonstrably false "facts" do not suddenly become reliable simply because they were stated, written, and commercially published by an academically credentialed professional, nor does their debunking become unreliable because those who demonstrated them to be false are "amateurs" who did so without without seeking monetary compensation for their efforts. Centpacrr (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's clear consensus to use CPRR as a reliable source in this case, and no hard feelings. However, part of my question still stands - is warchronicle also a reliable source in this case? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the warchronicles.com case is very analogous. It’s not self-published, and it appears to be written by a military historian with relevant expertise (specifically USAAF Troop Carrier Historian Randy Hils), whose work is cited by others in this field, and who appears to have articles published in other reliable sources (including HNN). In both cases under discussion, the respective authors did not come through the usual academic route (i.e. doctorate in history), but have gained and demonstrated extensive specialized knowledge in their respective areas (railroad history and military history), have placed a premium on accuracy, and appear well regarded by other historians. Eurytemora (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In addition, they accept "submissions" so there seems to be some sort of oversight going on. And I agree, Mr. Hils's credential, while they wouldn't get him in the door at a lot of history departments, are adequate for our purposes. Are there additional questions unresolved? No matter what the outcome, and exhibiting the same neutrality that the IP has professed, I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you link exactly where they assert that they reviewed his "submission" (or any other), titled "An Open Letter to the Airborne Community on the History of OPERATION NEPTUNE" for accuracy? By its very title, it suggests it was subject to no review whatsoever.

With all due respect, your "No matter what the outcome... I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this", your simple reiteration of Eurytemora's characterization, and your pejorative description of me, suggests that you've simply decided to automatically "vote" against anything I say and that you've shot neutrality out the window. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, not true in the least. I call them as I see them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Then would you mind providing the requested basis for the rationale you assert, since it wasn't simply a knee-jerk response? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, per

WP:IRS, "the word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." This discussion has really only focused on the website, and discussion above has convinced me that it is run by an authoritative person in the field. The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process. As in common with many website, that process is not spelled out in detail, but neither does The New York Times. I therefore feel that the website is reliable enough not to disqualify it, though I feel that close-in analysis of the article and author should take place at the affected article talk page itself.--Wehwalt (talk

) 14:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"run by an authoritative person in the field" - I'm pretty sure Hils doesn't run it, whether you think he's authoritative or not. Your lack of comprehension of the arguments you're trying to paraphrase, again, suggests that you're "voting". If I'm wrong and you do know who runs it and have evidence that they're "authoritative", I would welcome the information and the correction.

"The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process." - I believe you have that backwards. If it rejects submissions, that would indicate it conducts a review process. There are a number of ill-regarded "journals" that accept every submission that includes the "publication costs". And for that matter, on the same page where it says it accepts submissions, it goes on to say "General comments, questions, raspberries, criticism, corrections, and additional information are also all welcome." 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I will add though – when I get a chance, I plan to add a couple of additional references for this section in the Ambrose article (e.g. Philadelphia Inquirer piece in regards to the military material). Eurytemora (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be most welcome. I'm personally of the opinion that the best cure for theoretically-questionable material is to reinforce it. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Note - this was written without seeing Eurytemora's response) Qualification: They appear to have consensus for their acceptance for their assertions about Ambrose's accuracy. Is there also consensus for "Note: G.J. Graves comments that "The paper back edition has all of our corrections, but we are not given credit."" being repeated as fact, given that even they don't appear to be endorsing Graves' comment, just attributing it to him?

Also, if if it helps, this is the tenor of the writing in the warchronicle "articles", which read much more like letters to the editor: "Would General Eisenhower have expected US Army officers to pull a gun to the heads of British sailors on D-Day? Should American officers be portrayed as thugs, and should British sailors be portrayed as cowards? Are these the type of men who put their lives at risk on D-Day? The reputation of Captain Ettore V. Zappacosta of B Company 116th Infantry Regiment has been besmirched. British sailors from 551 Assault Flotilla, Combined Operations, Royal Navy have been dishonoured. This bad reporting and blatantly poor research has caused great bitterness and resentment amongst American and British veterans. Popular history it may be, but accurate certainly not!" Full links. Supported text, which also includes an incredibly dubious "I saw it on C-Span" cite (23).

Personally, my gut feeling is that they're probably correct, although they're both describing the same incident - but Stephen Colbert's wisdom aside, my gut is not an RS. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The strong wording you note (i.e. with which Hils closes his piece on the coxwains) – in many ways , that’s not terribly different from many good (i.e. reliable source) Gawker or Village Voice articles. The accuracy/verifiability/reliability of the underlying information in the article is the relevant thing here. Also, just to make it clear - the C-SPAN cite is in the WP article (not in Hils).Eurytemora (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the articles in question and for the possible correction - I was aware that the C-SPAN cite was distinct from Hils, but I think it's a lot better to hear a correction I already knew than to not hear a correction I needed. My apologies for the ambiguity of saying "Supported text, which includes" - I was trying to draw a distinction between the supporting cite and the section it supported, but it obviously didn't work.

Not a particularly critical distinction, but the strong wording was actually in Elsby's piece. (I'm a lot more glad that you read it and were aware of it than I am concerned by mistaking which piece it was from.)

I've only found the one article by Hils on HNN, and a reference to him in another article written by someone else. Could you point me toward other RS's he was published in? That would go a long way. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for correcting me also; should have referenced Elsby (on coxswains).

I looked into much of this a while ago, and found other references to Hils, etc. at that point. Don’t have time to dig into this again right now (perhaps tonight or tomorrow if I can find the time). Eurytemora (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My point above was that the website qualifies but individual articles might not. Obviously articles which are speculative, editorial, or downright alternate history would not. Source has several distinct meanings, as I quoted. Among these are both the publisher (website) and the article (page). My view is the website is reliable but not everything in there is necessarily reliable. Not everything in The New York Times, a reliable source, may be used on Wikipedia, for example certain opinion columns and letters to the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you might want to look more closely at the articles you're endorsing. That's a quote from one of them. And Hils' piece (the more reliable one) is actually titled, "An Open Letter", while the Elsby piece (the one with the unfortunate wording) is called an article. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know how to ideally deal with the WP Ambrose article ref 23. Looking back into the Ambrose article’s history, it seems that the current composition of the sentence and ref 23 placement reflects the removal of substantive details (in interim edits), which rather muddied the content. Ambrose was using oral histories in his writing, and ref 23 refers to one such recorded oral history (of a Sgt Slaughter) that was discrepant with other information and that was explicitly used by Ambrose. The Slaughter recording was apparently once broadcast on C-SPAN. Eurytemora (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at that one, despite its not being in the original subject. If you saw anything which included verifiable/refutable information at some point in the history (i.e. "broadcast on July 13, 1987 at 1:35 pm"), I'd be much less leery of it. As it is, it comes across as suffering from the same flaw Ambrose seemed to have - if you get called out on giving specific dates that don't match, stop giving specific dates. (For all I know, the editor may have been copying Ambrose's attribution verbatim.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing (it’s the American Eyewitness D-Day Accounts Forum 05/17/1994). And I dug further into the whole coxswain controversy this morning. As written, the current WP text on the coxswains is not technically “inaccurate”, but a rewrite of the coxswain material might be preferable – not sure. Will share more thoughts when I have a chance. Eurytemora (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing" - Wow. That's what I'd call "taking one for the team".

I don't know if we have the same issue with the coxswain controversy; I'll toss mine out.

1. Hils and Elsby are not each describing an incident. Elsby describes both; Hils only mentions the incidents in passing.
2. To elaborate, Hils says this in a list of Ambrose's and Marshall's other sins: "Marshall's credibility has been severely damaged by the discovery of fabrications related to his accusations of cowardice by British coxswains at Omaha Beach." That's all he says about it. To me, a) that doesn't sound like he researched or verified it himself at all, and b) he doesn't actually say anything about Ambrose's involvement in the coxswain controversy, much less that he copied Marshall. It's likely that he did, but to attribute this to Hils is a synthesis that's missing a few pieces.
3. Elsby not only appears too emotionally invested in the subject (the quotes I gave actually feature some of the less histrionic terms he uses), he quotes this debriefing as if it proved him right: "Four hundred yards from the shore the British coxswain insisted that he could take the craft no further. He started to lower the ramp but the platoon sergeant Willard R. Northfleet blocked the mechanism and insisted that the boat was going in farther". That's neither an endorsement nor a denial of either the "Nothing of the sort happened" that Elsby infers or Slaughter's gun to the head.

Honestly, it sounds like men under the intense stress of imminent death later embellished their fragmented memories to the story they wanted to remember, and weren't consciously aware that they might have been amalgamating details from other people's stories. There still exists controversy that should be properly documented, but not in terms of which side "claimed" or "denied" anything - I think it needs to be recounted without prejudice as a he-said-she-said (in which Ambrose unwisely took sides).

My suggestions:

1. Hils needs to be dropped from this paragraph. He doesn't make the claim he's represented as making, and the claim he does make isn't germane to the article.
2. I'll defer to you about whether Slaughter is verifiably (not synthetically) talking about the Northfleet incident; Elsby omits any mention of Slaughter so I can't say.
3. I have extreme doubts about Elsby's reliability as a source, and about warchronicle's reliability in general (in the absence of outside qualifications like Hils'). But assuming that the consensus will be to include him:
4. If Slaughter can be brought in, it needs to be noted that the debriefing Elsby mentions is ambiguous, or simply quote the debriefing - the unsourced "other veterans of the landing have denied that the incident took place" should be struck.
5. Sales' account of the Zappacotta incident absolutely deserves inclusion, as does the fact that Sales was on the boat in question. Terms that explicitly pass judgment on who's right would be inappropriate, but the witness's qualifications aren't inappropriate in the slightest. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've continued digging into this. Will try to post something tomorrow. Eurytemora (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to synopsize it for you until you get back (these are my own conclusions which are open to challenge, not final group conclusions):

1. Warchronicle appears to have little reliability of its own, as a self-published website that posts submissions (or general comments, questions, raspberries, etc) without any apparent editorial review. No one has shown otherwise, only asserted that they "accept submissions" and insinuated that they might therefore review or reject unreliable material, which are the true tests. Warchronicle does not confer reliability, but it does not negate it either in the case of individuals (i.e. Hils) who have unique qualifications that make them RS's independent of warchronicle.
2. Hils is likely an RS, taking on faith that you've seen other instances of him being published besides the one HNN piece. But it seems to be moot at this point, because he doesn't actually make any claims about Ambrose's role in the coxswain controversy, or about Ambrose repeating Marshall in that matter.
3. I personally believe Elsby is nigh-worthless as a source in terms of his conclusions. He hasn't been shown to be published or respected as an expert. He omits contradictory accounts, misrepresents sources, and inflates Ambrose from a flawed historian to a Monster who Desecrates the Graves of Servicemen. But he at least appears to give accurate quotes from his sources, given that he's quoting them in language that contradicts the conclusions he draws from them. It would be far better to have original sourcing for Sales and for the debriefing, but I don't think that's possible. What are your thoughts on whether an unreliable source can be trusted to accurately quote a reliable source (such as Sales or the debriefing)?
4. Reiterating a point, strong consensus appears to be that CPRR is a reliable source wrt their essay, since a majority of the assertions they make therein are directly about or tangential to railroad history. But CPRR does not put their reliability behind Graves' assertion (that their corrections were incorporated), or call it accurate. They're simply repeating what someone told them, and it doesn't touch on railroad history. I didn't see any contradiction to this, but it's worth repeating to allow challenge before dropping it as not reliably-sourced. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• The point regarding all corrections to the errors documented in the paper having been incorporated in some later editions of the book is now moot as, in an abundance of caution, I deleted it from the article on my own on July 2nd as not currently independently verified. Centpacrr (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't realize you had. Doing so suggests that I was in error in casting aspersions on your principles - I apologize. I should have AGFed rather than being as cynical as I'm wont to be in cases of apparent economic benefit. Economic benefit and high principles are not mutually exclusive. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that now that the discussion has gotten down to brass tacks, it ought to move to

Talk:Stephen Ambrose.--Wehwalt (talk

) 02:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted followup at

Talk:Stephen Ambrose. Eurytemora (talk

) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)