Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71

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.

Here DissidentVoice.org as an outlet that regularly prints Gilad Atzmon articles has been removed yet again. Despite the failure to address arguments for keeping it at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Dissident_Voice_60_plus_wikipedia_mentions. As of today there are 71 mentions in search, a great many of this relatively innocuous sort. (See past WP:RSN discussion of it at [this old WP:RSN] discussion.) And this by same person who thought it was reliable to mention that David Duke published him, despite no evidence he asked them to! So obviously a POV deletion. Opinions here or on the talk page section welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A POV deletion in an Israel debate? Geez, that's never happened before on WP. And in an article about the author, too. Revert it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. Now that I know 3rr actually means reverts and not any and all edits, I'm just going to have to keep doing it!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that's a joke. Fences&Windows 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we please get a final ruling on whether or not Songfacts is useful? Most of the content appears to be user submitted and therefore unreliable. One user, Pvae (talk · contribs) has gotten blocked for a week for constantly spamming this source within articles, despite multiple whacks with the cluebat. I don't wanna keep going around in circles, so let's finally get a final ruling, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable, in the same way that all wikis are. At Songfact's legal page, it says: "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors." There it is. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Content generated by anonymous users, website disavows accuracy of content. Doesn't meet

WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Looks like each page at Songfacts has an initial section that's written by the staff, and might be reliable, and a separate section of user's comments, which is not RS. From their "about us" and "staff" pages, this was initially something created by professional radio DJs out of Hartford, who then took their database online. They have professional writers and occasionally interview the artists. [1][2] Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No site guarantees the accuracy of its content! That's a standard legal disclaimer, and these legal disclaimers should not be used in judging the reliability of a source. The important part is "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site." If they have parts of the site that are written by professional staff, those might be reliable. Material like interviews written by these people are probably OK to use as a source. Fences&Windows 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd steer clear of it, it's very difficult, there's little attribution for some of the 'facts', they could be written by anyone. --neon white talk 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends which kind of disclaimer. "Not liable for errors or omissions" doesn't disqualify. "You are entering a comment area and this is user-submitted" does. This disclaimer has both. But there's a very obvious tearline on each song's page separating the editor's facts from the user comment facts. It may meet RS, but I would encourage our editors to see if we can't find those facts in a book or magazine. It's always good to continually improve sourcing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been presented with what on the surface looks like OR, but I could verify it (note there is no contorversy this is in the way of a general nose about). So my question is, If something can be physicaly checked out by you (such as the colour of a towns bus livery) Do you need Third party RS or is saying, "I saw one" RS becasue it can be verified?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the case in point, Steven. If it's a fact of crucial importance to the article which is unlikely to be disputed then fine. If the article can survive without it though, the question is: why should WP note it when reliable sources haven't seen the need? --FormerIP (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A photo might verify it, except that "

WP:V. Fences&Windows

12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But what if you can check it (and perhaps do), ohh and it might be worth noting that the text that raised this can be sourced to RS (well a local paper), would that constitute verifiability?.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Think you might need to lay your cards out a bit more, Steven. Is stating the colour of a bus the actual thing you want to do? --FormerIP (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly its not something I want to include, its something else someone else put in an article (in this case that a mechanical land mark is now working when before it was not). Secondly I have no objection to the edit (as I said this is just a random musing). I was just intrigued by this idea that if something (like the exsistance of the Earth) can be verified by personel observation then is it RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In general no. Take some LSD and observe some fairies (or monsters). It can be verified, but a reliable source for their existence..... In your example, it may be that the mechanical landmark (let's call it a windmill to make it more concrete) was 'working' as part of maintenance only, or in the context of a one-time historical study. So it really depends and caution is the best way forward. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK seems fair enough. Personel observation cannot be considerd RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ::::::Think that example would need a source, otherwise the fact that the structure is working fails WP:V and WP:N. You mentioned that there was a source, so that should be okay then. I was imagining the statement might be something more like "Manchester United's home shirt is red", which could be sourced, but is so widely-known that I don't think you would really need to. --FormerIP (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's something as simple as describing the color of a bus, there shouldn't be any problem with captioning a user-submitted photo of the bus and citing the caption. If the color can be described without adding any art or judgement on the part of Wikipedia, then we're not introducing original research. If it can only be described as "red" we should be cool. If it's an odd color and editors are debating between "chartreuse" and "lemon" we should probably avoid those. If its something where the perceived color itself is up for debate, perhaps it's a photo of some astronomical phenomena that might be beyond the color gamut of the camera, then we should find a published source to describe the color. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone verify the reliability of this source article.

http://clatl.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Creative Loafing is a newspaper from Atlanta. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And the writer John Sugg is a seasoned journalist:[3]. This is for Art student scam, right? Fences&Windows 11:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is for "Art Student Scam."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that Seth Grahame-Smith is going to be writing the script for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows, sourcing it to http://www.fearnet.com/news/b19590_seth_grahame-smith_enlighten_dark.html. Is this a reliable source? I think it may be more reliable than http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/20913 Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume at the very least, you could say "Fearnet.com reports that Seth Grahame-Smith will be writing the script," if not actually just say "he's gonna write it." Or, you could cite both, and definately just say "he's gonna write it". Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... why not just use the Variety article that is their original source, and cut out the middle-man? [4] Did you not notice that both posts linked to Variety? Fences&Windows 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. No, I didn't notice that. Thanks.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

is one, and another RS for the EDL being a political organisation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but. :-) They're local papers, which would be sufficient for reliability as such, if we didn't have better ones, but in this case it seems we do, there's no shortage of national coverage. The English Defence League don't really seem to stand candidates for office, or even lobby candidates as such, so calling them political seems misleading. They seem to go in for protests rather than elections. I'd look for what larger papers call them. Here: The Telegraph: controversial right-wing group. The Guardian: chaotic organisation based largely around existing football groups and hooligan networks (Whoah! That's pretty strong there.) The Times: far right group. Looks like we'll have a better article without saying "political". --GRuban (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is a shame that "far right" is applied as a label in the lead when it is disputed. What is wrong with qualifying it in 1 or 2 lines down in the lead? "Political" and "far right" are both things sources say and might even be true but if it is disputed (not only by the group but actual secondary sources) then why force it into the first line like that?Cptnono (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All the major national newspapers call it Far Right, which secondary sources were you thinking of? --Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already provided them for you and you chose to ignore them or focused on any part that did mention far-right only. And I a still perplexed that it has to be done as a label in the first line instead of an attributed line receiving tons of weight in the second line. It makes no sense. And completely ignoring claims by the subject (especially when reported in secondary coverage) makes it even worse. My favorites are the video where the guy flat out says it is not known if they are or not or the article that says they have been infiltrated by the far right.

Your line right there would even work "Major national newspapers call it Far Right" if "but the group disputes this" could be added.

I can see by the recent lock and the numerous complaints on the talk page that you are still filibustering and ignoring

WP:LABEL.Cptnono (talk

) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single citation which says they are not far right, other than primary sources. All the third party sources say "Far Right". If you have them list them here for comment. Also please

WP:AGF, the lock had nothing to do with me and the complaints are coming from two EDL apologists. Most editors are working towards a consensus --Snowded ^TALK

18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we have more imput please. Are these two local papers RS (and more RS then this [[5]]Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the magazine http://www.portraitmagazine.net considered a reliable source for reviews? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is surrounding two statements

In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems.

There have been sources provided showing publishers that claim or talk about Bose as having products that are considered by the general public as

CNet

Forbes Magazine

Popular Science

PCMag.com

The Register

These have been removed because apparently they "support a larger, general statement about Bose being a manufacturer of high-end audio equipment is

These is also another debate about:

Today Bose products can be found in

The Broadway Theatre, the Sistine Chapel and the Space Shuttle

.

Cisco NASA Publication

MIT Inventor of the Week Archive

They have been removed not because they do indeed verify this is a true statement but because "The passing mention does not help the reader understand anything about the product." Which is not the intent of the verifying process.

Can someone outside of this article please shed some light on this issue? Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is already an active and detailed discussion of these sources, and of the article's various issues, at Talk:Bose Corporation#CNET reference and below that at Talk:Bose Corporation#Discussion of challenged references. Two editors, myself and Mattnad, have weighed in regarding the unreliability of these references, or about the inappropriate use of reliable refs to support a general statement synthesizing a number of off-hand remarks found in sources. One editor, Phoenix79, has not been able to establish that these sources are reliable or, if reliability is not questioned, are used appropriately. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the these sources qualify as reliable (in that they are published) but the issue is not one of reliable sources, but how they are being used. Typically, these are being cited to support a broad claim that Bose is a maker of "high-end audio" products rather than focusing on their respective niches. If you look where Bose operates, they go after low-end niches like clock radios and iPod speakers and develop products that are relatively high-end within that segment, but not high-end for the industry and overall market. Since the citations are NEVER from publications that are expert in audio, there's a further perpetuation of this misunderstanding. There's an effort on the talk page (on my part at least) for more specific explanation about where Bose is high-end (not the general audio market) to avoid continued over-generalization.Mattnad (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that some editors are loosing focus on the point. There is a general perception with the average man on the street that Bose products are High-end. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have lost focus. The phrase under discussion is "high-end audio systems" or "high-end audio", not just high end by itself, which can mean high end of a market segment. You brought this notice here to this forum to discuss the following sentence: "In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems." That's the focus. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Try using the word "premium" instead, I'm sure there will be no shortage of sources that could be used to back that up. I agree that without straying too far into syntheis, we should impart to the reader that while Bose may be high-end, it's more associated with "lifestyle" products like tabletop radios and luxury car audio, as opposed to studio or audiophile component systems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that accurately represents how most people view Bose. Further, I suspect that some of the editors involved in this are more interested in presenting

right that wrong. ElKevbo (talk

) 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While you are viewing our policies correctly, I'm not so sure that those sources are inadequate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to ElKevbo, Phoenix brought this here to forum shop since he could not realistically defend obvious OR/SYN issues. The issue is not one of reliable sources, but whether the sources say what he wants them to say (I would guess) so he can overstate the case for Bose. So for instance in this earlier version favored by Pheonix [7], references 5 and 6 make claims that bose provides equipment for "high-end automobiles" even the the sources only refer to "luxury" cars. And then citation 37, which says "Forbes Magazine – describing Bose as a producer of high-end products" where the actual reference is much more reserved and speaks only of high-end headphones among other products. There are more examples of this attempt to manufacture a case for Bose as being broader in it's market position than represented by the sources. Hence the real debate on the talk page.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that I was Forum Shopping, but if you believe that I do not think you understand what places like this are for. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is
  WP:RS
  ?
• Does this Russia Today video qualify as a reliable source? It was removed by User:Bdell555 from The War Logs with the edit summary change source as per NPOV section of Talk and eliminate claim data not verified because that was essentially the job of NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel: to provide some ind verification Is the removal appropriate?

Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RT isn't quite like the old Pravda but it is a source with a strong POV on this issue. Some of what they reports is opinion, like saying there was a coverup. In those cases, it'd be best to attribute the view, for example, "A broadcast on RT calls the leak proof of a coverup." It might even be appropriate to identify RT as state-financed media.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Moscow correspondant for The Independent described RT's coverage of Russia's war with Georgia as "obscene" and "extraordinarily biased". During Russia's war with Georgia, RT claimed that "At least 2,000 people, including many children were killed within the first 48 hours of the conflict (i.e. by Georgians before Russia intervened in force) yet subsequent investigation found this figure to be massively inflated. English speaking reporter William Dunbar was censored by his employer, Russia Today: "I had a series of live, video satellite links scheduled for later that day, and they were cancelled. The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it."

The authoritative Economist calls RT "propaganda" and gives some examples that support the thesis that RT is not a reliable source. Are Wiki editors seriously going to claim that "They used the NGOs, the American Aid, the International Monetary Fund, the George Soros Organization to try and actually infiltrate and destroy Russian society from within. Today, the US government is building 13 secret bases in Afghanistan for the forward push to an eventual war against Russia" and cite it to RT?Bdell555 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Eventual war with China, surely. ;) Unomi (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple other gems for you: New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside. See also what "Crosstalk" host Peter Lavelle says at 22:15 of this clip: "The people that perpetrated 9/11 are not fundamentalists at all". By RT's own account, they are "an alternative to mainstream media" and thrive on controversy. That doesn't mean they are necessarily routinely unreliable, but it does mean they are closer to tabloid than to authoritative.Bdell555 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Using such allegation of bias to bar RT would mean the CNN, BBC, NY Times with proven failures of oversight are flagrat POV then. Particulatly the latter 2 who even admited as such. RT is similiar to France 24, and a govt media just like BBC and Al Jazeera that is used on here.Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera (which I don't think is state funded anyhow - edit: okay, I see from its WP page that it has received a state loan). In many cases RT will be RS, but it is clear that there will also be cases where its impartiality can legitimately be questioned. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, having taken a quick look, I don't see why RT should not be considered an RS. However, the edit that removed it did not change any factual information, so why is it worth worrying about so much? --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I currently have an article up at FAC with the following two sites used as a reference and have been asked to prove they are reliable sources. This is my first FAC so I'm not quite sure what to do. Can anybody help me with this process? The two sources are;

• a reliable source? Trade Arabia
• Leisure Opportunities

Thanks

Is [8] (whose webmaster is evidently one of our editors) a reliable site? See [9] for the articles where it's linked. Thanks.

I'd like to work on an article about a historical site I visited. One of my main sources would be the many placards that were displayed around the site. This is a provincially registered historic site, and the placards all have the Government of Saskatchewan logo on them, so I assume they would be considered reliable sources. Questions: A) Is my assumption correct? and B) How would I go about citing these placards? I've taken photos of all of them so could upload them to Commons for verifiability, but would prefer not to if possible (I'm lazy). Sasata (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think these would probably be RS, although I am not familiar with them. Assuming they are sober in style ("a great hero" might be problematic). The normal test is that they are in principle accessible by editors who want to check them. Think you could do the world a service by uploading your photos onto flickr or something, which would make verification easier. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The plaques are probably reliable sources. What you do at Flickr is your/their business, but posting photos here or at Commons may violate copyright policy. Like you can't take photos of all the pages of a printed, copyrighted novel and post that, you also cannot post photos of a copyrighted plaque's text. In some cases Wikipedians have pursued getting release of copyright for all of its plaques from a U.S. state or a local government or other entity. When i visit a historic site i certainly take close-up photos of the plaques for my own reference, but I don't post them. Sometimes the plaques are readable within larger scale pics of the place that I do post, though. --doncram (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Mangalore Today a reliable source for articles related to Mangalore? Mangalore Today is basically a magazine, and www.mangaloretoday.com is the authorized version of the magazine. The site has coverage in reliable third-party sources [10] [11]. Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper. 115.184.18.225 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we know who the editor of the magazine is?... or who publishes it? Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This site is so not a RS. Just count the factual errors here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6857/pub_detail.asp

So nobody will object when I purge them, right? Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us? Most editors at RSN may not be familiar with the subject matter. Its possible this could be an RS, albeit with a POV. It has staff and appears to be sponsored[12] by the Center for Security Policy think-tank. Advocacy organizations can still be RS, though we can debate whether it's a good source for naval aviation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hcobb And when you say "purge them", do you mean in a specific instance when considered in context per

WP:RS, or do you mean find every use on Wikipedia and eliminate it? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk

) 06:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hcobb And what are the factual errors? I haven't read it yet. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Hawaii Free Press is a twice-monthly, independent, locally owned alternative newspaper published in Hilo, Hawaii since January 2005.

In the article, Colleen Hanabusa, it is used as a source of allegations against Hanabusa.

1. Link to source in question: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/978/Cayetano-Hanabusas-Broken-Trust-connections-lead-to-Ko-Olina.aspx
2. Article where it is being used: Colleen Hanabusa
3. Statement in the article it is supporting:

   According to former Governor Ben Cayetano, Hanabusa acted against Bronster at the behest of Henry Peters, Hoaliku Drake, Jeff Stone, Dickie Wong, and Larry Mehau. Hanabusa admits to meeting with Wong and Mehau, but could not remember whether Bronster's confirmation was discussed.

4. Relevant talk page diffs:
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Hanabusa&diff=362372854&oldid=362368309

      The source is a one man newspaper who has engaged in rumor mongering against politicians he opposes.

   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Hanabusa&diff=375686983&oldid=362535233

      ...the Hawaii Free Press is nothing more than a one man extreme right-wing blog, therefore not a reliable source.

With this edit and this edit, I've asked people with comments on Hawaii Free Press to discuss the issue here.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It should absolutely not be used in BLPs. It is indeed a right-wing blog. I've taken it to AfD in fact, after searching for everything I could find out about it.

talk

) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I think the first mistake it made was calling itself the "Free Press"; most news publications with that title tend to be anti-authority. The "about" section also exposes itself as clearly right-wing, and thus unsuitable to reference anything regarding Democratic politicians. The links make me facepalm too; anyone who still thinks Breitbart's opinion is worth anything is either retarded, right wing, or both. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have had some sort of relationship to the

talk

) 07:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we deal with such sources? Obviously, it is impossible for me to verify that http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395500694117006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle actually supports what is presented in this edit. __

You can subscribe and pay, so it is not "impossible" to verify the source. We do allow sources that require payment (but are otherwise accessible to everyone) as the information is not limited to a group of people by the choice of the site; everyone who really wants to (and pays) can have access. Also note that most scientific journals have a paid service only. We would not want to exclude the Lancet, Nature or Science because you have to pay. Libraries have sometimes access to such sites by IP recognition, or in any case may have the paper archive where you can check the source for free.

That said we tend to prefer to list free access sources if they are available, as that makes checking easier. Arnoutf (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be appropriate for me to tag that reference with {{

talk

) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just find someone and ask them to verify it if you have concerns. Adding further tags I feel adds little.

talk · contribs · email

) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "just find someone"? How large a percentage of random people do you believe subscribe to any given subscription site? Or do we have a

talk

) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to your local library. They are apt to have either a subscription to the paper with back issues on file, or a subscription to the electronic version. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds viable. __

talk

) 13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, someone will supply you with the article. It beats me why more people don't make use of that page. Deor (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Meco, I have access to the article for some reason (maybe my university subscribes to it?) and I can confirm the quotes are accurate. If you want a private copy of the article, email me. --Cyclopia^talk 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I was just looking to confirm its correctness. __

talk

) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it's insufficiently advertised. I haven't heard of it earlier. __

talk

) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's really no difference for verifiability purposes between paywalled websites and reliable printed sources; obviously you can't verify either one with a simple Google search, but both can be reliable. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. There is nothing that says that it has to be easy, or free to verify. It just has to be out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While searching Google for sources about the Waring House in Greenville, Ohio, I discovered a Yahoo! Travel profile for the place. Is it appropriate to use it as a source for the statement "Today, the Waring House is operated as a bed and breakfast."? I'm not planning to use it as a source for anything else. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've not discussed this with anyone else, so I can't provide any links to other discussions. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any dispute, I don't see a problem. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor is objecting to the use of The Daily Caller on the basis that it is not a reliable source. There is widespread use on WP of other such ideological sites as a RS--but they tend to lean to the left, such as

Note BLP/N also. Note also that the Washington Post has also published much of the material, and I doubt anyone would call it a radical right wing source <g>. It should also be noted that WP does not disqualify sources because they are liberal or conservative - only whether they have editorial controls over the posting of facts. To the extent that no one contests the facts, the source is certainly reliable. Collect (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideology isn't the problem. The problem is that The Daily Caller is more akin to Newsmax than the Huffington Post. The Daily Caller is a lurid partisan tabloid whose reporting is almost universally disputed by the subjects of their reporting. To use their "facts" on Wikipedia would be to basically throw out RS and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you actually have that The Daily Caller is so dodgy? Such a dodgy operation does not merit an interview about the site by the Columbia Journalism Review. As far as it being partisan, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote, "The Caller has tapped a number of down-the-middle journalists, including executive editor Megan Mulligan, who was the Guardian's Washington editor. Conservative politics "is not my thing," she says." In addition, The Daily Caller broke a story about a scandal at the Republican National Committee--hardly a partisan move. Drrll (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that comparison between Newsmax and the Huffington Post. I'd have to opine that they're equally partisian, and both have a certain "tone" in their reporting. But that aside, there's nothing wrong with us using partisian sources as long as we keep our articles NPOV. These specialized sources bring depth to our articles. At any rate, if this is about that Journolist story, the Daily Caller is pretty much a primary source so it would be citable regardless. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideology is irrelevant, as is the 'luridness' of content. That said, this Noticeboard does not generally make blanket statements of reliability. What is the exact url of the specific citation or citations in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article or articles that the source is supporting? Where are the relevant talk page discussions, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The refs are here and here and here. The articles involved are Jeffrey Toobin and Spencer Ackerman. The material that was in the articles is here and here. The current discussion is here. Thanks for looking over. Drrll (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Try to make it simple for me.

This citation: [13] is used to support what text in which article?

This citation: [14] is used to support what text in which article?

and

This citation: [15] is used to support what text in which article? Dlabtot (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This citation is used to support "He wrote concerning Jeremiah Wright,

Part of me doesn’t like this sh*t either. But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals...It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically. And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

in the Spencer Ackerman article.

This citation is used to support "Upon the election of Barack Obama as president, Ackerman wrote, "YES WE DID!" and added [quoting Obama], “'…we may not get there in one year or in one term, but America I promise you, we as a people will get there.' HOLY. F***ING. S**T."" in the Spencer Ackerman article.

This citation is used to support "Regarding the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate to John McCain, Toobin remarked as follows: “what a joke...I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale" in the Jeffrey Toobin article.

Drrll (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything non-RS about those cites, although it seems obvious that the intention in putting them in Wikipedia is to make Ackerman look bad. Even though they don't actually make him look bad. These partisan disputes are pretty tedious, imho. Personally I think everyone who is here with a political axe to grind, left or right, should be banned without fanfare. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd never actually heard of The Daily Caller before this RSN question. Considering the CJR piece and Carlson's place in the center of the mainstream of American news media, there's no way this source could be 'generally disallowed'. It's certainly usable in particular instances. But... I looked at one of these cites in depth. When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack. This piece contains numerous quotes from the forum concerning McCain picking Palin as vp nominee. What is conspicuously absent, however, is anything that even remotely suggests the conclusion that is trumpeted by the headline of the piece. There is absolutely nothing supports this - whatsoever. So based on this, I would have no problem with citing the article for a fact - ( "John Smith said that water can quench thirst.") - but conclusions, opinions, and so on ("John Smith engaged in a plot to convince people to buy more bottled water") - would have to be cited as the opinion of the author. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the headlines and some of the analyses in these pieces are a stretch. As far as "liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack", most of the participants weren't straight journalists, but opinion people. But there does seem to be a little coordinating with "Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”"

I wasn't going to use any of their analysis, just the quotes (and actually less of the Ackerman quotes than I gave above). Drrll (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source in any sense of the word, especially on the only subject anyone other than Tucker Carlson's mother will read the caller: the Journolist mailing list. Multiple sources have shown that the Caller has exaggerated (at best) the nature and extent of the emails on that list in order to maximize impact and incoming clicks. Using even pull quotes as though the underlying information isn't a lie is unhelpful for our readers. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple sources have shown that the Caller has exaggerated (at best) the nature and extent of the email"

Um, you cited one source, and that source said it couldn't determine if they were exaggerated because they haven't seen the full emails. Saying it's inconclusive is pretty far away from showing that they lied. Anyway they seem like a reliable source to me in the sense that I'm sure they posted the correct quotes, why don't you just state that more of them haven't been made available so context cannot be fully established instead of trying to remove the quotes in their entirety?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to undertake a complete investigation on the subject, but at the very least the link I gave you listed a half dozen sources and other comments. Apart from Greg Sargent's comments (and the comments of others on Journolist), you can read the CJR's comments on the initial leak and the subsequent leaks. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, not a single person whose e-mails have been divulged has made a claim that their specific e-mails lack context. It's also important to note that Greg Sargent, who is the ABC reporter who writes the Plum Line, was a member of Journolist who presumably has access to the entire discussion; if he is alleging a lack of context, he is certainly in a position to provide it. In any case, it's hard to see how one could provide context to Ackerman's remarks which are the focus of this particular discussion, though. Carlson has clearly stated that the reason he is not releasing everything is because a lot of it is boring, inside-baseball wonkery which nobody cares about. Looking to the larger picture, there is nothing that indicates that the Daily Caller is not reliable; it simply has a partisan edge, much like

The Huffington Post. Horologium (talk)

11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't that they lack context, it is that the content of the emails is being deliberately trumped up in order to bring readers of the caller to conclusions contrary to the intent of the original email authors. Period. If deliberate misrepresentation isn't disqualifying in terms of WP:RS, nothing is. And if you believe Carlson's reasons for not releasing the emails, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that The Daily Caller deliberately misrepresented something? BTW, most major reliable sources have misrepresented something at one point or another, whether deliberately or not (e.g. the NYT story about John McCain's relationship to a lobbyist). Do their misrepresentations disqualify them? Drrll (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I only have the evidence that everyone else does. The response from Dave Weigel, Nate Silver, Ezra Klein et al. noting the salacious copy used by the Caller to reveal what really are garden variety email shennanegans. But tabloid copy isn't an irredeemable sin. There is also the interesting coincidence of Tucker Carlson's timely rejection from journolist right before he publishes an "expose" which found almost no defenders save the Post's Ombusdman. There is the article Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News which of course contained no actual email suggestion that the govt. censor fox news. Almost every article published reads like that. Outlandish claims with very little substantiation. Hell, the closest they got to accurate was the Ackerman emails, shocking considering that Ackerman says that kind of shit on his blog anyway. So I guess we can treat this as serial incompetence. Carlson has access to the bulk or the whole of an email archive for a vast liberal conspiracy and he's so bad at journalism that he can't manage to make copy meet sources. Or, he's deliberately witholding contextualizing information, hyping up pull-quotes and ignoring contradictory evidence. I know what I believe, but either way it isn't a very reliable source on the subject. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: you have no basis to make such claims that what has been released from those emails paints the opposite picture of what they were discussing. Nobody has seen the rest of the emails so it's impossible to conclude whether they misrepresent them or not.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So we should conclude that the Caller is reliable on this subject, despite the weak evidence presented in the Caller that the emails rise to even their described nature and despite claims from Journolist members that the emails were misleadingly plucked, and despite the obvious fact that no really damning emails have come out? Without access to the original email archive we physically cannot prove the extent and nature of conversations on the site, but we aren't forced to believe the Caller's summary. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there some text I missed in some article that you are referring to? There were some references given above. Is that it? What is the point of this argument? Is there some dispute related to some specific Wikipedia article? Dlabtot (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of cites above about Ackerman and the Journolist are where the reliability of the Caller is being questioned. My comment was originally to note that the Caller's presentation of the facts in the journolist email stories has been at best sub-par, damaging our ability to see them as an honest broker. I'll ignore your other questions. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you, but it seems there is no reason to continue the dispute on this noticeboard as there appears to be no outstanding RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I know Democracy Now has been determined to be reliable on this board in the past, but another user has questioned the reliability of this.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This democracy now article is for use in the wikipedia article "art student scam" about suspected Israeli "art student" spying.

Relevant Talk Page Discussion Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Democracy_Now_program Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, Dlabtot is right. You has to look at the context, per

WP:RS. It is not possible to make a determination if the ref is out of context. I'll go look now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk

) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is just a Talk page. Where was it used on the Main page in context? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If information from this article was added directly to the wikipedia article, other editors would likely repeatedly revert it like the salon.com article. Hence, I'm getting this source approved as reliable. The previous salon.com article was repeatedly dismissed and insulted by seemingly biased users attempting to whitewash references to Israeli "art student" spying. Thus I am getting this article verified here where hopefuly there will be third party users who are more objective.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The determination of whether or not this article is reliable will affect whether I support or oppose including this article as a source in the wikipedia article "art student scam." If this article is determined to be reliable, the process for an article inclusion consensus will be made much easier. If this article article is determined to be unreliable, there won't be reason to have an article inclusion consensus on the talk page.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you decide to reveal what specific text the source might be used to support, remove the resolved tag because then we would have something to discuss. Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Add this specific quote by journalist christopher ketchum about the art students. "Many of them were highly trained in electronic intercept and intelligence work that was far beyond the compulsory military training required by Israeli law." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since he prefaces that statement by saying: "because it is truly a mystery, even to me—I’m a complete agnostic about this part of the story", I would say no. He is essentially saying that he is relating a rumor which he does not claim to be correct. Dlabtot (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about "suspected" and not proven "art student" spying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review

WP:INDENT? Proper indenting makes discussions more readable. Dlabtot (talk

) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The source should certainly not be used for this material. The source itself (democracy Now) doesn't weigh in on the matter, they're merely interviewing someone who brings it up, but he doesn't claim it to be true.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Dlabtot (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement "Many of them were highly trained in electronic intercept and intelligence work that was far beyond the compulsory military training required by Israeli law." is true. The statement made is by veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum. It's the spying that might not be true. Hence, the article is about spying allegations.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is true it needs a better source than this. Again, we can't attribute a statement of fact to Democracy Now that is actually coming from someone they just happen to be interviewing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially since he specifically says he doesn't necessarily believe it to be accurate. Dlabtot (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat, the spying is suspected, the quote about the intelligence backgrounds of the art students is a statement that is not questioned by four reliable sources.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This was also presented in a four part fox news special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about suspected israeli spying where it was said about the suspected 140 spies

"Most of those individuals said they had served in the Israeli military, which is compulsory there. But they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise, and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping."

However, the links to the twenty minute four part special had to be deleted from wikipedia due to potential copyright issues.

This was also mentioned in the salon.com article http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

"Many of the students, the DEA report noted, had backgrounds in Israeli military intelligence and/or electronics surveillance; one was the son of a two-star Israeli general, and another had served as a bodyguard to the head of the Israeli army."

This was also mentioned in the Creative Loafing Article

"Perhaps most intriguing, the Israelis' military and intelligence specialties are listed: "special forces," "intelligence officer," "demolition/explosive ordnance specialist," "bodyguard to head of Israeli army," "electronic intercept operator" -- even "son of a two-star (Israeli) army general." "

http://clatl.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

I'm having this Democracy Now source approved because users claim that I would be giving other sources undue weight if more than a sentence or two is added from them.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop repeating your argument over and over again. It is too long and you always fail to give the proper background to the conflict (New York Times & Washington Post > Salon.com).Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to providing the quotes and the links, you need to provide the context. Exactly how would it appear in the main Wiki page? What statement would be made and what ref would be used to support what and where. You see,

WP:RS requires an examination of context. Until you provide that context, no approval of any reference can be made. It all depends on how the ref is used. Show us how the ref is or will be used. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk

) 06:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This source is being used to provide an extensive history of the restaurant chain Del Taco. Is it reliable?Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It says it is from a volume in this series [16]. It looks as though it is.

talk

) 12:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good sign. I'd like further input on that type of publication. I know it claims that part of its audience includes "historians" but I'm pretty skeptical of that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a subsidiary press of Gale, which publishes all types of references and compilations. Probably as

WP:RS as it gets. Tom Reedy (talk

) 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Throughout any "green" car articles, the self-published blog "http://www.greencarcongress.com/about3.html" is used as a RS. This blog is written by one man, Mike Millikin and "published" by his wife, Mary G Arlotto, who lives in the same domicile per tax records, but this relationship is not disclosed on the blog to give the impression of an independent publisher/editorial oversight as required per WP:RS. There are no other personnel of this "BioAge LLC" organization that "publishes" this blog. It's a husband/wife blog, nothing more. And it's being used as a reference extensively, in articles about the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and other similar topics, even in lieu of legitimate WP:RS that aren't run by a couple, that is using WP for promoting their blog. Search of "Greencarcongress.com" on WP reveals an extensive campaign to link this blog throughout WP articles as a reliable source. It does not meet WP:RS and as a self-published blog should be relegated to WP:EL only. Cookiehead (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Special:LinkSearch/*.greencarcongress.com has about 400+ links in the mainspace. Just to provide an idea for how far-reaching this goes. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have to have a good argument even to use it for an EL. I agree, no way is it a reliable source. Do you know if it's being pushed by any particular editor? I took it out of 2 articles just now, but both additions were old, 2007 and 2008.

talk

) 07:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many other editors have also agreed that Green Car Congress does not meet WP:RS on 'featured articles' discussions where it was required to be removed from articles to be considered for FA status. First 7 links or so here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.greencarcongress.com show the FA discussions. Cookiehead (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

newsfeed website (so no editorial board is required), all it does is to present a summary of relevant news and provides a link to them. Its reliability is proven by the fact that many academic sites from prestigious universities link to it. I am a professional in the field an I can attest that the material is absolutely reliable, this is no blog site. Read the WP article and confirm the sources. Furthermore, if the issue was raise that is no reason to begin deleting all references in Wikipedia sourced from GCC, the opinion of three editors if far from consensus. Provide more time for discussion to allow other editors to participate.-Mariordo (talk

) 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This "prestigious universities" link to it is just that. They link to it as good "WP:EL" as we would here on WP to go there as a news aggregator. For WP:RS, WP requires the primary source, not the middle man aggregator that is all over WP with redunant (usually in line right next to another WP:RS, which is overkill). Hey, it's a great blog. Sorry if you're a fan, let's keep in in the WP:EL sections of the articles. You won't be able to get these articles you work so hard on to go to FA status. GCC has already been nuked on 6 other articles up for peer review for FA. Just trying to help, it will come up later. These green tech articles are going to become much more popular, and scrutinized going forward. Time to get them shaped up. Cookiehead (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just fine, every one of us is entitled to our opinion. I am asking to wait for others to participate in the discussion, as 24 hours is hardly enough time to have an open discussion in the noticeboard, and much less to begin deleting all the references, and the way you did left many orphans.-Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by

newsfeed web based service provided for free and without commercial sponsors I do not think the criteria stated above applies, and I want to propose that we consider CCG for once and for all a reliable source, and stop rejecting it in feature article reviews.-Mariordo (talk

) 04:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Just Some Website to me. Dlabtot (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider it a reliable source as we use the term, remove and replace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these RS for a cartoon having a referance to star Trek, also do they establish notabiltiy (yes this is ot the right forum i know but it would mean asking the same question in two forums). [[17] , [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] I am not that sure as they seem to be blogs or OR (it does look like the narcelss).Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that cartoon is beyond awesome. Well, something resembling the Enterprise is in there, and there's also a Star Destroyer (though you shouldn't link to copyvio). Tripatlas is a Wikipedia mirror, so not a good source. Project Haruhi is a blog that used Wikipedia as one of its sources, the other two being a fan site[21] and the offical site.[22] J-Phile doesn't seem particularly reliable either. I don't think you're any closer to verifying that it is Enterprise or that Daicon III or IV are notable based on those sources. Here's a better source:[23] Fences&Windows 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is MangaloreMithr.com reliable for news and article related to Mangalore City?

The site is the authorized version of the famous Mithr weekly? [24] The editor-in-chief of the site is Andrew D'Cunha, who happens to be well known in the field of journalism.[25] - 121.242.181.2 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this reliable [26] - I removed it as the article is subject to a lot of pov editing, but it was replaced. Thanks.

I think it could possibly vaguely pass as RS, but it was interpreted in a pov manner and you were right in removing the passage. It would be fair to say that the organization submitted a 3500-page amendment to the Gujarat High Court in July 2010, and that the amendment was rejected by the court. I'm not familiar with this publication since before though, looking at its portal design, I'd prefer a reference from a larger newspaper. Off-wiki, I'd say that the article, if anything, shows the fascistic hegemony in Gujarati politics, that the court itself is very much part of the Sangh Parivar aparatus. Do note how Setalvad's name is stated as "teesta javed" repeatedly (a name she doesn't use herself). The naming stresses that she has married a Muslim, and act considered treacherous by the Hindutva rightwing. It is akin to how people who were married to Jews or had distantly related to Jews would sometimes get their names 'Judeaized' in German media before WWII. --Soman (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's userful. Most of the edits by the editor in question have been reverted by me or someone else because he either uses no sources when making serious allegations, or blogs.

talk

) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be problematic. It does not appear balanced, and it is not a well-known paper. The Hindu may well report on this soon, it reported on the submission of the report. Fences&Windows 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, that article again. The question is now whether the restaurant's Facebook Business Page can be used under WP:SELFPUB to support uncontroversial information, in this case the identity of the current chef. Nobody has given any reason to doubt that the Facebook page is authentic, and the information given about the chef is consistent with OpenTable.com, Menuism.com, Superpages.com and not contested anywhere. It would be preferable to use a third party source, but none are yet available. The only reason not to use the restaurant's own website is that it appears to be under construction, the "bios" section is not completed, and the chef (first name Charles) is currently referred to only as "Chef Chuck."KD Tries Again (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Assuming what you said is correct, yes, it's a fine primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is fine, with the caveat that only the information provided by the account owner (i.e. the restaurant itself) should be cited. Any posts or discussions by visitors to the page are off-limits. I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that this is the facebook page of the restaurant: it makes announcements of wine tastings etc., complete with invitations for people to ring the restaurant, and it provides the correct phone number, as given on the restaurant's website. So sourcing something like the name of the current chef from this seems fine to me. --JN466 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466: Thank you for adding that caveat which I neglected to mention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The above website is used extensively in Wikipeidia. It is used in literally hundreds of articles on US buildings to cite the fact that the building is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) ... it is one of the core citations used by the NRHP project (and in many of their articles it is the only citation given in the article). The website is supposedly the front page of a NRHP database. I say "supposedly" because, unfortunately, it does not work. It may have given access to a database at one time in the past... but if so, it no longer does this. It is essentially an unsupported dead link. So can it be called a reliable source for saying that a specific building is listed by the NRHP? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the discussion here of help to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#NRIS_website_will_move here (the discussion Wehwalt links to), instead. Yawn...about the repeated attempts to drum up contention... --doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the NRHP Project is aware of the problem, which is good... but that does not answer my initial question... Is the www.nr.nps.gov site reliable or not?

The site is broken (in that the search function no longer works), but it has a link to the current official site, where search does work. I would say it meets the minimum standards of reliability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... so shouldn't we cite the "official site" instead? and shouldn't we go further an cite the actual page that talks about the building? To give an example... for our article on Crane Hill Masonic Lodge... rather than citing the old non-working site... or even the new search page ... shouldn't we require citation to the actual page on the building? Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For years, this has been the oficial site. As the "here" link from Wehwalt will tell you, we're trying to decide how to transition from the old official site to the new official site. It's impossible to link to individual pages on individual properties; your "the actual page on the building" link produces a message of "HTTP Status 404 - /internal/internal.jsp". FYI, the most important part of nr.nps.gov still works — our citations depend on the complete database, which can be downloaded from the Download Center that appears on that page. Finally, the old official site is quite reliable; there's no less reason to trust it than there is to trust factfinder.census.gov for official US Census Bureau data. Linkrot isn't a reason not to trust data from a website — that's why all the style guides require an access date, since information may change from day to day. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the links to actual pages (or at least skipping everything except the final click) can be generated. Here's the link to Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I explained the link at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus, but Doncram and I haven't been on the best of terms lately.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra, sorry I didn't comment specifically about your suggestion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings to use type of specific NPS Focus link instead of linking to the NRIS database. Honestly, in the context of what has seemed like undue negativity and personal tone in your comments about me, and given that you emphasized your own comments were driveby in nature (that you wouldn't watch the page any longer), I thot it was probably best not to respond directly. Sorry if my not commenting caused you further confusion.

But, I wouldn't recommend the specific type of NPS Focus link you suggest, to replace NRIS references generally and in that specific case. NPS Focus links like your example for Crane Hill Masonic Building might serve to document merely the fact of NRHP listing, but cannot serve to document architecture type, acreage of listing, and many other fields that we routinely get from NRIS, which are simply not available at the NPS Focus link. In the List of Masonic buildings article, NRIS (via the Elkman interface) was my source for architecture, year of construction, and other factoids supported by references to NRIS; NPS Focus was not my source and does not provide that info. And the NPS Focus link would surely frustrate readers and editors even more: it is a slow link, and it suggests that NRHP nomination documents and corresponding photosets will be available in PDF files, which is unfortunately false in most cases. In your Crane Hill example, the link gives URLs to click with false promise. Clicking only yields new reports that the files have not been digitized. Even that is false! They are digitized but just not available via the NPS Focus system; I know you know that because you have collected electronic copies. The NPS Focus site is pretty awful, frankly, and linking to it seems to me to be more unfriendly to readers than linking to NRIS. --doncram (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Focus website does list many facts found in the NRIS database. Granted more may appear in the database, but Focus clearly shows architect and year built, as well as listing date and location. Focus even tells you what the site is notable for (in Crane Hill's case, it is "Social History" and "Event"). No, it's not as great as the NRIS database, but as the site says, it will "soon" be taken down. Also, instead of making users search through a database, this performs the search already (thus the slightly longer load time) and puts the user one click away from reading information (if we use reference numbers instead of names). I'm not saying it's better than the NRIS.. just more user-friendly and more updated. Yes, it gives false links to pdfs, but over time they will be uploaded. Right now the site is lacking, but over time, I see these links as the way to go. For all we know the NRIS database could be taken down tomorrow, and we'd be screwed. It's time to look for a long-term solution and update our references. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The search page of the website is not a reliable source for anything, and never was; you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a proper citation. Individual pages on the website are reliable sources for whatever they document. To document something from the site you need to use the individual pages; for example, this and this are reliable sources showing properties that were listed, the NRHP listing numbers, and the date of listings. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Many featured articles use the {{GR}} series of templates, even though they're rather similar to the link we're discussing. If featured articles permit links to the search page, there's no reason that this link should be in question. The issue with the nr.nps.gov site is that it can't produce links to more direct pages, so this is the only way to use it as a reference. Both MLA and Chicago permit links of this sort when more direct links aren't viable, and if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The website actually can produce links to more direct pages, as I showed in my previous comment, and regardless of what MLA and Chicago allow, it doesn't meet our

WP:RS requirements. To repeat, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Wikipedia's requirements. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be an untenable and unrealistic position, Jayjg. Of course we should always require direct links when pat all possible but I'm sure that there are some reliable sources where that is impossible. Saying that a particular database is unreliable or unusable just because it has a shitty interface seems over the top. (I think this a bit analogous to citing books. We don't force people to cite page numbers which, in essence, is telling the reader to "go look it up." I would love for us to require book citations to include page numbers but that's as untenable as your stance.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GA and FA articles, for the most part, do cite page numbers, and if they don't, they usually have a page range or a chapter cited for easy reference. Blueboar and Jay's concerns have been raised for years now (and I've raised them myself in the past with no satisfactory answer forthcoming) and nothing has been done by the NRHP project to alleviate the problem. It's time for the project to find a better solution. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A proper citation to "hard copy" certainly does include page numbers... and we have a template for situations where they are not given. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I was astonished that someone would claim we don't "require book citations to include page numbers" because it's "untenable". And ElKevbo, the issue here is not that the database search isn't working any more. The webpage was never a proper citation, even when the database search tool was working. To re-iterate, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is premised on the theory that the entire http://www.nr.nps.gov/ is about to be taken offline. However, that page merely states that the search application on that page will soon be removed. Is there any indication that the NPS is planning to eliminate the "download center" at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm ? That download center is in fact the place where Elkman and other Wikipedia contributors have gone to obtain the complete NRHP list in order to use it as a source -- and that complete database is the basis for

The nr.nps.gov URL is not working as of this hour, but I think this likely is due to one of the transient technical problems that the NPS website suffers, because http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/index.htm indicates that it is still online. I looked into whether the new "download center" at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html could be cited in lieu of the old download link, but is not much of a "download center", and it does currently not provide access to copies of NRIS. (It only provides access to Google Earth add-ons that have coordinates for NRHP-listed properties.) Regardless of whether I can download the NRIS database right now, it is still true that much of the information about National Register listings that is used in Wikipedia was obtained from the 3-13-2009 version of the NRIS database that was downloaded from the NPS website by various different Wikipedia contributors. The fact that a source formerly available online is not currently available online does not normally disqualify that source from being cited. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A second issue

Doncram's comments here and at

Talk:List of Masonic Buildings raise another (related) issue... from what I understand, a lot of the time when information is cited to the NRHP database, what was actually relied upon was User:Elkman's "Who Has" search tool

... which is used as an intermediary to query the NRHP database. This means that the editor adding the citation did not actually look at the NRHP database being cited, but at the results of Elkman's program.

Now, Elkman's program seems to do an accurate job of finding information on the NRHP database, and I would trust it to give accurate results, so I don't have a problem with editors using it as an intermediary program to query the database (despite it being hosted on a personal website) ... but I do have a problem with not including any reference to this intermediary program in the citations. I think some reference to its use should be included per

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk

) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to NRHP webpages with the information on them. That's simple and actually complies with policy. Here and here are examples of how to do it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good... but how do you locate the pages that contain the info about a specific building? Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Google the name, and include the "site:www.nps.gov" parameter in the search field. For example, when looking for information on

Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, use this search, which turns up three relevant documents, including one that has all the information needed. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But if the documents aren't online, they don't show up. See this search for "Threefoot Building". Staff. "NPS Focus: Threefoot Building (#79003408)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. using {{NRHP Focus}} is much better for places like this.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the two, I think Dudemanfellabra's option is better... The result of Jay's option does verify that a building is listed on the NRHP, but the information given on that page is limited, and the search does not work for buildings where the documents are not on line. Dudemanfellabra's option takes us to a page that is only one obvious click removed from the actual NRHP database page for the specific building... a page that contains quite a bit of information. Obviously it would be even better if we could link to that actual database page but, since that seems to be impossible given how the database works, this seems the next best thing. I will ask Dudemanfellabra the same question I asked Jay... how does one locate the page for a specific property in your option? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra's method won't yield a citation that complies with

WP:V, though, which is the issue (it also produces a ridiculously long citation, but that's an aesthetic issue). The method I've provided gives more than just the fact that the building was listed - it also gives the NRHP number and the date it was listed, at a minimum, and often a great deal more. You can use the same method to search http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com which in the case of the Threefoot Building returns this listing, which also works if the searching the first site doesn't, and has all the necessary information. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking? You just type in the reference number of the NRHP you're looking for and type and optional name parameter (which does nothing to the search btw.. just the link display). Look at the code of my reply.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What if you don't know the NRHP reference number? To illustrate... At List of Masonic buildings we have a large list of buildings (many of them redlinks) that are included because they are on the NRHP... they were cited to the old (now unsupported) nrhp.gov page... we need to update this to the new page (preferably to the "one step away" link you suggest)... but we don't have any info except the name of the building, and the town it is in. So how do we get to that one step away page for each of these buildings? Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the reference number, you can search the database for the name of the listing and find the reference number. Then you can come back to Wikipedia to generate the {{NRHP Focus}} link to use as a reference. Alternatively, you can use the method I describe at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus to search for the name directly without having to use the search interface. If there is more than one NRHP listing with the same name (i.e Grand Opera House), though, the database will return all of them. After finding the correct listing, that property's reference number is tied to that property and that property alone, so it's a more reliable reference. Still another way to find the reference number would be to use Elkman's tool, mentioned above, and search for the name. This is a roundabout process for the editor to generate the Focus link, but in the end, the reader is one click away from relevant information. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the reference number, you search http://www.nps.gov and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com by property name. For the Masonic Temple in Fairbanks, for example, the search is this. I've given an example in the article List of Masonic buildings, replacing an improper citation with a proper one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK...thanks for clarifying. Your method is somewhat hard on editor trying to format the citation, but the result is acceptable to me. And that is the key... Once the citation is formatted, the reader trying to verify the information will be directed to a page that will (with one obvious click) get him directly to the NRHP NPS Focus page on the specific building where the information can be located. I think this is the best we can do. Do others agree?

No, I've explained the proper way of doing it directly above, which gets the reader directly to the page with the information, and is not hard on the editor trying to format the citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: While the above discussion is very useful, we have gotten way off track from issue I want to discuss in this sub-section... when and if editors use Elkman's "who is" search tool, shouldn't they be required to note this fact in their citations? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, these various citations ought to reference the NRIS database itself (with the date the database copy was obtained) -- not a website nor Elkman's tool -- as their source, supplemented by a link to the NRHP Focus page that includes some of the content from the database entry for the property.

Having downloaded the NRIS database and searched it on my own computer, I know that the NRIS database is not searchable online on public NPS websites, but it is (or at least used to be) downloadable from NPS, and can be searched offline using software applications that are compatible with it. What Elkman has done is create a web-based software tool that accurately extracts information from the database. I have confirmed that (for the handful of entries I checked) the output from Elkman's tool matches what I was able to extract from the database on my computer using Microsoft software. I know that other users have done similar validation checking. Whether a contributor used Microsoft software, some other publisher's software, or Elkman's tool to work with the database, it should not be necessary for reference citations to identify the software that was used to extract information from NRIS. However, if the information in an article is derived solely from the NRIS database without supplementation from other sources, the article should explicitly indicate that the database was the source (this is something that the boilerplate citations favored by certain NRHP WikiProject members have not done) and the date of the database should be listed.

An appropriate reference citation would (as displayed in a reference list) be something like: "National Park Service (2009). National Register Information System database, updated March 10, 2009. Obtainable from [whatever NPS page currently works for downloading]." (Note that I don't remember the date of the most recent version of the downloadable database; the date I quote is just a random guess.) --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't give a database search as a citation for the same reason you can't give a google search as a citation: you must reference at least somewhat static content. Databases are inherently dynamic, and for this reason generally unreferenceable. Searching http://www.nps.gov and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com produces all the required information in a way that complies with

WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a link to a database search result, but rather a reference that identifies the source as the NRIS database and lists the date of the database version -- much the way an offline publication would be cited. In this case, however (unlike an offline publication), it could be supplemented by a link to the web address where the database can be downloaded. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A database website and a date is no more a valid citation than saying "www.google.com - searched July 18, 2010". The fact that a database can be downloaded at some later date, when its contents will undoubtedly have changed, is no help at all. I don't understand why, when proper, citeable pages are readily available, as explained above, editors are still trying to salvage this inappropriate source as a citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, new editions of the NRIS database are made available very infrequently. The March 2009 version is the latest edition. It's like a specific edition of a book. Many people, me included, have a copy of this book. It is the source used. A new edition of a book may indeed include some different information. We just need to cite the edition used. The "proper, citable pages" are inadequate as providing documentation of much of the information commonly taken from any edition of the NRIS database. They don't provide many fields of info that is available in NRIS; they are not the source used. --doncram (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't understand why, when proper, citeable pages are readily available, as explained above, editors are still trying to salvage this inappropriate source as a citation." ... I can guess... While we are focused on List of Masonic buildigns in this specific complaint... there are hundreds of other articles that cite the source. It is the default citation used by the NRHP WikiProject. If we determine that this page is unreliable, the NRHP WikiProject is going to have a lot of work to do fixing all these references. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Returning to this later, I notice that Jayjg actually has a good suggestion for how to find, efficiently, the NRHP's Weekly Announcement announcing NRHP listing for a given place. I notice there's no current suggestion that way in the

Also about "Databases are inherently dynamic, and for this reason generally unreferenceable", really that does not apply to the NRIS database, e.g. version of 3/13/2009, a fixed database that many people have copies of. New editions have come out once or twice a year, only. This is a stable, fixed database, like an edition of a book, and many editors can perform lookups reliably getting exactly the same results using this database, for any possible search. --doncram (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doncram, for pointing out the existence of compilations of listings from years past. Your remark that "they may only be available within PDF files that unfortunately aren't easily searched" is true, but an understatement. These are huge graphical PDFs (i.e., scanned images of paper documents) that do not contain the OCR data that is needed to make them searchable. Additionally, the older listings are very cryptic (consisting only of the county name, town name, property name, street address, identification number, and two dates -- one of which is presumably the listing date). I can't imagine very many occasions when someone would want to use one of those files as a source.

Thinking about the theory that "databases are inherently dynamic," I can think of plenty of examples to refute that claim. Nowadays, a lot of data that formerly would have been published in table form on reams of paper is now published in the form of computer-manipulable databases that are stable and referenceable sources of information. Those databases often are made available online, as well as by CD/DVD. One example that is in some ways comparable to the NRIS is the US Census Bureau's use of the "factfinder" website (which is widely cited in Wikipedia) to disseminate 2000 Census data (as well as more recent data sets) in a searchable format that allows users to prepare customized reports. The content of those databases is very stable -- it's the user interface that's inherently dynamic. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A third issue

Blueboar has now embarked on an edit campaign to remove the NRIS source from

I've had my disagreements with Blueboar in the past, but on this he is in the right and I support his position. Why can't you just fix the refs? Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed citations to www.nr.nps.gov (what Doncram calls the NRIS source) from that article. Based upon the above discussion it seemed that there was consensus that it was not reliable ... but please note that I have only removed the citation, and not the statements the source is being used to support. I am not challenging whether the buildings are on the NRHP; I am challenging the citation for that fact. www.nr.nps.gov might have been fine as a citation in the past... but it is no longer acceptable. As we have been discussing above, the citation points to an obsolete non-working search engine. In short, the citation does not appropriately support the information. As we have discussed above, the citation needs to be replaced. I am willing to leave the information unsourced while we figure out the best alternative for that replacement, but I will not leave the bad citation in place while we look for a good one.

As for disruptive behavior... Doncram says at

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk

) 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I developed the list-article in response to previous complaints by Blueboar about different matters, including his claims that redlink items should be deleted. My adding footnotes to support the NRHP-listed items resolved that. I also gave plenty of patient advice how to obtain documents towards making better footnotes. Now he wants to delete the footnotes, which has the effect of losing track of which items are supported and which are not. That is no way to develop anything. No matter if you have some complaint about the footnotes to NRIS that could lead to a refinement, you don't simply delete them. --doncram (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you added in these footnotes is flawed... it does not directly support the information and thus does not resolve the problem. The simple fact is that www.nr.nps.gov is a flawed source, and must be removed and replaced. This will take time... especially because it means formatting a citation for each building on the list individually instead of using a group citation (to the old, non-functional search page). Because I am not challenging the fact of NRHP listing for these buildings (only the source used to support this fact), I am willing to leave the entries in place and uncited while we add new citations... but I am not willing to keep the flawed source in place while we work on fixing the problem. I would be fully within my rights to make Doncram do all the work per

WP:BURDEN... however, I repeat my statement that I am willing to help... if he is willing to meet the rest of us half way and do some of the work himself (he created the mess by adding the flawed source, so he should at least do some of the work to clean it up). As for loosing track of which items need to be supported and which do not... There is a parenthetical note by each building listed that says... "NRHP listed"... those are the buildings we need to replace the citation for. We have not "lost track" of anything. Blueboar (talk

) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar's actions are correct in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

However, he's replacing one citation that fails

WP:V. I've provided information on the correct way to do this above. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incredibly frustrating! As I am getting conflicting advice, I will stop editing the page for now... but from our conversations above, I was under the impression that the citations I was adding do pass WP:V.

OK... lets look at our options and the arguments for and against them. Using the first entry on the list (a Masonic Temple in Fairbanks Alaska)... the choices are:

• www.nr.nps.gov ... this is the old NRIS search engine's front page that was originally cited by Doncram (note that it is cited on several hundred articles written by the NRHP WikiProject). This website is no longer supported and no longer works... and I think most of us are agreed it does not pass WP:V. Even if it worked, it required a reader wanting to verify the information to perform the actual search.
• nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=80004568&natregadvancedsearch=Search.... This is the NPS-Focus search engine's result page targeted specifically for this property (and is similar to the other citations I have been adding). It is one click away from the page I really want to cite (the page with all the relevant information on it)... but unfortunately for some technical reason we can not link to that page (we get error messages when we do). Thus it is as close as we can get to that page. I thought this was reliable, but Jay now seems to think otherwise.
• www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ak/Fairbanks+North+Star/state.html... This points to NRHP.com. I actually tried using this as a source early in the debates between Doncram and myself... Doncram reverted my edit, and informed me (in this talk page thread) that NRHP.com is actually a private website ... I gather (correct me if I have this wrong) that it is a copy of the NRHP database that is hosted on a personal website. Thus, it is not supported by the NRHP, which calls into question its reliability.

So... we have three potential citations... none of which are completely right. So what do we do now? Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the most obvious option! Form a regular reference to the online-available NRHP nomination document for the place. The discussion has been running for a month or two or more, in which I've encouraged you to read and use these. As far as I know, you have not consulted a single NRHP document, and it seems pretty clear you have not consulted it for the Alaska one, where that one is even on-line. For the Alaska one, the online full document is available and can be directly linked in a proper reference showing author, date, title, etc. of the document. Perhaps this shows the poor quality of the NPS Focus link, which defies even a very interested editor from figuring out how to download the actual document that is wanted. --doncram (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, surely you are aware that the vast majority of nomination documents aren't available online. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I have explained that repeatedly. It seems incredibly "sloppy, lazy research and dishonest", however, for an editor to be using the Alaska case as an example, and overstating the size of this issue, when the NRHP nomination documents for that and a good number of others are available as a superior source for most purposes. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[EC with Doncram (I am replying to Blueboar)].

• I don't understand why you say that the nr.nps.gov website does not pass
  WP:V
  . At least until recently, it was an authoritative place to go to get access to data in the NRIS database (notwithstanding the fact that the search utility on the site often didn't work -- it was still a place to get the information).
• There are two big problems with nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. First, it is a commercial site that provides access the NRIS database, but is less authoritative than NPS. More significantly, we have found one serious error in the utility used by that site to parse the NRIS data -- acreages listed on that site are off by a factor of 10. Thus, it's a front end to the NRIS data, but an untrustworthy front end.

And one other serious systematic error in the NRHP.COM private site, is that it gives as NRHP-listed on a certain date, places that were demolished or for other reasons were in fact delisted on that date. NRHP.COM is oblivious to listing status information. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The types of property-specific links to NPS Focus that Dudemanfellabra describes under the "Fourth issue" heading (below) are stable links to the NPS Focus site. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• It has been explained pretty clearly why nr.nps.gov doesn't pass
  WP:V
  . When it worked, it was just a front end to a database, so neither citeable nor verifiable. Now it's not even that. That said, the site itself still contains many pages that are citeable and verifiable.
• I was unaware that it is a commercial site; how do we know this for certain?
• The links described below are not "stable links" to anything; they're searches of a database. There's no guarantee that the search will produce the same result, or any result, tomorrow.

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and, in any event, even if the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website isn't acceptable, sure this PDF of the Nomination Form is. It's also vastly more informative. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jay, The PDF of the nomination form is excellent when there is one ... unfortunately, the vast majority of NRHP buildings do not have their nomination documents scanned... Try https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/01001294_text, which should take you to the PDF for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge, the next building on the list, and you will see what I mean. However, the NPS-Focus citations should be stable as I have formatted the link... while it is a search engine result, what is being searched for is the specific NRHP ID number for the building, which is unlikely to change. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, exactly, that NRHP document prepared in 1979 by James Marcotte (as u can see in its Section 11, several pages in), is superior for most descriptive purposes about the Alaska site. As it is a nomination document, however, it documents facts about the site but not the NRHP listing. Note many places are nominated but not listed. To document the fact of NRHP-listing requires, well, a citation to an edition of the NRIS database would probably be best. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Since the document also shows the certification of the State Historic Preservation officer that the property is on the register, in this case it's actually the best source to document the fact of NRHP-listing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so. The vast majority of those nom forms aren't online, and the ones that are online aren't consistent about providing information such as listing status and listing date. Furthermore, the State Historic Preservation Officer's information may be different from what is recorded by the National Park Service. The NRIS database is an official U.S. government information source (provided by the National Park Service staff who are the official keepers of the National Register) and it is the single best source of information on whether a property was listed on the Register, its date of listing, the name under which it was listed, and similar details. It does suffer from the limitation that it is not updated frequently (the last version of the database is over a year old; NPS Focus also is based on old data), so listing and delisting actions since the date of the last database have to be obtained from other sources.

On the other hand, the mere fact that the NPS changed its website structure, is abandoning the nr.nps.org URL, and has a new "Focus" website interface that formats records as "search results" does not indicate that there is something wrong with the information provided by the NPS.

Verifiability is not about data formats, but rather is about whether or not a person can obtain the cited information in order to check it; the NRIS database information is most emphatically verifiable. --Orlady (talk

) 04:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am not the right person to try to defend those links to nr.nps.gov because I have a long record of disagreeing with certain NRHP Wikiproject members over their habit of using NRIS as the source for a lot of content. Nevertheless, I can attest that it used to be possible (at least on days when this .gov website was functioning) to use a search form on that website to verify an entry in the NRIS database. The uninitiated might have had a hard time figuring out how to get the information, but sources were (and still are) fully verifiable within the meaning of that term in Wikipedia policy.
• We know that the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website is a commercial site because it has a .com domain that is registered to American Dreams Inc. in Rockbridge, Ohio; the site sells advertising; and there's a disclaimer in the lower left corner of the home page saying "nationalregisterofhistoricalplaces.com is not affiliated in any way with the U.S. Dept. of Interior, the National Park Service, or the National Register of Historic Places." Moreover (unrelated to its commercial status), serious errors were introduced into the content of some articles (and there was some serious acrimony amongst us) when Wikipedians relied on that site for information when the search function on the official .gov website wasn't working or was cumbersome to work with. (That's a mistake not to be repeated.)
• Those links in Dudemanfellabra's example are indeed structured like search-results links, but since the search term is the property's unique identifier in the NRIS database, they are not really search results. For better or worse, this is the way that the folks who set up the website have structured the user interface. A link like this one will return the same result (exactly one record) every time.
• There are two problems with replacing NRIS references with links to PDFs of the National Register nomination forms.

1. First, as I said to Doncram a few inches above, the vast majority of nomination forms aren't online. When you click on the links on an NPS Focus page, you get a useless page like this one that says "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized." That kind of link provides no verification of anything!
2. Second, the information in most of these NRHP list-articles and infoboxes was obtained from the NRIS database entries, not from the original nomination forms. This may include transcription errors introduced in the process of entering the information into the database, and it also includes various listing codes that probably are derived from information that is somewhere on the original form but may be very difficult to find on that form. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to cite the nomination form as the source of information that actually came from the NRIS database. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy hell, a lot of talking has gone on in just the last few minutes here. To respond to several things at once (and I expect an edit conflict), here goes:

• The NPS Focus links generated by Template:NRHP Focus are completely stable. They search the database for a specific number, called a reference number, that is attached to only a single listing. At no time in the future will any other property be given this reference number, so though the format of the link appears to be a search, it is a reliable search in that it will produce the same result every single time.
• http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is not a reliable source as several have explained above in that it gets many things wrong. Acreage is the main thing I can think of, but as Doncram reveals above, properties sometimes are listed as being placed on the register in a certain year, yet in reality they are actually removed from the register then. An example, from the same result as the Threefoot Building search above is "Dixie Gas Station". This property is shown on nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com as being added to the register in 1987, but as this list article explains, it was actually listed in 1979 and removed in 1987. These errors make the website unreliable.
• Nomination forms (pdfs) are the most reliable source for any site on the NRHP, but in cases where the forms are not online, the most reliable source from this thread I can find are the Focus links.

--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A fly in the ointment?

Something to consider in this... the nomination documents are Primary sources. Primary sources can be used... but with limitations. One of those limitations is that an article should not rely solely on primary sources. I am not sure if I completely agree with that policy when it comes to something like this... but it is the policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with that. NRHP nomination documents usually contain secondary source information about the notablity of the place. They also usually contain primary source info about the condition of a given property as reported by the nomination document preparer, and also other descriptive information that may be primary and should be used with car. But usually the architectural details and condition info is not controversial. There are multiple sources available to prove a place is NRHP-listed, of which NRIS is the best probably. For most NRHP articles there are at least two relevant sources to use: the NRHP nomination document about details of the place, and NRIS about its NRHP listing status. --doncram (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doncram. The nomination forms themselves are, in essence, research reports regarding the properties, complete with reference lists and bibliographies. These are not primary sources. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A fourth issue

A fourth (and broader) issue related to the NRIS database references is that entries in this database are the sole cited source not only for lists of properties on the National Register, but also for thousands of articles about individual properties. Two random examples are Sevierville Masonic Lodge and Colony Historic District. I don't think that a terse entry in this database is a reliable basis for a freestanding article. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... that is the elephant in the room, isn't it. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Would the desired solution to this be something like that which is found at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the NRHP Focus property-specific refs in that article. Those definitely are better than a generic reference to the NRHP website. Unfortunately, though, for most listings NPS Focus has no more information than the terse database entry in NRIS. Indeed, the Focus entries do not even contain some of the details that are available in NRIS. (NPS Focus links are very informative when the property-specific information has been digitized and uploaded to the website, but that has not been done for most properties.)

Congrats on getting that list-article updated to cite NPS Focus. Was that a mammoth task, or have you found a way to automate it? --Orlady (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take long. Many of the articles on the list already have articles with infoboxes, so I just copied those over. For those that don't, I have most of them stubbed in User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox, so I copied the refnum from there. If there's a way to automate the process, though, I'm all ears haha. As to the amount of information in Focus, they give at least the listing date and location, which is basically all that shows on the list page anyway except coordinates. And those can be found from Google Maps if need be (though the NRIS database gives them). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus entries do not include several NRIS database items that are typically included in the Wikipedia infoboxes. In addition to lat-long coordinates (something that I've gone to the source to verify on several occasions), the omissions include acreages (a particular issue for historic districts), architect name(s), and the often-irrelevant "governing body" entry. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True, the NRIS database does contain more information than Focus, but the entire point of this thread is that the link to the NRIS database is not satisfactory. Usually people use Elkman's tool or some other way of accessing this database, so as you suggested above, I believe we should link to his tool instead of the generic NRIS database. Btw, at least the architect is shown (in all the ones for Lauderdale County at least).. couldn't find anything about acreage, which I agree is very useful for districts. I'll look into it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the content is from the NRIS database, the article should cite the NRIS database (not some other source). As discussed above under "Second issue", this could be done the same way that an offline book is cited (that is, cite the March 2009 version of the NRIS database, which is the source for most everything that is currently referenced to nr.nps.gov). The NPS Focus link should be provided, too, but because some of the information that is included in lists and infoboxes cannot be verified from NPS Focus, it's not a valid stand-alone source. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw, did you know it's possibly to query Elkman's database directly by adding variables to the URL? (i.e. http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php?refnum=89000169 for Beth Israel Cemetery). This could possibly be incorporated into a citation? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought. Elkman's database is not a reliable source (unfortunately), but I suppose it could be treated as being analogous to an archive. Thus, I guess an Elkman link could be incorporated into a reference that also (1) cites the NRIS database as if it were an offline publication and (2) provides a link to the NPS Focus page. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hows this as an example, again for Beth Israel Cemetery:

"This information was obtained through the National Register Information System (NRIS) database (a copy of which is available here for download) and accessed using this search interface. The specific NRIS information for this site can be found here, and a listing in the National Park Service's Focus database can be found here."

-Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

At least partial resolution is needed

I realize that we have not yet reached a full consensus on what to cite (or perhaps the issue is how to cite it)... but are we agreed that simply citing www.nr.nps.gov (the old NRIS search engine's front page) is not acceptable? This is becoming a problem at

List of Masonic Buildings, where Doncram continues to use it and continues to insist that it is reliable. Blueboar (talk

) 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I am open to some wording expansion or improvement in references to NRIS, but it is not acceptable to remove references to NRIS when NRIS is the source for information. What Blueboar refers to is my use of NRIS to support a factoid about the Crane Hill Masonic Temple which is available in NRIS but is not available in NPS Focus. My reading of this discussion here, as I assert at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, is that there is clearly no consensus against use of reference to NRIS (and which use that URL). Some wording improvement is possible, perhaps, to clarify for certain editors that NRIS's 3/13/2009 version is a specific edition of a database which, like a book, can be consulted to verify the information asserted. --doncram (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... please do not remove the header for this section again. I will consider it vandalism. To get back to the point... As I stated at the article talk page... no one is challenging the reliability of the NRIS itself... what everyone is telling you is that linking to www.nr.nps.gov is an unacceptable citation to the NRIS. What the discussions above are trying to figure out is what is an acceptable way to cite this information. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I agree that it is okay for you to have some discussion about possible wording change for the NRIS reference. However there is no consensus here that removing NRIS as a source, when NRIS is the source, is acceptable. It seems to be consensus here that the NRIS reference should continue to include a link to that URL or a similar URL where the NRIS database can be downloaded. Your repetition that "everyone" is saying something does not make it so.

About the subsection title At least partial resolution is needed i removed that to avoid fragmenting the discussion, which your edits seem aimed to do. There is no urgent need for a "partial resolution". If/when an improved reference to NRIS can be agreed upon, that can be used to refine the NRIS reference in place. However, it is absurd to suggest there is a crisis from the usage of the existing NRIS reference, and removing it would be nonsensical, causing slippage in referencing which facts are supported by what source. This is Referencing 101 basics. It is below the level of discussion that should take place on this editors' noticeboard, to be contending, if you are continuing to do so, that a source should simply be removed because you don't like its formatting in some way, when in fact it is uncontested that it is the source for information in articles. --doncram (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... you continue to engage in

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and it is at the point of being disruptive. Multiple editors have tried to explain that linking to www.nr.nps.gov is NOT an acceptable citation to the NRIS. Even when it worked, it was the front page for a search engine and did not support any information. Yes, the information is somewhere in the NRIS... but it isn't at www.nr.nps.gov. We have to find some other way to cite the information that is in the NRIS. You can add all the language you want to the citation... but as long as it links to www.nr.nps.gov the citation will continue to be flawed. Blueboar (talk

) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to force a solution, then. See the

article talk page

. There is a communication problem, and we're going to fix it. On the talk page, both sides are to present their arguments for why their sources meet RS. I invite the users here (who are familiar with RS), to assist in creating a consensus based on policy compliance once both arguments are up by dissecting said arguments. If RS is not met, obviously, the source cannot be used.

In the meantime, I've requested page protection for the article, and the disputees are not to edit the page prior to resolving this issue. Failure to assent to the conditions for resolution will invalidate the user's position, and any editing of the page by either side prior to resolution will probably lead to a block of some duration. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (note... I made an edit just before I saw this proposal and agreed. If MSJ feels that this edit is against the spirit of my agreement, he may revert it). Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I've removed the non-citation and enforced the decision of this board. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now it becomes NECESSARY

From an email earlier between the NPS and I: "That database doesn't meet our current computer security requirements, and we have just taken it down." Looks like the problem just got worse.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

Discussion of an improved reference for NRIS database-sourced info in wikipedia continues in discussions at

Fulminations and personal comments won't make the webpage comply with

WP:V, and the editor leading your mediation has also noted that my statements are correct. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the self-appointed mediator there did make a pretty blanket assertion that any/all of your statements are correct. It was a mistake, mediation-wise, for him to do that. The mediation is now stalled, with the mediator having committed to unreasonable, untenable positions, and having selected none of the proposed wordings for an NRIS reference that would have settled the debate for that one list-article. It looks like a failed mediation. --doncram (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd, everyone who explains the

WP:V policy to you is suddenly holding an "unreasonable, untenable position". Reminds me of when another editor, above, said it was as "untenable and unrealistic" as it was to expect people to do things like cite actual page numbers from books. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK... given the statement from the NPS noted above, and the fact that the NPS has shut down their old www.nr.nps.gov website, I think my initial question has been settled... the www.nr.nps.gov website is not reliable, and must be replaced Wikipedia wide.

We seem to have moved on to a more fundamental question... whether WP:V and WP:RS allow us to cite the NRIS database that this website once accessed. We seem to disagree on this issue... Some of us think the NRIS database is reliable ... some of us think it is not. What has been missing in this discussion are policy/guidleine based arguments for and against. So... in the sections below, please outline what Policy/guideline provisions either allow or do not allow the NRIS database. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're asking the wrong question. There's no question that the NRIS database satisfies

WP:V. That is, the NRIS and its database are a reliable source regarding properties on the NRHP, but it's not available in a form that can be properly cited for the purposes of verification. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are not doubting that NRIS is a reliable source, Jayjg. Your view on that matter has not been made clear previously. As for verifiability, NRIS content is fully verifiable. A lot of the content is accessible on the National Park Service's current "NPS Focus" website -- go to the advanced search page and enter the unique record identifier for a National Register listing action, and you can get a lot of the NRIS record information for the listed property. It's also possible to check groups of records by entering the name of a property, geographic location, property type, and other attributes. Some record information from NRIS is not readily obtainable from that website, but there are lots of copies of the database in circulation -- finding a copy is likely to be easier than finding a library that has a copy of a particular out-of-print book that is cited as a source in a Wikipedia article. User:Elkman has made a copy of the NRIS database available online for the benefit of Wikipedia contributors, and those of us who have checked it by comparing Elkman's data to our own copies of the NRIS data are satisfied that he has an accurate copy and that his web interface parses the information correctly. Eventually, it is to be hoped that the National Park Service will have a fully functional website. In the meantime, if a user can't find a copy of NRIS and doesn't trust Elkman's version of NRIS, I'm sure that they could verify that the information in an article came from NRIS by sending an e-mail query to the National Park Service. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which reliable, accessible sources host copies of the NRIS database? Has it been published in book form and is now held in public libraries? So I can use a citation like "NRIS printed database, Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 334", and we can all go to the nearest library, get out the book, and read the material on that page? Saying "I've got a copy from March 1, 2010 on my computer" really doesn't comply with

WP:V, unless you're willing to let everyone who reads Wikipedia go over to your place and peruse the contents of your hard drive. And, frankly, not even then. As for Elkman's copy, that's self-published, so it obviously also doesn't comply. By the way, is Elkman his first name or last name? Or is it his only name? I assume it's not yet another anonymous Wikipedia pseudonym, because that would pretty much throw any verifiability right out the door. Also, when did personal correspondence become reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk)

04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the summary? Summary of what? Given the section title, I'd think there'd be a summary of a debate, but if it is about a debate somewhere else, i suggest you try to summarize, within that debate, what has been said. If this refers to discussions at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I would think a proposed summary should be proposed there.

I am pretty tired of Blueboar opening up new, duplicative discussion sections. There are 60 or more discussion sections so far opened by Blueboar now on this topic. --doncram (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to "Also, when did personal correspondence become reliable sources?" I am not suggesting that personal correspondence with NPS staff is a reliable source. The subject here, if I remember correctly, can be distilled as "How could a user verify that information in Wikipedia came from NRIS, now that the National Park Service no longer offers convenient online electronic access to some NRIS information?" My answer was (and is) "I'm sure that they could verify that the information in an article came from NRIS by sending an e-mail query to the National Park Service" -- that's very much like phoning a far-away library to ask a reference librarian to look up a piece of information in a book that happens to be in that library's collection. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But that kind of "verification" isn't relevant to

WP:V. "Personal correspondence with NPS staff, July 28, 2010" may be the kind of thing one sometimes finds in footnotes of books, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia only accepts information that has been published. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is the National Register Information System (NRIS), an electronic compendium that was published by the National Park Service in the form of an electronic download, with the last version released on March 13, 2009. That particular version was available for free download for over a year, and plenty of people have copies of it. (Earlier versions were available before March 2009. They were not different in their content, they just didn't include as many records.) NRIS is not currently available for download from the publisher -- much like an "out of print" books that is no longer available from its publisher. As far as I know, all we are talking about here is what a skeptical reader of Wikipedia would need to do to obtain a copy of this out-of-print resource, or otherwise verify that a particular factoid in Wikipedia was truly from that source. You seem to be saying that if electronic information is not currently obtainable from the website of its publisher, it must be expunged from Wikipedia (or at least flagged as unreliable). Others of us think you are being ridiculous. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When someone publishes something, the source becomes them. In this case, anonymous Wikipedia editor

WP:V is still policy. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether the casual observer would have any clue that the Wikipedia content whose sourcing has aroused such vigorous concern on Jayjg's part consists of statements like "The Old Macon County Courthouse, including its 1.5-acre grounds, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 1, 2001." (This isn't exactly controversial stuff.) Additionally, I wonder if anyone who is riled up about the consequences of the change in the structure of the NPS website has become equally disturbed about the fact that pages like Oklahoma Historical Society FAQs About the National Register of Historic Places and "What properties in North Dakota are listed in the National Register of Historic Places?" (by the State Historical Society of North Dakota) provide detailed information on NRIS and link to the now-disabled NPS website, or that the state of Florida relied on NRIS data in constructing a state GIS system, or that this academic journal article cited it. (I can find plenty of other examples of respectable entities unrelated to Wikipedia that have relied on this resource.) --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These sources aren't Wikipedia, and they don't have our content policies. They're allowed to violate

WP:NOR, because those are our policies, not theirs. That is why, as I've explained, you'll find reliable sources that have footnotes saying things like "Personal correspondence" etc. Our policies, however, do not allow these as citations. We can only cite information that's already been published in a reliable source. If you want to change Wikipedia's content policies to match those of various other websites, this is not the place for it. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just making up s*** now, Jayjg. You're projecting that a journal named Economic Development Quarterly permits unverifiable references, POV sources, etc., based on nothing. You're just dismissing information and arguments out-of-hand. If it ever was a serious debate among editors expressing good faith opinions, it is no longer. --doncram (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another NRHP issue

Is http://www2.elkman.net/ a reliable source under our rules. This has an impact on whether we can use http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/whohas.php (known at the NRHP Project as the "Elkman Interface") to access the data from the NRIS database. Personal websites are not normally considered reliable, but is this an exception? Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source of the information that is being cited in these cases is not elkman.net or nr.nps.gov, nor any other URL or domain name. The source is the National Register Information System (March 13, 2009 version), which is a large, formatted, collection of records that was published in electronic form by the U.S. National Park Service.

NRIS formerly was available for free download from a website owned and operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS also had a search interface on its website that allowed users to extract a fair amount of information from NRIS. The NPS is in the middle of a slow and not-very-functional restructuring of its website (since this is government, it is likely that this situation is largely due to hiring a new low-bid contractor to manage their web content). The website currently does not make NRIS available for download, and the current search interface on the website doesn't provide some information in a particularly good format (but the search interface does work). However, a lot of us still have copies of the downloaded NRIS information. The NPS probably would supply a copy to you today if there was a way that you could supply a blank CD-ROM and they could copy it onto your CD-ROM without violating federal cybersecurity rules, but between the cybersecurity rules, the low-bid contractor, and federal budget limitations, they can't do that right now. The website problems and federal cybersecurity rules have not invalidated the information in NRIS, nor have they made it unavailable, they have merely made it somewhat harder to obtain.

Fortunately, at least one commercial website has a copy of NRIS that is accessible via a reasonably well-functioning (but flawed) online interface, AND a Wikipedian (Elkman) has a copy that is accessible via a well-functioning online interface. Elkman's website is not a source (the source is NRIS -- the National Register Information System), but Elkman's website is an unofficial archive that people can check to verify that a particular information item is in NRIS.

I'm getting rather tired of these allegations that the National Park Service is not a reliable source because they have a dysfunctional website. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The National Park Service is a reliable source. Elkman isn't the National Park Service, and the National Park Service doesn't run or oversee his website. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

wp:SPS, it's short. NRIS is a reliable source, which Jayjg has conceded elsewhere. --doncram (talk

) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course

WP:RS/N sees and rejects every year. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the publisher is the NPS, Elkman's copy is analogous to a convenience copy of the data. David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know it's an exact copy of the NPS's database? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• David Underdown has it right. Having an explicit link to Elkman's site was discussed at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, but only because Blueboar wanted it and/or a possible link was proposed towards satisfying Blueboar's concerns, in discussion at that one list-article. Elkman's site is not linked from Wikipedia mainspace articles anywhere. Seems linking it or not should be discussed there. Also, this is not "another NRHP issue", it is Blueboar opening yet another discussion section, fragmenting and duplicating discussion elsewhere for no good reason. Discussion section count: about 60 and climbing. --doncram (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question... does the Elkman interface give us all the information contained in the NRIS database... or only selected portions of it? Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And as for the number of threads I have opened relating to sourcing in NRHP articles... what do you expect... When editors repeatedly use the same flawed "cut and paste" citation in hundreds of articles, of course it will take a lot of discussion and threads to sort out the problem. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Elkman interface provides a couple of different types of standard query results. I don't think that any one query result provides all of the information that NRIS has about a particular National Register entry or property. However, in essentially all of the instances where Wikipedia cites "NRIS" with the URL nr.nps.gov, the information supported by the citation was based on elements that can be found in Elkman's standard queries. (I say "essentially all" only because I believe there are some instances in which information was obtained from some other source, but an active NRHP Wikiproject member visited the article and officiously inserted "NRIS" in place of the source initially cited.) --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Elkman's site is not not a copy of the NRIS database... it compiles information from that database. The information it compiles may well be accurate, but it can not be considered a convenience copy.

Frankly, I am not sure if we have dealt with a situation like this before. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of how relational databases work, and what a database query is. Now it is possible for a badly formed query to return unrelated data, but from everyhting I've seen here I don't think taht fundametnally alters my previous assessment of this as a convenience copy. David Underdown (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of how

WP:SPS, regardless of whether or not various other anonymous Wikipedia editors think its contents are an accurate and faithful reproduction of the NRIS database. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think David Underdown's analysis is correct. Elkman has a valid copy of the original database. Because this is a relational database (and not, for example, a large table in ASCII format), the database file is in a format that isn't directly readable -- a user needs to have an appropriate software interface to read the records contained in it. The NPS website used to have an online interface for extracting and reading selected records from the database, but that web interface often wasn't available, and they've taken that interface down. I have been able to read the file on my own computer using Microsoft Office Access (after running some sort of conversion program to transform the data into a format that Access could read); other Wikipedians have also obtained and used their own copies. Elkman has created an online interface that extracts records from the original database. The new NPS Focus website now has a different online interface (and I think it's likely that the database itself has been converted into a newer data format). The NPS Focus interface works a lot more smoothly than the old interface did, although it isn't programmed to display some of the information items that Wikipedians have previously obtained from NRIS and included in articles. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know "Elkman has a valid copy of the original database"? Are there reliable sources that vouch for its accuracy? Does it have any editorial oversight? This is yet another astonishing and rather ridiculous attempt to accept an anonymous

WP:V is still in force on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia contributors have compared information extracted from Elkman's copy of NRIS, using his online interface, with information that we extracted ourselves from our own copies of the database (downloaded from the NPS) or that we obtained from the NRIS interface that was formerly maintained by NPS. We have found no discrepancies, so we have concluded that it is a valid copy and this his interface works correctly. Elkman's website is not the source of the information, it is merely a place where the electronic information is stored and where there is a free software interface that can be used to display contents.

In contrast with Elkman, there have been serious errors in information obtained from http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com because that website's interface does not correctly interpret some of the database fields in NRIS. The fact that it is a commercial website that has no connection to the publisher of the data is just one of several reasons why it is not a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does

the publisher.Jayjg ^(talk)

02:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The data was originally reliably published by the National Park Service - the very people with the legal authority to decide what is or is not on the NRHP. Then, as I understand it, database dumps were made available for the public to download. Elkman, along with other members of the NRHP project, obtained the data in this way and has constructed a front end which allows certain queries to be run against this original data, as published by the NPS service. Such copies are effecively convenience copies (especially now the original in no longer readily avaialable). Now, I would certainly prefer that the original were still available (at least in dump form), I did wonder if data.gov would have it, the closest I can find is [27] and I'm not actually familiar enough with the specifics to be clear if this is precisely the same thing.

As to the idea that information published in database form is not relaible because it's "dynamic", WTF!! Yes data can be changed, but so can a webpage (and in fact an awful lot of websites are based on

php and mySQL to generate web pages on the fly) but a give query will repeatably return the same data (so the results obtained by one person can be verified by another), if this weren't the case databases would be no practical use to anyone at all. David Underdown (talk

) 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Convenience copies are only of value if the sites they are found on have some degree of reliability, particularly that the contents are unchanged. This board regularly rejects

WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)