Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Numbers (website) (2nd nomination). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you for pointing that out. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's good for box office numbers.[8] I haven't seen anything to say it's reliable for other stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is even good for box office numbers. Those news links do not yield any helpful information about the website's editorial review or standards for research and/or how it even confirms these purported numbers. Certainly we are in agreement as of yet that the site does not have reliability as far as its commentary or analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that other RSs citing their info is one way to establish reliability, and for raw numbers, they seem to be cited quite a bit. I didn't see enough non-trivial sources to establish notability, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to use Box Office Mojo, and I have not really scrutinized The Numbers in the past. This is what I found, though. First, Bruce Nash and The Numbers is referenced on the Wall Street Journal website several times, with this explaining the The Numbers operator after an article about Box Office Mojo: "Bruce Nash, a Los Angeles software designer who spends up to four hours a day updating site with help from two contract assistants." This from The Times apparently considers The Numbers "Hollywood researchers" and quotes Nash a few times in the article. This from MovieMaker says, "Bruce Nash runs The Numbers Website (www.the-numbers.com), which serves up a comprehensive breakdown of weekly, monthly and yearly box office totals. Box office totals for new and old titles are archived all the way back to the heyday of three-strip Technicolor. Nash says that tracking the blockbusters is more science than art these days, with all the focus centered on a movie’s opening weekend." He's then quoted multiple times in that article. On its own, I do not think that The Numbers is that poor of a source. It is worth comparing to Box Office Mojo, though, which I think is more prominent and better staffed.

For comparison's sake, let's compare the websites on some films in the past few years.

• For Batman Begins,

• Box Office Mojo reports $205,343,774 domestic and $167,366,241 foreign
• The Numbers reports $205,343,774 domestic and $167,009,243 foreign

• For The Dark Knight,

• Box Office Mojo reports $533,345,358 domestic and $468,576,467 foreign
• The Numbers reports $533,345,358 domestic and $489,000,000 foreign

Suspecting The Numbers's weakness with foreign numbers, I checked:

• For Pan's Labyrinth,

• Box Office Mojo reports $37,634,615 domestic and $45,623,611 foreign
• The Numbers reports $37,634,615 domestic and $45,600,000 foreign

• Yet another, La Vie en Rose,

• Box Office Mojo reports $10,301,706 domestic and $75,973,087 foreign
• The Numbers reports $10,299,782 domestic and $73,200,000 foreign

With this admittedly small sample, it may be worth assuming that The-Numbers and Box Office Mojo are pretty close when it comes to domestic (United States and Canada) figures. Considering Box Office Mojo's prominence, it may be better staffed than The-Numbers and be able to report overseas grosses more accurately. Its prominence is reflected in a search engine test (in Google News Archive Search) where mention of Box Office Mojo is easily in the thousands, where The Numbers barely reaches 100 with the various keywords I tried. So for Knight and Day, I would recommend Box Office Mojo as a reference instead but still caution that international (outside the United States and Canada) figures for both websites will tend to be estimates until the film's entire theatrical run is complete. In addition, I think The Numbers has a potentially useful difference from Box Office Mojo in having DVD sales figures, where the latter just has DVD rental rankings. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never had any problem with then being used for box office numbers, although as Erik points out there are some small discrepencies which are warning signs we should heed. All things equal Box Office Mojo seems to be more accepted as a reliable source so perhaps should be the default choice in this respect. Just this week I had to correct a budget sourced through The Numbers. The Numbers actually provided sources for this budget, but its own figure didn't match them! It was either entered incorrectly, or updated since without the sources being revised. I've added a lot of budget information and frequently found their figures at odds with those in The New York Times or Variety or whatever. Personally I find it incorrect too often to put complete faith in it, and always feel happy if I find another source to corroborate its information, but that's self-defeating because I don't need The Numbers source then. A useful resource and probably would serve Wikipedia better in the form of an external link. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erik's and Cirt's points. In my opinion, we should stick with Box Office Mojo whenever we have conflicting data between the two. I would guess that 99% of secondary sources that I have come across cite Box Office Mojo anyway in that regard. If we do decide to drop The-Numbers, we need to reflect that on MOS:FILM because currently it permits editors to use either at their discretion. My main gripe would be that on some articles, I have noticed editors referencing both next to the revenue and simply taking the highest number between the two as the final count. I do not readily agree with this approach due to obvious reasons. DrNegative (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd stick with Box Office Mojo for the main box office figures, but encourage the use of The Numbers for DVD sales information (at least until BOM adds detailed home media sales/rentals). It's helpful to have multiple sources to cover the box office information, and although we predominately use BOM, Numbers appears reliable for supplementing information BOM does not cover. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am having issues with other Deleting (vandalising) my Edits , I think I have followed all Wiki rules.
• I used the same sources and website used in another Wiki Article link there were no issues on this wiki page Using the same sources and format!
• The Edits in Question link thank you!!
• Also how does one attract more people for a Census ? Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be suspicious of the source. It looks like SPS. Try looking thru this lot http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:a&tbo=p&q=black+slave+owners+in+the+USA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• thank you SLater - However please take notice I used the same source and Website and format as another above mention wiki page -

Can we only Use Google Book Review / Sales ,the website I use is a book Review ????? --Kimmy (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is Robert M. Grooms by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sean Grooms is an Author on Civil war and Slavery -

Is this a better source link --Kimmy (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What we would need is the origianl magazine articel. Also your new source clarly akes this material form your old source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant who is he as in what are his qualifications, is he an academic etc. The

Barnes Review seems to publish some pretty controversial material having looked at some of the issues in which Grooms work has been published. I would be surprised if they were regarded as an RS. A reprint at seanbryson.com doesn't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk

18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Slater that is because the source I listed is the original "Book Review" form Robert M. Grooms - The same Review is used In another Wiki page exactly how I used it link .

• Robert M. Grooms is a Author and journalist that writes for the THE BARNES REVIEW . does controversial material Excludes anything ?
• In any case I have read the books he uses for his Article should I just Omit his comment and use the Foot notes and the facts from the books ?  ? -
• Applying this standard does this same make this Wiki page incorrectly sourced link this wiki page uses the exact same website and source ? thank you --Kimmy (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see

questionable sources category. Sean.hoyland - talk

18:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is hard as the truth is hardly main steam thinking in this case - - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read

WP:RS ? Sean.hoyland - talk

19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is Strange how "Daivd Duke" pops up on Google with Grooms - You are correct "Grooms" is A ghost ? I did read the books he list though - They are good works - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kimmy, I am finding some of your comments difficult to make sense of, but I think your statement "It is Strange how Daivd Duke pops up on Google with Grooms" tells me what I need to know. Grooms appears to be a person without established notability whose work has been published, as far as we know, only in a far-right magazine dedicated to historical revisionism and on some personal websites which appear to be far-right and/or white supremacist in nature. In short, the work does not appear to come from a publisher "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by

WP:RS, so it is not reliable an cannot be used. --FormerIP (talk

) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time - Great detective work - Grooms, uses good Literary works to Justify his Article - Got you - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Barnes_Review Grooms does write for them ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Review

"Barnes_Review, Willis Allison Carto (July 17, 1926) is a longtime figure on the American far right. He describes himself as Jeffersonian and populist, but is primarily known for his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial

--Kimmy (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Grooms does appear to have written for them, yes. There is a scan of one of his articles I found on a neo-nazi site, but I am not going to link to it. What is more, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of him being published other than by this magazine, at least not under the same name. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Barnes Review - sourcewatch link --Kimmy (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, so I guess we're done here, then. --FormerIP (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes Sir! thank you!
• Except the ,Wiki page, I list that uses him for a source And how many others wiki pages use him ? *Thank you
• Now I have to start all over on my school paper - --Kimmy (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been editing the article

I don't think it's reliable; it's a

self published website that's not affiliated with any official organization or anything. I wouldn't use it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It falls far short of being a reliable source - it's self-published, no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy from third party sources, etc. First Light (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well someone needs to inform User:Ryulong that Rangers Central that its an unreliable source because this won't be resolved any other way. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just looked up the edits in question. The problem there was under external links, not reliable sources. The site shouldn't be used as a reliable source, and it probably shouldn't be linked to in the EL per

WP:ELNO #11 - "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe Rangers Central is a website published by any recognized "authority." So surely it should be removed. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I was blocked for the entirety of this discussion and could not weigh in at all, I would like to point out that in the case of Power Rangers, as well as many other children's television shows which are notable in their own right, there will not be many non-trivial mentions in reliable third-party sources. As such, the only thing that editors of these articles have to get their information from is either directly reporting what happens in the show itself, or relying on self-published fan-created websites. As no one is going to be writing on the unaired pilots of Day of the Dumpster other than the fans, we should use their knowledge, even if it is below Wikipedia's standards of quality.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that

WP:IAR to fall back on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, the fansite was being used as source or at least an external link to show that one of two unaired pilots existed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still not a reliable source so the information can't be in the article as it cannot be

verified. Jezhotwells (talk

) 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a question that came up in a discussion on the NOR noticeboard in regard to use of a video from Youtube, specifically one, which is linked from an article from the Guardian. We're still wrestling with the OR issues, but at this point it seems to me worth asking for clarification as to whether the youtube video can be considered a reliable source. Editor Nazar has argued that the video is "used together with the Guardian article and is a constituent part of it, which makes it a special case". My view is that the video is of unknown origin (it appears to be footage from more than one source which has been subtitled in two different language and shown on news or discussion TV show, which has then been further edited prior to the upload to youtube) and should not be used. The article is a BLP, and it seems to me there may be copyvio issues as well. Any guidance would be appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is RS; the youtube video is not. As per multiple policies, guidelines and the consensus of many discussions of this topic. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. --

talk

) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is RS. The Youtube video might be allowable as a primary source because the Guardian article essentially quoted it for the story, but it would be up for debate whether any facts should be cited from the video or whether it would essentially be used as an external link embedded in the text.

As far as copyright issues, if these are short clips and snapshots, that should be fine under fair use ( remember, fair use under US copyright law, not the fair use policy for uploading binaries to Wikipedia ). If it's an entire news segment then that wouldn't be fair use and we shouldn't link to it unless it was uploaded by the TV station.

If there's concerns about original synthesis, it is OK to say "source A says X" and "source B says Y". But you have to word things very carefully if comparing/contrasting sources. There shouldn't be any deduced facts that don't appear in the cited sources, and the wording shouldn't promote a particular thesis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do take a look at the video. It's 7:41 long. I do not think it was uploaded by the TV station--rather, it appears to be a copy of a TV segment that has been edited and uploaded by the author of the piece in the Guardian. It is unclear as to who the sources are--we don't know, for example, who put in the polish subtitles in the one set of clips. I'm leaving the OR issues aside here, since that's already in discussion on the other notice board. Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, a youtube video is very rarely (never?) a reliable source, but usually it is necessary to know what statement is being verified in order to judge whether the source is adequate. The background is that Prahlad Jani claims that he has lived for 70 years without eating or drinking, and someone wrote an article in the Guardian to contradict claims by supporters of Jani. One of the statements in the article is "an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view...". An editor has performed an analysis of the youtube video to show what are claimed to be flaws in the Guardian article. The question is: is the video a reliable source for use as in this edit. The answer is no. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct I think. The Guardian article is an RS, but the YouTube video is not. --FormerIP (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank

WP:OR into the article in this process. From my point of view, there is sufficient information in the subtitles of the video in question to provide for the neutral exposure of the above issues. I'm sorry if my attempts were not perfect enough. And I'd appreciate if someone with more experience stepped in and amended the article to make the readers aware of the facts, which would help them judge the Guardian article summary included into the Wikipedia more knowledgeably and neutrally. I remind once more that the video in question is used in connection with that article and is claimed by the author to be his main argument, which supposedly reveals the facts he claims. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk

) 18:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Guardian article closely, the author does not claim the video is form 2010--he lists some possible loopholes, and then says "While the test was running, I exposed some of those loopholes in a live programme on India TV: an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view; he was allowed to receive devotees and could even leave the sealed test room for a sun bath; his regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored and so on." But I don't think that's really important for this discussion. My feeling is simply that there is too much uncertainty about the origins of the various component parts of the video to allow it to be considered reliable. As a far as I can see it cannot be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"there is too much uncertainty about the origins of the various component parts of the video" - agree. Still, the whole Guardian article is written in such way as to make the readers believe that there is an undeniable evidence in the video which reveals deception during 2010 tests. Also, in the video itself, there is an inserted blue screen with English headings (likely the result of Edamaruku's editing) before the episodes of supposed 'obstruction by devotees', which falsely claims them to be related to 2010 tests. It just pains me to see that a conman like that can mislead so many people, and we have to repeat his misleading claims here in Wikipedia, misleading the readers in the same way. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazar, with all due respect, you have a right to your opinions and your interpretations, but they are not suitable for inclusion in an article. We should stick to reporting what reliable sources say, and it is not our place to protect people from what we believe are misleading claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Do you think that using a con to discredit an exceptional claim is an acceptable option? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are used in a number of articles as reliable sources, most frequently on articles about YouTube personalities and producers -

WP:NEWSBLOG, so what Edamaruku says there can be used in the article - though used with appropriate care, as this is a BLP, and that is an opinion piece - so the use in the article should make clear that it is the opinion of an individual writing in the Guardian, and not passed off as fact. SilkTork *^YES!

15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork *^YES!! Your comment was very neutral and elucidative at the same time. I've learned something. -- Nazar (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See for instance [10] which is used as a source for

• Looks like a SPS and as far as I can tell, Kurtus is not a recognised expert. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a reliable source. For one all the information is factual, for two it's written professionally for educational purposes and has wide recognition. The website lists 90 books from several topics which cites the site as a reference, including ones published by NASA, and won several awards, including ones from the National Science Teachers Association. That the site's
  books
  } 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Some of those mentions don't actually endorse it. Also, you are saying that Ron Kurtus is a reliable source for articles on mental health, physics, sports, animal health, writing, religion, personal finance, cookware, the list goes on and on. Sorry, but no matter how well he publicises himself, I don't agree.
    talk
    ) 07:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • As much as any other educational website is.
      books
      } 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like nothing more than some internet joker with a good PR strategy. What are his academic/professional credentials in each of these subjects? Sounds dubious. I'd say to go for more notable and accredited experts in each of these fields wherever possible. If Kurtus is the only source for a claim, I'd say it's probably either
  WP:FRINGE. If he is not the only source, I'd say to pick a more reliable source, and toss Kurtus. -- Jrtayloriv (talk
  )

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "⁴He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate ⁴He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (

Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me

  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

HELLO? Only one editor above has indicated that the newly published Hagelstein paper can be used as a secondary source, for allowing certain primary sources to be used in the cold fusion article. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, that is not enough, by far! V (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any ⁴He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.

I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.

In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of

WP:V

, etc.

I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear ladies, dear Sirs,

I have been blocked in the Ten Commandments article because my analysis of the 2nd Commmandment did not appear authorized enough with a pubication by Salem-News (Oregon internet press), another by the Editor of the British medical journal as an e-letter, and, eventually, a lecture given in the University of Keele (RU). I'm coming back with the support of one of the greatest modern scholars of the Bible: Professor Thomas Römer (Chair Biblical circles of the Collège de France, the highest academic French institution) who wrote me (http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/File:R%C3%B6mer.jpg):

"..., you are right asserting that Gn 17 presents another vision of circumcision than Gn 15 or the Deuteronomy. The "lay" writers were apparently less interested by this practice, and even opposed to it. The expression "circumcision of the heart" could even contain a polemic stand against "circumcision of the flesh."

Will this be enough to support my thesis inside the article Ten Commandments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.136.139 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Personal letters and e-mails are generally not acceptable as sources. See the

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor Römer may be willing to provide you with relevant scholarly published literature on the issue if you ask him again nicely. Then the significance of your views can be verified. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have understood correctly, but this may be an RS for the same information (pp 138-9): [13] --FormerIP (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is http://www.green-life-innovators.org/tiki-index.php?page=SunAlign+Qbasic+version an adequate source for the QBasic program recently added to Equation of time? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• First, have you considered other alternatives, like writing readable pseudocode ... or omitting code altogether? BASIC gems like extracting pi through a call to atan(1) don't really help the reader.
• Second, from my POV the two things that must be cited are: start-of-year constants inside the code, and the claim of "It is quite accurate. The root-mean-square error for the Equation of Time is only about 3.5 seconds." outside of the code. The latter, of course, presumes independent RS analyzing actual implementation of this specific piece of code (which depends on float number format used, implementation of trigo functions etc. - float calc is not portable). None of the above in your link. East of Borschov 21:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that code really belongs in the page altogether. Why is the formula in Mathematical details insufficient? Seems to me that it's just giving

too much weight to someone's code, and that it doesn't belong. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit to Nicole Alexander which says that she is engaged to Shaquille O'Neal, sourced to [14]. On face value, it seems to be a reliable source, but it's a gossip blog, and the source itself is just reporting rumors. Was I correct in doing so? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. It's looks like there are better sources, although nothing definitive yet.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This might be a better question for

WP:BLPN, but a quick search of reliable sources fails to substantiate these rumors, so yes, I think that you did the right thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 01:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there are reports concerning Hitler's DNA, which assert thsat he had Jewish ancestry. This has been a popular claim since the 30s, but now journalists are making sensational assertions based on haplogroups supposed to be found lurking in the depths of the nasty Nazi's body - or rather of his relatives, since Hitler's DNA is reconstructed from relatives. Journalists play up the Jewish and North African ancestry claims. What reliable information can we derive from these reports? One editor wants to add this material with the claims of the journalists, others think it should be wholly excluded. (see Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_DNA).

• ynetnews
• Haaretz Service
• Dail Mail

The article in question is Adolf Hitler.

Paul B (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If DNA tests have been undertaken then why are they reporting their findings in a magazine and not in a scientific journal? Personally I'd say that scientific findings are suspect if they not peer reviewed. If thee findings work their way into the mainstream press then they are being reliably reported, but perhaps are not notable findings because they lack scientific validity. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article begins with "Belgian researchers say they have proof ....." We cant use sources that dont cite reliable sources themselves....Therefore i dont question YNET NEWS but the author of the article on it..... we should be careful adding highly controversial content such as this, Yo. Jrod2 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for leaving this question incomplete for several minutes. My computer froze up. Paul B (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that only peer-reviewed, scientific journals are reliable sources. Indeed,

WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait a bit to see how this all plays out before including it in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 12:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there are some possibly (maybe I'm wrong here) disturbing comments on the Adolph Hitler article talk page that this is "anti-Nazi propaganda" and insinuations about the trustworthiness of "Jewish media". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

i'm afraid it's brought the neo-Nazis out, to defend the racial purity of their fuhrer. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to wait. I don't see any reason why this would fail notability., butthe fact its not in a science journel does raise concearns that the research has not yet benreviewd.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove everything on this page which is sourced directly to a LaRouchie, rather than to a WP:RS about the LaRouchies. Thoughts? BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It's an appropriate use of a primary/self-published source in an article about itself. That's a very contentious article, and believe me any use of primary sources there will have been vetted many times over. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The

verifiability

policy reads

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The article definitely violates (2), (3), and (5) even if it doesn't fall foul of the other two rules. One (reliable) article source actually points out that LaRouche's public statements don't coincide with his real views. I think that

WP:Balance

of the article gives the impression that the movement's public statements are a good guide to its nature.

I tell you what: when I get round to it, I will rewrite the article in full, perhaps in my userspace. If the consensus of non-sockpuppet editors is against my version, then I'll take it down. BillMasen (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for a death? It appears to be an official personal one and is already linked from the article http://graal.co.uk/index.html article is

I would say this is okay, since is is a self-published source used for information about its author. It might be argued that Gardner couldn't possibly have posted his own death notice, but I would say that this is a complication we can safely ignore, because there doesn't seem to be any reason to question the reliability of the site. I think the death of an article subject is somewhere where it is common sense for WP not to be over-strict in its application of the RS policy. Hypothetically, if no source other than this website ever reports his death, are we to pretend forever that he is still alive? --FormerIP (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I did also do an archive search on the site and it has been in existence for a few years and it clearly is official in some close associated way, so sadly I have added it, thanks. (ec) Yes I have seen this can be a problem when people who are not very mainstream notable pass on and the sources reporting can be not mainstream and weak, I feel this one to be correct, thank you.

Off2riorob (talk

) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are secondary sources available. Here is one [17]. Jrod2 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. Especially for death notices! Death notices have to be treated with extra care and have to come from especially reliable sources. If the death is legit, it will be picked up elsewhere. Even if the other source cites a personal website/blog, it is incumbent upon us to wait until other sources announce the death notice. I'm not familiar with unknowncountry.com, but unless it is truly a RS, I would be reluctant to accept it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AFIK there is absolutely *nada* on our guidelines that clearly says that a confirmed primary source can NOT be used as reliable source to verify the death of the article's subject. If anything, logic says they can be just as reliable. Example, *unreliable* news source or news blog *X* announces the death of a subject from a long illness with cancer while a very recent article on the subject's personal site reveals that he has gone on remission and is expected to survive. The primary source confirms that the information coming from X is a hoax. Assuming the subject's personal site was not hacked, we can't assume that reliable secondary sources such as Rolling Stone magazine, etc will pick up the death notice of a person, right away.

WP:FAME. This means that a combination of primary and secondary sources should b enuff . Jrod2 (talk

) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone succeeded in hacking an individual's web site, one of the first bits of mischief that might occur to the hacker would be to post a false death notice. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why a primary, secondary sources combo will fit the criteria. But not using the subject's personal site at all seems ridiculous to me. Jrod2 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And the notion that someone could self-publish their own death notice does not seem ridiculous to you? Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

nope, not if a secondary source corroborates it. Ya assume only the owner has access to his own site...what bout his web designer or the webmaster, ha??. Jrod2 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just a simple and undeniable fact that you can't self-publish something after you're dead. If someone else publishes it, it's not self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What does that got to do with all this??....if ya dont like the wording at the guideline, change it, aight? i.e. "if subject is really dead, then his personal web sites are dead too and cant be used for s**t".... :)Jrod2 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the guideline is fine. It is your interpretation that is off. Dlabtot (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the wording is fine then what's your point?? Jrod2 (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is what I've previously articulated. That dead people can't publish their own death notices. Therefore a death notice can never be self-published and therefore would have to meet all the regular RS requirements. I have no interest in engaging in a

pointless dispute with you about whether dead people can publish things. Dlabtot (talk

) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason self published sources are not considered reliable is that there is no editorial oversight and an individual could publish anything. You're arguing that because the owner of the web site is dead, they cannot be the one publishing this. True enought, but what that also means is that we have no idea who is publishing the data. The data is self-published, it's just we don't know at this point who that self is, thus the source cannot be considered reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop clogging n' making your own interpretations of guidelines with a non NPV....if ya found wording that states primary sources cant be used to corroborate the death of the author, just cite it. Jrod2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that we don't have a policy that explicitly states that sources that are self-published by dead people are unacceptable. So in that sense, you are right. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I dont mind having long discussions bout guidelines ad nauseum with u. I kinda like ya ;) But me thinks the problem here is defining the word primary "sel-published" source. Should it change its definition of being primary SP source when the author dies?? Maybe, but if someone else is now publishing on there, then the source only becomes a secondary source...now whether is reliable and meets

WP:RS or not, thats why we here for. Jrod2 (talk

) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, this GL is so confusing to so many editors, i better take it to the VP....

WP:RS. This keeps going round n' round in circles, Yo. Jrod2 (talk

) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really in circles, it's really very straightforward. It's a personal website, and we could take the owner of the website as an expert on themselves, although if we do so, we have to be very careful because it falls into BLP. But in this case the web site says the owner of the web site is dead. If we take it as not true, it's de facto unreliable. But if we take it as true, it's not a BLP, but the author of the obit is not the owner of the website, and the obit is thus self published material without any oversight, from an unknown author, and thus we cannot assume the author is an expert and the material is de jure not reliable. Seems simple enough to me. Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the stuff above again, your opinions are welcome, but they are just your opinions n' your own interpretation of guidelines. We all are the consensus and if most users feel the site can be used then it's used....if not, then not...it's not complicated. This noticeboard operates with consensus not vote, JIC so you don't misrepresent what im saying...U can post on and on n' until the cows come home what you think our guidelines say, but until the wording of that GL is spelled out, theres still nothing that says SPS primary sources are not acceptable to verify the death of an author. Peace out . Jrod2 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrod2, you are not only wrong, your position is entirely preposterous. And completely unsupported by any common sense reading of our policies and guidelines or any current or prior consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya can say that if it makes ya feel smart but it doesnt change the fact that theres nothing written to support what you're saying [*largely not accepted* dont mean *not accepted*].... if they intended it to be absolutely not acceptable, then they wouldnt have used the word *largely*. Then theres the next guideline both of ya conveniently skip in this discussion :) Dont get personal like that again or ya'll know where it all ends up..;) Jrod2 (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Dont get personal like that again or ya'll know where it all ends up" - there is nothing personal in what I said. Your argument is ludicrous and absurd, but that is not a personal comment about you. Dlabtot (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." Jrod2, are you arguing that Laurence Gardner posted a note to his own website from beyond the grave? And if not, what do you think think the definition of self-published is? Nuujinn (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup Dlabtot, u make perfect sense...no question ya are playing with our board rules in good faith n' respectful manner ...LOL......And you Nuujinn, cant help ya understand that there ain't GLs that say ya can't use SPS as sources to verify death of subject. Thats why I kept saying that a primary-secondary source combo should be enuff. Jrod2 (talk)

First, the specific point is moot; The Independent has reported on Gardner's death.[18] In general, though, I would side with Jrod2 here. We accept someone acting as an agent for a person as part of self-published; after all, when someone puts a notice on their web site, do we require that they have personally edited the actual HTML, and brought up the server? When someone self publishes a book, are they expected to manually push the buttons that set the type and bind the paper? Surely not. Surely half the time they ask a secretary or spokesman or publisher or someone else to do it for them. The web server is maintained by yet another person, or even an independent web hosting company. We accept it as self-published as long as the orders come from them. In this case, I would argue that the person who put up the notice on the web site was acting as an agent for the person himself; yes, even though the person himself is dead. Whoever put up the notice is almost certainly the same person who put up all the other information on this website. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No we don't expect to be manually pushing buttons but we do expect them to be responsible for what's said. Anyway I don't understand the mad rush to report things instantly on Wikipedia, I don't see why there would be a reason not to wait for secondary sources, especially since hacking a website and putting up a death notice does seem like something a malicious prankster would do. It also seems like a lot more harm could come from Wikipedia spreading a false death rumor than could come from Wikipedia waiting until it was confirmed by secondary sources. Dlabtot (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo Dlabtot, i dont think anyone would disagree with what ya said....the thing is.... this was already published by secondary sources almost simultaneously to that personal site (my initial logic to all this).....sooo like GRuban said, the point is moot. Jrod2 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

is a breakfast eaten in South India for thousands of years. Pat Chapman in his cook book claims Dosa orginated in Udupi, Karnataka. Thangappan Nair, an Indian writer also argues the same in his book.

However, both authors do not attribute their claim. It is also possible Pat Chapman used Thangappan Nair's book as reference. Considering the venerable tradition among Indian writers to document hearsay as history, I am just urging editor User:Gnanapiti to be more careful.

it would be impossible to determine and definitely say Dosa or any traditional Indian food originated anywhere. First, there is no way the first person who made the first Dosa left any evidence behind and/or it is more than likely Dosa evolved from something else which had existed. For these reasons, wikipedia is better served if we attribute the use of the food "Dosa" in some old literature.

I have proposed either the removal of this information or attribute the opinion to the authors and the lack of citations in their book. English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka. However, both books do not mention the source of their claim.

Any suggestion will be appreciated. --CarTick 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too far into the source. The book is published by an actual publisher (i.e. it's not self-published) so the book isn't really required to say "I learned this from X". Saying English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka is acceptable; the However, both books do not mention the source of their claim is not. We're not here to challenge the sources, but rather only to state what the sources say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

changed the text per your suggestion. but, I still disagree with you that being published by a publisher will make it any more reliable than self-published. i also disagree with you that wikipedia editors can not challenge the authenticity of what we choose to add. --CarTick 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-published versus published is one of the key aspects of reliability. If it's published by an publishing company, there's almost always some level of editing and verification done, whereas self-published is the exact opposite. You can challenge the authenticity of sources if there's some reason to do so (e.g. other people have written how the author is full of crap) but in this case, you've got a food writer and another writer coming to the same conclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you why I think Thangappan Nair whose 2004 book which predates Pat Chapman's 2007 book (so i believe Chapman bases his reference on Thangappan Nair) can not be considered a serious history book. T. Nair categorically says, "Idli (another south Indian food similar to Dosa), Dosa and Rasam all originated in Karnataka in prehistoric times" without any of the nuances you see in this article which reviews the book written by K. T. Achaya

To provide you some context here, steam vessels are required for Idli making. From the article,

so, how did south indians make Idli if they didnt have steaming vessels?

please compare the nuanced writings of A. T. Acharya with absoluteness of T. Nair. besides, the weasel word prehistoric is generally used by fake historians who hasnt done their research well.

If my words carry any weight, I have never heard of T. Nair being an Indian historian let alone authoritative. --CarTick 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll back up Annyong here, and I'll be even more direct. Wikipedia articles cannot contain editors' personal challenges of the reliability of what we choose to add. Our words, the editors' words, do not carry enough weight to go into articles. Only the words of the sources we cite do. We personally are effectively anonymous and have no credentials, no matter how right we might be. If you can find another published author that disagrees with Nair, we can say "Nair writes X, but Professor Jane Doe writes Y" ... but we can't write "Nair writes X, but an anonymous Wikipedia contributor writes Y", even though, of course, the anonymous Wikipedia contributor might be right. If you are convinced that Nair is wrong, go find a published reliable source that says so, and we'll be able to add that challenge to the article, but we can't challenge without that. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

well, there is a clear misunderstanding or misstatement of my position here. I dont want to be quoted in wikipedia articles and have been around long enough here to know that. I just thought the editing process involves debate about the reliability, authenticity and authoritativeness of sources we choose to use. --CarTick 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What GRuban and others are referring to is the proposed "However, both books do not mention the source of their claim" insertion. This is an

WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.hustlermagazine.com/features/band-interviews/wendy-lisa-women-of-the-revolution

This link is being used as source for the article on Lisa Coleman (musician), specificly for this statement: "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin". It has been removed by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on the grounds that it is not a reliable source. I contend that it is a reliable source in that it is clearly an interview done with the people in question. Additionally, the website has a number of other interviews with bands.

And just to be upfront, the only other debate I could find to Hustler magazine as a source was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs? where the debate (to my eyes) ended up as no decision.

So... what does the community in general think? Tabercil (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" There is no indication that Hustler has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, particularly as required for sourcing a BLP (and this discussion would be better served at BLPN). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of the Hustler article backs up the statement "introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin"? Are you citing it to show that Melvoin was Coleman's girlfriend, or that she was introduced, or what? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question [19] — e. ripley\^talk 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through what little (unrelated) discussion there is on the talk page, it appears that there's some question about whether this lady is LGBT, so I'm guessing this edit principally is intended to establish her sexuality. Also, this link is to a Hustler Q&A, so trying to cast doubt on its appropriateness as a source based on whether Hustler checks facts is functionally irrelevant. There's no writer interpretation here, either you believe that Hustler faithfully reprinted this woman's words, or you don't. I see no reason to think that Hustler would have falsified a Q&A. It's not the

Washington Post, but it's not someone's fanzine, either. However, it should probably be attributed to her in the article, i.e., "Melvoin said Coleman introduced her to..." — e. ripley\^talk

19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with e. ripley while trying to post a comment which essentially said the same thing: as an interview, problems of fact-checking and accuracy are not nearly as significant, especially in the lack of evidence that either of the subjects have publicly objected that they were misquoted. Given that, I'd say it's acceptable in this circumstance, and I agree that it's better that the action be attributed.

The only qualm I have is that the word "girlfriend" is not necessarily an indication of sexuality, since it's frequently used (although perhaps less so than earlier) between two female friends with no connotation of a sexual relationship. So, if the quote is being used as a source for a subject being a lesbian, I think that could problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually the lesbian bit is nailed down by a different cite elsewhere in the article to Out magazine. I remember that cause I was the one who introduced it (see here for diff). And Hullo, the issue is whether Hustler is a reliable source, thus this noticeboard and not BLPN, IMO. Tabercil (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is contextual not absolute. We have no reason to quote Hustler on the military career of Napoleon, but we can reasonably conclude that they accurately transcribe interviews, since that's standard journalistic practice. No-one would agree to be interviewed by Hustler if they had a reputation for putting made up words into people's mouths. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm...looks aight :) Jrod2 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hustler is an insufficient source for a claim about a living person. It is doubtful that they are the only place this information (whatever it is; the context of the edit is unclear) will have appeared.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because it has pictures of naked lasses in it? How does that make the content of interviews unreliable? Paul B (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because it is not demonstrated to be a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We ain't talkin' Playboy here. A gentleman knows the difference. If something appears in Hustler and in no other source, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it has a clear de facto reputation for accuracy in this area, since there is no history or lawsuits for misquotation, and the mag has to conform to norms of journalism if only to avoid being sued. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a much higher standard for what qualifies as a reliable source than simply "not having a history of getting sued". In any event the magazine has, in fact, been sued for (among other things) what one could easily call lack of journalistic integrity, if not for actually misquoting interviewees. The fix is simply finding a better source for the information, though it's difficult in this circumstance because it's not clear what exactly the cite is supposed to be supporting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagee. I cannot believe that if this were non-porn magazine that we would having this debate. Reputations are defined precicely by such matters as legal history. You are, I think, confusing respectability with reliabilty. The Daily Telegraph, for example, is deeply respectable, but has a reputation for tendentious unreliability in the reporting of some matters (eg global warming). I dont know if has been sued more or less often that Hustler, but it certainly has been sued. This is not a matter of having "higher" standards, but of relevant and appropriate ones. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of what is meant by "reliability", thank you. On the lawsuit issue, it's not just that the magazine has been sued (as it has, famously); it's that it has been sued specifically for

libel, and lost. This has happened at least twice that I know of. I'd say being found guilty of publishing defamation is a pretty severe hit to the old "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples of why the magazine should be considered reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c

13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This describes a grudge match in which legal nicelties are being used to get one over on opponents. The terrible libel here is writing 'has' instead of 'had'. however, it indicates laxity nearly thirty years ago. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/guccione-hustler-magazine-flynt-distributing-37113881#ixzz0xd1z1fkm

You're greatly underestimating here. In one case Hustler was sued for falsely asserting the plaintiff committed adultery; the plaintiff won.[20] In another, a woman claimed Hustler had maliciously asserted she had contracted an STD and had published nude photos that it falsely identified as her; she won.[21][22] Additionally, Jackie Collins successfully sued Hustler's publisher Larry Flynt Publications, and Flynt himself, for publishing nude photos that they falsely claimed were of her. Not seeing a lot of editorial credibility in this outfit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)h

So you have found two cases in a 30 year period. By most standards that's a remarkably clean record. Also, these cases date from the early 1980s, when Flynt saw himself as some sort of counter-culture warrior. That is a long, long, gone era. Virtually every newspaper has been sued at one time or another for mistakes. The Daily Telegraph, to continue the comparison, was sued successfully for libel in 2004 by George Galloway. [23] Is it therefore an unreliable source? That was 6 years ago, not 27 years ago. I think you are using double standards, but I'm sure you will never accept that. As far as I can see we have more evidence that the modern Telegraph is unreliable than that Hustler is. But I suspect you intuit that Hustler is unreliable, and so will hold to these decades old cases. Paul B (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Double standard?" Sorry, that's just a straw man argument. You're the one who brought up the Daily Telegraph, I never said anything about it. I don't know enough about that paper to comment on it, and it's quite irrelevant to this discussion anyway. For the last time, my argument is still that Hustler is a very poor source with no detectable reputation for accuracy; any source this poor should be avoided in a real encyclopedia, especially in a biography. I do not appreciate your comments about what you "suspect" my true thoughts are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be the only editor insisting on this view. I have already explained why the reputation is detectable. Yes, I brought up the Telegraph - precisely because it has been repeatedly asserted here to be a reliable source, including in a section below. I was attempting to demonstrate what I consider to be the unsustainability of your argument, since you asserted "On the lawsuit issue, it's not just that the magazine has been sued (as it has, famously); it's that it has been sued specifically for libel, and lost." If that's the issue, then the Telegraph is an unreliiable source. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's an interview with two people, and it's them talking about stuff they did. Doesn't that fall under

Which part of the interview supports "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin"? I don't see the word "girlfriend" or "intro" anywhere in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was actually the first question I asked before. I couldn't find anything similar to that text, but I thought I may have missed something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article supports the statement. From the article: "WENDY:We grew up together in Los Angeles... When I turned about 15 years old, I came back one summer, and Lisa and I hooked up when we reconnected in our teens and both realized we were gay. (Laughs.) We started a relationship that lasted for about 20 years." So that's from age 15 to 35, or from about 1980 to about 2000 and her joining the Revolution fell in between those dates. And later "WENDY: I joined the band because of Lisa. I spent some time with her on the road during the 1999 tour. Prince’s guitarist [Dez Dickerson] wasn’t showing up to sound checks, and I just happened to be there at the right time. I had already been playing guitar since I was very young. Prince heard me play and asked me to join in on a sound check for “Controversy” with the band." Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think this is a reliable source for this article. I'm bit unsure about how it's being used. I'm not sure how exactly to articulate this, but it seems to require a bit of analysis to draw the conclusions you're getting from the interview, I'm not sure. I would be interested in hearing other editors' opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can rephrase to more closely align with what the Hustler article states, but I'd first want to know if the source is deemed reliable before going through that effort. Tabercil (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the text above can be translated into "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin". It sounds more incidental; perhaps "Coleman was approached by Prince while on the road with Melvoin" or something like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While I applaud Hustlers adamant First Ammendment protection stance and the guts to investigate the Bush administration when the rest of the media was cowardly repeating the WMD mantra and playing the drums of war, Hustler does NOT have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and should only be used for non-controversial claims about itself. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself there? On the one hand you applaud them for doing investigative work, which (to me) implies doing due diligence and fact checking, and on the other hand excoriating them for not doing their fact-checking... and to HelloAnnyong: as I said, I can rephrase (your wording is probably close to what I'd end up with). Tabercil (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That someone can be an advocate for Free Speech and yet not be a source for Reliable information is not in any way a contradiction. And the fact that they in one or two instances have done important reporting does not overcome the fact that in general they are not a reliable source. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabercil: Yes, in my opinion, this Hustler article is a reliable source for Lisa Coleman (musician). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How does a publication come by a reputation for fact checking anyway? Is Hustler renowned for making unsubstantiated claims that turn out to be false? Does it often get sued for libel? It is a mainstream publication, so unless there is a reason for doubting the authenticity of its journalism then it probably meets the criteria for being a reliable source. Obviously, when it publishes an interview it is only reliably reporting what the interviewee is saying. Betty Logan (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Few things to note over here...Is it stating-implying that she is a lesbian a problem??....Is the subject famous enuff to warrant this guideline protection?? Whichever the reason for your inclusion-exclusion of that content, the point of all this is to find out if users think Hustler's circulation is wide enuff to be considered a major (maybe a mid level) reliable publication.... or if Hustler has been historically negligent for not conducting good editorial practices to regard it completely unreliable. I say Hustler, even though they have provocative images (ehmmm:)), it has made efforts to be a relevant entertainment publication n' it does have a full editorial oversight. Jrod2 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. It's not at all clear what the citation is supposed to support. There are (obviously) other sources for for Coleman and Malvoin being partners; a very quick google news search turned up this interview on the

St. Petersburg Times website.--Cúchullain ^t/c

12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that source has already been added to the article. Problem solved!--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The question asked her was about the use of Hustler as a source for interviews. Surely, we do not "resolve" a question by evading it. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The question was whether that particular interview in Hustler could be used as a source for this material. Since we now have a source for the same material that is indisputably reliable, the question is rather dissolved. That is, the St. Pete Times backs up the information on her relationship with Melvoin; I think we're still all unclear on whether that's the bit the cite was need at or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed Paul. The Hustler interview gives details about how Melvoin came to join the band; the St Petersburg article doesn't. Tabercil (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then that's a bit of a different question. My arguments above stand: Hustler has no particular "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as is required especially in BLPs; it has been successfully sued at least twice for libel, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all still irrelevant. It's a transcribed Q&A with a subject. Either we believe that Hustler is reputable enough not to make up blockquotes from someone, or we don't. I have no reason to doubt that it's a faithful reproduction. So as long as the information being used is properly attributed (Melvoin said that something happened), it's fair game for articles here, subject to the rest of our policies. — e. ripley\^talk 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that we should not be trusting Hustler to accurately reproduce anything, especially in a BLP. If material appears in this magazine and nowhere else, it has no business being in Wikipedia. If it is truly important to the subject, some other source will contain the information.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your argument, I just think it's wrong. Your position is far too absolutist. We rarely blanket-ban a source here, much depends on context. If this were an actual article that made these assertions outside of quotations, I could understand it coming in for more scrutiny, particularly as part of a BLP. But this is a binary question; either we trust this publication to make a faithful reproduction of someone's responses to a question, or we don't. My position is that we can trust the magazine to do that, absent some sort of uproar about being misquoted from the person they're quoting, which I haven't seen anywhere. I'm sure you don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. — e. ripley\^talk 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with this. I think it'd be wrong to say that Hustler cannot be used at any point on any article ever. There's no reasonable reason to think that they've doctored this interview, so I think it's okay to use here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So.... in summary then: can it be used or not? Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the consensus is that the source can be used for this specific instance. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 16:42, August 25, 2010

This is the same Hustler that Robyn Douglass sued for falsely claiming that she was a lesbian page 410? Of course it's not a reliable source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because the magazine may not happen to have got something wrong in an interview does not make it a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: it makes it a source which can get things right occasionally. If the assertion is correct, it will be well-reported in other publications with a better reputation. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And that article is being used to support negative claims about a different person and why they left the band. Clearly and unambiguously

NOT APPROPRIATE. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone

16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabercil: Yes, in my opinion, this is a reliable source for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What?!? As best as I can tell, the only item in question that's a claim is that Lisa Coleman replaced Gayle Chapman in the band, and that Wendy Melvoin replaced Dez Dickerson. Which is to me a simple statement, and one which is pretty much self-evident. At the least, CNN viewed it that way because that's how their biography of Prince reads. The Hustler article is no different that that. Tabercil (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A while back I asked for a re-assessment of Iyer because I noticed many of the sources cited were either inaccessible or did not have good editorial oversight (no reputation of fact checking, no details of who the editors were, etc). One of the websites often used as a source in the article Tamilnation.org is now defunct.

Perhaps this board can help in determining if the sources listed are relable or not. Details at: Talk:Iyer/GA1 Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If a web site is no longer extant, it would be worth checking to see if it is still available in the internet wayback machine archives. Can you provide a couple of examples of sources you feel are problematic, bearing in mind that just because a source is not available via the internet, that does not make it unreliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Recently, several editors have been discussing on on the talk page of the Conservapedia article regarding the correct interpretation of a source. The statement in the Conservapedia article that is in question is the following:

Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire.

The statement is sourced by this LA Times article, in which the following statement is where the statement in the article is derived from:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire [...]

The problem that has been brought up is whether or not the source backs up the statement that RationalWikians have vandalized Conservapedia by inserting errors, pornographic photos, and satire. The article states that members of RationalWiki have vandalized Conservapedia, and the article states that vandals have introduces errors, pornographic photos, and satire, but the question lies in whether the latter includes RationalWiki members or whether it does not. Thanks for you time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the latimes is clearly implying that at least some of the vandalism (errors, porno, satire) was done by RationalWiki members. However, the "and elsewhere" implies that others are involved as well. I suggest that this is a case where exactly quoting the source is in order. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"vandals" automatically refers to "interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere" unless otherwise stated. The comment you have currently is correct. I refuse to believe this is actually being argued about elsewhere on Wikipedia, and will now take the position that you have placed this here at ANI as some sort of joke. I am so confident in this I will not even go to the Conservapedia article to make sure it isn't really being discussed there.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... Wikiposter... this isn't ANI... this is the Reliable sources/noticeboard (RSN)... which was set up so editors could get guidance and second opinions on exactly this sort of question. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not totally clear, so use a quote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just a rewrite would do it: something like, "RationalWiki members and others have inserted vandalism edits into Conservapedia; such edits have introduced errors, pornographic images, and satire."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cucullan's paraphrasing. "Hit" sounds a lot like a compact way to say what we mean by vandalism. Also a direct quote would be OK, but a bit less elegant. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How reliable would you say chattahbox.com is? It is clearly a news website, and although it seems to have a left-leaning political viewpoint, it is written as one would expect a news site to be. Any thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be an appropriate source for anything. No idea who the people behind it are, no evidence of journalistic credentials, fact-checking or other editorial rigor. It's also described as a subsidiary of "Global EStore LLC" which doesn't sound promising. — e. ripley\^talk 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No information on editorial oversight, no reputation for fact-checking. Fails

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can it be considered a reliable source? It has been used by an editor. In a previous discussion here another user said that "it's an open wiki with seven users and 21 articles. It's not a reliable source and we shouldn't be using it directly for biography information." The editor, however, persists in including the info. Please kindly advise. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:19, --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you answered the question right there - it's a Wiki (closed, actually; they don't have open registration) so the text on there is easily edited and easily changed. I would say it's not reliable and shouldn't be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If (my mistake) it's actually a closed wiki, and is merely the chosen publishing platform for a small group of people, then it may be acceptable under

McGeddon (talk

) 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We'd have to know who the writers were to even use it as a self-published source, and they're not particularly forthcoming with this information at their FAQ. As it is it's definitely not reliable, but some of the sources they use may be; I see they link to an article from The Guardian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur, there's no realistic way of assessing the reliability of the authors on esowatch, nor to verify the information if they do not provide a reference to what we would consider a reliable source. It's no more reliable than we are. Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur, their general disclaimer states that As a consequence of our work, we name methods and products of quackery and deceit. The perpetrators don't like that at all. This is why EsoWatch works anonymously, to protect the authors from trouble". There is no way for us to understand who or what is behind the site and as far as I can tell, anyone can join and contribute. It's not RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about

WP:REDFLAG, the closed wiki is perfectly satisfactory for the modest statement (diff): "ESOWatch stated that Jani's doctors' claims of no evidence of dehydration were inconsistent with the test results." Obviously, no really reliable source would even bother considering the nonsensical claims made in the article, so we have to rely on other PARITY sources. Johnuniq (talk

) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia care what ESOWatch states on this matter or any other? Wikipedia only cares what reliable secondary sources write about. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous closed wiki. Fails

WP:PARITY to permit contrary views from corresponding sources. Johnuniq (talk

) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this reasoning. We cannot live with an article giving credence to the idea that human beings can live without food and water. A no-brainer. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the source is not reliable, I don't agree with the above reasoning--we're not about truth, but what is verifiable and reported in reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is about

WP:PARITY. We cannot accept claims from fringe sources (any source that says people can live off thin air is clearly a fringe source) and then reject alternative points of view on the grounds that only marginal sources have seen fit to comment. --FormerIP (talk

) 02:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The current status of the Prahlad Jani article is unbalanced with great reverence shown to the sources which seem to verify his claims. And this is after massive reversals and counter-reversals of content. Just look at the history of the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "any source that says people can live off thin air is clearly a fringe source" puts truth ahead of verifiability and policy regarding reliability, although I readily admit the point is moot, since ESOWatch is not reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be with ESSO watch this article currently reads like a news outlet for Prahlad Jani's medical team. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we cannot use this source, as it fails

WP:NOR. We reproduce what reliable secondary sources say, that's all. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

These points you are making are self-evident. I don't think anyone here spoke about busting crime or exposing fraud or getting a free pass on policies. If you are happy with the current state of the article that is altogether another matter, but still it is your prerogative. Dr.K. ^λogosπraxis 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for participating. I agree with the view that we can not use any means just to debunk exceptional claims. All the reasoning suggested by the detractors of Jani's claims above is their own reasoning, based on their own analysis, outlook and personal logic. We do not even know if it can be trusted outside of their own imagination, because they have absolutely no credible proofs to support their views, except for the fact that the claims they oppose are rare and exceptional, and don't fit into their own understanding of how the things should be. If we start bending the neutrality principle based on such feelings of individual editors we never get a reliable encyclopedic reference, because everyone will try to push his/her own understanding, imagination and views into the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, that article is shocking - I'll take a closer look after the bank holiday. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

haha. that article is glorious, it shows the true power of The Great Mother. सत्यमेव जयते -- Nazar (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been a near-perpetual conflict on Aquatic_ape_hypothesis concerning a single source - www.aquaticape.org [24] by Jim Moore. The conflict is "resolved" only when one group or another simply gets tired of arguing and the page lapses into stasis, only to re-emerge with the next editing activity. The problem is that AAH is, depending on how charitable you are, at best an unverified hypothesis which is not taken seriously by the scholarly community and at worst pseudoscience/fringe completely lacking in coherent hypotheses, testable predictions or any substantial evidence. The entire origin of the theory (which we cannot ignore, obviously) is from a non-peer-reviewed science magazine article (spawned from a purely speculative lecture at a non-technical setting) and a non-scientific text by a non-academic publisher, so right there the bar gets set fairly low - all scientific, peer-reviewed sources are either inconclusive, extremely brief, or critical of the idea, including a prominent paper by Langdon which basically tears the theory apart bit by bit. Unfortunately, several claims are not addressed by Langdon, and other sources must be found. Myself and other users have included and argued for the inclusion of the above website due to its extensive nature (printed out, it would take hundreds of pages), excellent use of citations (as much as possible is properly cited to legit scientific papers), prominence (I've never seen a debate on the topic where it *isn't* cited, in part due to the fact that, as a website, it's far more accessible than journal articles), and detailed criticism. Opponents object based on the fact that it's not a peer-review publication (ignoring that the original texts of the idea aren't either), that the author isn't an anthropologist (ignoring that the great recent popularizer of AAH isn't either), that it's unfairly biased against AAH, and simply that it's a website. In the context of this topic (a theory most reputable scientists consider too laughable to bother with), I contend that those who oppose it are simply looking for an excuse to exclude it. However, any argument about it inevitably devolves into the same argument between the same 4-5 people. Requests for help at numerous Wikiprojects have met with either total silence or drive-by opinions.

Frankly, I'm sick of the whole argument, and I'd like a final ruling on whether http://www.aquaticape.org/ is a reliable source or not, especially given the fringe nature of the page topic as a whole. Mokele (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk

) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance specifically states "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed." Mokele (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If Moore used good sources, then we can always use his sources.

The exception for fringe ideas is made because there often is no RS for a lot of it. But when there is, we use that. For example, there are plenty of RS's debunking astrology, so we don't need to stoop to self-published websites. For the AAH, we have Langdon. The contrast between Langdon's paper, worthy of a peer-reviewed journal, and Moore's rant is extreme, and nicely illustrates why we prefer peer-reviewed papers. Even when we use non-peer reviewed material for fringe theories, we at least try to keep them reputable, and Moore fails on that account. It's not a matter of censorship, but only of using quality sources. Your argument that we need crack-pot sources to debunk crack-pot ideas cannot be taken seriously.

So, if we cannot find a RS to refute that element of the AAH, we can either leave it as 'citation needed', or remove it. As you've said, Langdon "basically tears the theory apart bit by bit", and we note that it's essentially ignored within anthropology. Isn't that sufficient? — kwami (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, is Moore's site "not reputable" or "crack-pot". Further, point to anything that's actually a "rant". Your sole criterion for the exclusion of Moore is that he disagrees with you and you can hide behind selective application of the rules (which, in fairness, show AAH as a whole is non-notable) to exclude him. Mokele (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly it's at

WP:PARITY is only a guideline. Thirdly, it calls for a "reliable website", and presumably that means, at least, "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- which isn't the case here. So it's still no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk

) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this - the guidelines for

WP:fringe state that we can use lesser sources when peer-review consideration of the topic is lacking, yet you're applying the non-fringe level of scrutiny to the source, which defeats the purpose of even having a separate set of guidelines when dealing with fringe topics. Mokele (talk

) 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The exceptions for fringe topics are to allow debunking when we cannot find RSs, not when we can. The requirements for quality/expertise hold regardless. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So if we cannot find a refutation of a particular point in Langdon, but can in Moore, why not use it? You should also know that there's a *tremendous* amount of WP sources to websites considerably less authoritative than Moore - huge sections of the reptile/amphibian pages are sourced to "big name breeders" who have zero academic standing. A quick search reveals 61 separate pages on WP with references to one particular (very helpful, very reliable) self-published website by a non-academic amateur herpetoculutrist. Conversely, the AAH page cites Medical Hypotheses, which is a NON-peer review "medical" journal whose output is nothing but bullshit and newage woo, and that's being charitable. It seems that not only are the rules being inconsistently applied on the AAH page, but also throughout WP, with the stricter versions only being applied if a source becomes the issue of a conflict. Mokele (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If an idea is not controversial, we often don't bother to source it at all, and if we do, no-one's likely to care about the quality of the ref unless the article's up for GA or FA. If the amateur herp sites are being used irresponsibly, then you should delete the refs and mark them 'cn'. I haven't seen the MH ref at AAH; perhaps it should go to. But saying 'these other articles use shoddy research, so I should be allowed to use shoddy research too' has never been considered a valid argument.

But you're exactly right: people only get particular about sourcing when there's some conflict about the claims. The vast majority of WP articles have no sources whatsoever. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All I ask for is consistency. And my argument is far from what you claim, but rather that sites such as Moore's and anapsid.org should be regarded as reliable sources. Knowledgeable non-academics *can* have meaningful contributions, and to simply discard any website, however well-researched and knowledgeable, over whether they've got nifty abbreviations after their name is a serious flaw in the RS guidelines, IMHO. Mokele (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have half followed the issues at

WP:PARITY). Johnuniq (talk

) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

'Parity' is specifically about fringe ideas, however, and the AAH is not fringe. (It's marginal/unprofessional, but not

WP:Fringe as we use the term.) It's simply an amateur hypothesis which is not inherently unreasonable, but which has never been substantiated, never gained academic acceptance, and which most of the field can't be bothered with. Langdon summarizes that well. The whole point of Moore is to rubbish the idea, rather than to actually evaluate it, and since we have a balanced and peer-reviewed critique, there's no need to stoop to that level. As Kenilworth pointed out, Moore is not even a reliable website, which it would need to be even for the Parity guidelines. (If Leakey had written that site, or even responded to it in a blog, that would be a different matter.) — kwami (talk

) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

According to

WP:Fringe

, fringe ideas "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", which describes AAH perfectly. It further specifies a list of examples of fringe ideas, including "...ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support...", which again perfectly describes AAH. So yes, AAH is fringe, and claiming otherwise won't make support for it materialize out of thin air.

As for Moore's "rubbishing the idea", it's called "criticism". Science is not the media; we have no obligation to 'present both sides'. If we think an idea is rubbish, we say so. Hell, I've seen someone stand up at a conference and disprove 3 years of a student's work with a single sentence. We are under no obligation to be nice, nor to give author's a pat on the head and a gold star for trying. Welcome to science; if you can't take the heat, go watch cartoons.Mokele (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

'Fringe' has not been used on WP to mean marginal ideas with little support, but for demonstrable nonsense like crystal power and UFOs building the pyramids.

Then why does the official page say otherwise? We're being all official about this in terms of

WP:fringe. Deal. Mokele (talk

) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What Moore is trying to do is not science, but rhetoric: make the other side look bad by any means necessary. Langdon doesn't stoop to that: his criticisms are deserved and fair, and he doesn't attempt to prove what he cannot. Anyway, the point is moot, because we have RSs for the article that adequately illustrate why the AAH is not taken seriously by academia, and even if we didn't, Moore's site would not be acceptable for the reasons Kenilworth gave: We don't pretend to give expert opinion from non-experts. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me where Moore makes and unfair criticism. Link to it. Show me where he engages is ad hom. Link to it.

Furthermore, Kenilworth never explained why, in spite of the

WP:fringe

page indicating relaxed guidelines on sources, this page is unacceptable, nor have you aside from your knee-jerk dislike of Moore.

What I came here for was actual explanations, and if it turns out that Moore really isn't a reliable source even under the relaxed

Hmm, it's a bit difficult to discuss the issue at length as you demand and shut the hell up at the same time. But as you've said, I can have this level of discourse with you on the AAH page. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, discussion reboot: AAH is a

So, when a

Per my comment above: The Moore source fails

WP:PARITY) for judicious use: do not use it to rubbish the AAH (Moore is not sufficiently reliable for that); do not use it counter every point in the article (one unreliable source is not sufficient for that); do not use it to dismiss the subject before explaining the topic. Moore's source is a self-published site dedicated to attacking the AAH, so even if you know that everything on the site is correct, it is still not a suitable source to conclude that the AAH is rubbish. Johnuniq (talk

) 05:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we've got one absolute against (Kenilworth) and one OK if used sparingly (Johnuniq). Anyone else? Mokele (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. To reiterate what others have said already,

RS.--Cúchullain ^t/c

16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First as to the WP:FRINGE issue... WP:FRINGE is more about what fringe material may be included in Wikipedia (and how to include it) than it is about what can not be included. The guideline states that we may include Fringe topics if mainstream sources (not necessarily academic sources) have discussed it (even if that discussion is to rip it to shreds or disparage it). So the very fact that Langdon has ripped it to shreds means that it is worthy of a Wikipeida article.

So we now come to how to write about it. It sounds as if people are trying to use these sources to either "prove" that AAH is correct, or "Prove" that AAH is rubbish. If so, that is the wrong approach (see WP:NPOV)... What we should be do is bluntly and neutrally state the facts about the theory: Starting with a basic outline telling the reader what the AAH is a theory proposes. We can then move to neutral discussion of what proponents say about the theory and then what critics say about the theory. End of article.

Since the main proponent of AAH is Moore, his opinion on the AAH matters within in the context of this article. NPOV demands that we state what his opinion on AAH is (giving it due weight). In doing so we should phrase any discussion of his opinion as being an opinion. The same goes for Langdon as the main critic. NPOV demands that we discuss his views on AAH (giving them due weight), however we should also phrase it as being an opinion. Don't attempt to "prove" anything... just give the bald narrative facts. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Moore is an opponent of AAH, along with Langdon (Moore's site simply covers more stuff), with Morgan being the main proponent. Does that change your view on using his site? Mokele (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Johnuniq and Blueboar. I think the source can be used, but with extreme restraint, to document Moore's view of AAH in view of the controversy surrounding the topic. We're outside the realm of hard science here, and the AAH proponents also lack credentials, so I see no reason to exclude Moore on that basis --Nuujinn (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Moore is a critic, not a proponent. But he's still not a reliable source as far as I can tell.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the issue is simply the structure of the article which "allows " fringe theory claims because no mainstream scientist has taken them seriously enough to debunk them and a restructure of the entire article will allow the "theory" and its "impact" to be placed in appropriate context and addressed in an valid encyclopedic fashion that is solely based on

WP:UNDUE. I am not sure what that restructuring might looke like, but those more familiar with the sources out there may. Active Banana  ::::( ^bananaphone

19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with WLU and your assessment of the article structure. Unfortunately, I'm *swamped* with RL work at the moment, and the thought of a sustained fight with kwami, chakazul, and the other AAH proponents over every slightly critical sentence is just too draining; I have *real* science to do. Mokele (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we've got some more No responses and more Limited Use responses. Anyone else? I'm hoping for some stronger level of consensus, to forestall future arguments on the page. Mokele (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what Moore can and cannot be used for in the general sense. For example, Johnuniq's list of how Moore should not be used above seems reasonable to me at first blush. Nuujinn 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can the Islamic Quarterly, and more specifically this [26] be considered a reliable source in history of science-type articles? My own feeling is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. It is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed publication on the subject, nor do its articles provide bibliography. It was heavily used by

I'd say it's not a RS, for the reasons you give. If valid, those claims should be verifiable in peer-reviewed articles or respectable books on the history of Islamic science, but the lack of a bibliography makes them problematic.

I don't know about IQ, but I've seen other religious publications claim that their religion predicted later scientific findings, so such claims need to be taken with a lot of salt. For example, in the case of Islam, I've seen claims that the Koran correctly describes the Earth orbiting the Sun, though I've never seen a translation which reflects this, and with my limited Arabic it would appear it does not say it. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a piece of propaganda designed to "prove" the superiority of Islam in a backhanded way. The claim that the al-Jahiz influence Lamarck and Darwin is, frankly, laughably absurd. It's a revisionist piece created to support a predetermined outcome. Having read that one article, i'd consider the whole publication suspect.

talk

) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to use something like that when there are scientific journals on every subject under the sun? Looking at the home page, I can't find anything about the editorial board, editorial policies or well.. anything, it seems to be a black-hole. I would remove as non-RS unless someone can make a convincing argument otherwise. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The best link to use for people wanting a quick overview of the problem is

WP:Jagged 85 cleanup

.

No, the source is not reliable for such

WP:REDFLAG claims. Johnuniq (talk

) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the others; it would appear that the site itself isn't reliable, and the "evolution" article more so.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I made this revert on the basis that it was wasn't sourced correctly. The source is a reproduction of an Irish Daily Mail article in blog. The paper itself doesn't reproduce online. Could this info be re-introduced in the basis of the current source? GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific source being cited? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's reproduced in a post on a forum, which is ultimately the source regardless of where it originated. However a quick google on the story brings up a copy archived at "Findarticles.com" so you can replace the source with that: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8003/is_2010_Feb_21/ai_n50161869/. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Forum posts are almost never reliable for anything, even for convenience links to what might otherwise be considered reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk)

08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorted, another source has been found, thanks folks! GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

An editor recently added a POV tag to the top of the Somalia article based on a few sentences in the economy section, which he suggested advanced an 'Austrian economic' agenda. Although the statements in question were actually factual assertions and not value judgements, after much arguing back and forth, I nonetheless attempted to accommodate the user's concerns by replacing those sentences altogether with material from the

I guess it could be perceived as not being impartial, especially if its policy and decisions impact on the economy. The best type of sources for economic appraisal are economists who write for high quality newspapers, especially those with an economic specialism like The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times. Obviously news organisations aren't always impartial but at least they are third-party. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already cited material from reliable third-party sources such as the CIA and the British Chambers of Commerce, but he has complained about those too as being 'unreliable'. That same "conflict of interest" argument could also conceivably be leveled at most other government agencies/publications, although ironically those are more often than not the very source of most economic information on a given country; no other authority has quite the insight into a country's economy as its own chief economic agencies. This is why, for example, the US article repeatedly cites various figures and economic facts from the Federal Reserve regarding that country's own economy. The same goes for the Malaysia article and its central bank. The user specifically claimed that it's a conflict of interest issue; however, I've consulted the relevant

WP:COI policy, and it only pertains to editors, not to sources. So I don't think a policy actually exists which forbids the use of government publications/material vis-a-vis a country's own sectors. Middayexpress (talk

) 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Material from the CIA World Factbook, the British Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Bank of Somalia would all be considered reliable sources for these purposes, particularly the first two. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. That is precisely what I figured. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it may seem obvious that a Central Bank would be a good source of information on the economy. However, if you actually take a look at the [Bank of Somalia page] cited by Middayexpress, it is very descriptive and has good statistics, but is also clearly entrenched in marketing the Somalian economy. He is not citing it for statistics, for the most part, but rather, is using it to say that the Somalian economy is not impoverished. That is not included on that website, because they do not want people to know. In the majority of other reliable sources, the poverty of Somalia is always stated. That includes the BCC, a World Bank paper he removed (after I pointed out that it conflicted with the point he was trying to make), and other sources on the Somalia page (and other sources in general).

By the way, he or she added that after what I said without telling me. He or she seems to be trying to claim that I disagreed with that as a reliable source, most likely to discredit me, but that is misleading because I never criticized that source. He also removed other sources that I pointed out stated that Somalia was in poverty, such as a World Bank source previously included) state that Somalia is impoverished. This user is engaging in highly aggressive tactics of obfuscation, intimidation, and filibustering. Nikurasu (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that second paragraph sounds testy, and it is not directly relevant. He is basically harassing me though, trying to incite me, and doing subtle ad hominem and defamation. He's also violating numerous other Wikipedia policies, especially generally doing bad faith editing to try to enforce his viewpoint, and no one is doing anything about it. If the evaluation is sound, is that not a legitimate concern? I am not sure what the point of policies preventing harassment or ad hominem are if being upset is a criteria to exclude you from saying you are feeling harassed or being attacked personally. I would think being upset, at least briefly, is a direct result. As you can see though, I have cooled down. Where can I take these concerns? To the RFC page?

I also never cited

WP:COI as Midday claims I did. I merely mentioned that a conflict of interest is a way to judge bias. I have seen administrators decide that a page was biased for taking the description almost directly off of a coroporate website, for example. I am pretty sure that is against some policy. Middayexpress also did not change the substance of the economy section. He merely added statistics solely supporting the point of view that was already in place, and changed the citations that I criticized as biased. In one case, he did not even change the wording, but just removed sources. I specifically stated that the exclusion of the fact that Somalia was impoverished did not reflect most reliable sources, and it was not NPOV. He did not address that concern. He did not debunk. What he did was change the sources on the page, and deny every source that said Somalia was impoverished. He would not even discuss them, eventually. He would just get a new source, and refuse to acknowledge the other source. I would also like to mention that none of the changes he has made have been consensus. All have been unilateral action. Nikurasu (talk

) 11:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss it on the article page? If you have done, and there are just two parties involved in the discussion then request a

third opinion. Betty Logan (talk

) 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There have actually been about 5 or 6 people participating in this discussion, but Middayexpress has scared every single one away aside from me with intimidation, filibustering, and harassment. At the moment, only he or she and I are left. To be totally clear though, I came in after those people had left, and one came back (albeit briefly) to state that he or she would not continue the discussion. I could request a third opinion, but there already is a third opinion. Midday is essentially just ruling the page with his unchecked inappropriate behavior.Nikurasu (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of those previous discussions on that talk page pertain to earlier versions of the article, not to the present. The page has been majorly rewritten since then; this is something I have repeatedly pointed out too. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So many factual untruths. For starters, the user indicates that the Central Bank of Somalia (or "they" in his words) "do not want people to know" that the Somali economy is apparently "impoverished". This is rather interesting, since the Central Bank itself voluntarily cites Somalia's GDP per capita as well as the percentage of the population that lives on less than a dollar a day -- both of which I've in turn cited in the Wikipedia article (also note that the GDP per capita that the Central Bank cites is actually lower than that reported by the CIA, odd for an apparently self-serving institution). Contrary to what has been suggested, the British Chambers of Commerce likewise does not in any way contradict what the Central Bank of Somalia asserts; it actually summarizes the economy as follows: "Despite the absence of a state structure, many sectors are operating successfully and entrepreneurs are making good in Somalia". Furthermore, the World Bank source that the user alludes to is a very old one, which is why I removed it in the first place as I already explained to that user. It describes the state of the economy from over seven years ago, not the present. The "scarcity of capital" it alludes to caused by the "absence of any formal banking" sector, for starters, is a thing of the past. The Central Bank of Somalia was of course recently re-opened by the Transitional Federal Government that was established in 2004 (also after the report was both prepared and published), and as the CBS itself points out [29], money transfer operators have acted as informal banking networks: "Besides the outright cash transactions, the payment system in the country is fairly advanced despite the absence of a Central Monetary Authority over the past fifteen years of civil war; thanks to the investments in telecommunications network by the private sector that have enabled operations of private remittance companies to make both local and international monetary transactions possible". Many of these money transfer operators are even "expected to seek for licenses so as to graduate into full fledged commercial banks in the near future and thereby broaden the scope of payments system in the country to include cheques which will reinforce effectiveness of use of monetary policy in the macroeconomic management." As for the user's claim that he "never criticized" that British Chambers of Commerce source that I added to the article, even if it were true (it likely isn't since his very next edit after I had added material from that source and the Central Bank was to indicate that they represented "fringe viewpoints" [30]), it still doesn't make it or what it asserts any less reliable. Lastly, I never indicated that he "never cited

WP:COI, which only pertains to editors, not to sources. Middayexpress (talk

) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, you did add that to the article. I no longer have any dispute. Thank you. I apologize for being so aggressive.Nikurasu (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We all make mistakes. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not directly about what is a reliable source, but rather where in an article a reliable source may be considered to be cited.

There is a proposal to alter the Template:No footnotes from

• This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.

to

• This article includes a list of references,related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.

The request was initially made back December 2009 in Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification. I made a bold edit to remove "related reading or external links," but it was reversed.

The conversation is split over two talk pages and a user's talk page

• Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification
• User talk:Jeepday#Template:no footnotes (User:Jeepday quoted the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles the wording of which has since been changed).
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#If the article has even one reference or external link

It would be most useful if people who regularly contribute to this talk page were to discuss on

The Security Council Resolution 242 article contains a subsection, about a common law maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which is sourced to Danielle R. Sassoon, "The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242: The Story of how Resolution 242 was Undone Before it was Even Finished", New Society, Harvard College Student Middle East Journal, September 7, 2007.[31]

The author was an undergraduate (class of 2008) majoring in history and literature. The article was posted to the student blog by the founding editor of the "New Society, Harvard College Student Middle East Journal", Julia Bertelsmann, a junior at Harvard College studying Economics.[32] I think the article gives undue weight to the legal opinions of an author with no apparent qualifications.

Sassoon says "The legal principle “expression unis et exclusion alterus” affirms that excluded terms must be understood as deliberately excluded and the document’s interpretation must be tailored correspondingly." She cites an Abba Eban quote from Sydney Bailey, The Making of Resolution 242. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985. page 155. Neither Bailey nor Eban mention the common law maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius". Many UN member states do not have legal systems that incorporate the maxims of English common law. In addition, many legal scholars have written that the inclusion of explicit clauses about the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, and the requirement for respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty of every state in the area demonstrates that the Security Council did not intend to create loopholes in the norms of international law for Israel's benefit. See The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions', by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1 [33]

Sassoon incorrectly claims "the condemnation of territorial acquisition is confined to and separated in the preamble, detached from the actual outline of principles for a negotiation." The official 'Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council' [34] contains an analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968 which explicitly states that the preamble of resolution 242 contains several substantial measures that govern the settlement. See for example "IV Measures for Settlement" - "E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement" - "1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement" - "(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, Situation in the Middle East(II): decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble", on page 5, column 2:[35]

Sassoon argues that the French version of the resolution is not authoritative: "As the official document, the English text holds the authority, but the French and Soviets maintained otherwise." In fact, US Secretary of State Rusk and UK Foreign Minister Brown both stated the French version was equally authentic and legitimate. Brown said that he had discussed that issue with the Israeli government, and that they were aware of it. See Rusk "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990,

Sassoon argues that the omission of the definite article in the English version makes the intention clear and that Ambassador Goldberg's remarks to the Security Council on 7 November 1967 confirm that fact. However, Goldberg was instructed on 9 November 1967 to make a statement to the Security Council on behalf of the US government that the text of the resolution would not prejudice the position of those directly concerned, See the verbatim minutes of the Security Council, para 190, page 22: [37] and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 521, para 5 & 6 [38] harlan (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a RS to me - I would remove it myself but that would then involve me with batshit crazy I/P mentalists and I try and avoid that at all costs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a blog post by an undergrad can be considered an RS for something as contentious as an opinion on international law relating to I/P. --FormerIP (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is most likely not an RS, she is not qualified in the field. However, the sources she cites may or may not be useful. Agree with CS, I also avoid the area having been burned by it years ago. I take it we are talking about the bit in Res 242 calling on Israel to withdraw from "territories" rather than "the territories" in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The source that Sassoon cited is Sydney Bailey's book on resolution 242. It does not mention the legal maxim "expression unis et exclusion alterus". harlan (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• unreliable source. An unqualified undergraduates opinion? Under no circumstances. If this was some eminent legal scholar, you might use this sort of thing for their opinion (this would be a highly controversial and unconventional claim, but again, if they were a somebody you might mention their view), but as it is it's a nobody. A whole argument hinging on the absence of "the?"
  talk
  ) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not usable IMO, wp:irs says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and a Sassoon probably doesn't come even near to qualifying as such a person. --Dailycare (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The online literary magazine Literateur publishes interviews with poets, novelists, etc. containing biographical material that is often not available elsewhere. As per

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In the course of an editorial dispute resulting from the publisher of Literateur adding links to some interviews, later links made from other accounts were dismissed as spam and the site listed for blacklisting.

To quote one contribution to the discussion there, "This might meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Even then, I think any decision to use an interview from such a site should be only made by trusted, established, neutral editors after a talk page discussion as to how that source uniquely benefits the article in providing information not otherwise available." I feel that such a requirement presents an unnecessarily high hurdle. I would prefer to see "trusted, established, neutral editors" discuss the matter here, and reach a decision. The following thread also references this source: [39] Questionic (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to advocate for a site that has been spammed into Wikipedia. I have given the person who is promoting the site some good advice at

no deadline and we do not need these links added urgently. Even giving it a rest for a week, then starting slowly, with discussion on an appropriate subject talk page, would suffice. There is no need to ram it through. Johnuniq (talk

) 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the appropriate place to seek the opinion of experienced editors about interviews published by the site literateur.com. Looking back at the history of this dispute, it was on April 1, 2010 that Youngpossum complained that all links to Literateur.com, whether posted by himself or by some other person, were being systematically hunted down and deleted as spam by one editor. The fact that over a period of at least 5 months, 2 other registered users and 8 IP addresses who are presumably not experienced editors tried to add links to the magazine -- is that the threshold for declaring a spam attack, worthy of blacklisting the site? I agree that spamlinks are disruptive and am grateful that admins work hard to block them. If the Encyclopedia Britannica had first been linked to inexperienced enthusiasts, would that make it "a site that has been spammed into Wikipedia"? The issue of which sites are good sources of information should be entirely separate from the strategy of educating or punishing newbies who have violated Wikipedia policy. Questionic (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First, my bona fides: I have no connection to Literateur.com and only marginal interest in James S. Shapiro. I'm also an opponent of spam and self-promotion. But when I read the Literateur.com interview posted at Shapiro's article, I liked it. It is quality work. It seems unreasonable to me that an interview that might have been published in a major print journal should be disallowed just because of the way it got to Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the headline is confusing, but hear me out. I primarily edit video-game articles on Wikipedia, and I've found that a lot of the articles contain info about "unofficial" content, whether it's unofficial patches or "mods". Most of the time, such content has not received any coverage in by independent, reliable sources, while some do, but in a way that I'm unsure about, like the article

Eik Corell: What makes you think that gamebanshee.com is a reliable source? It looks like a fan site to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Christian news publication World (magazine) a reliable sources for reporting facts about another Christian publication, Sojourners? It reported on issues of the funding of Sojourners by outside groups. An editor has challenged its reliable source status. Drrll (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick-check and it wasn't so much a general RS check on World as on the particular use. The editor here seems to concerned with the use of an opinion piece as a reliable source for funding, and I'd have to say I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps there are better sources for that information? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could use other sources, but as far as I know, it was World that first reported this information in the opinion piece, and my understanding of

WP:RS is that opinion pieces can be used as long as there is attribution to the author of the piece. Drrll (talk

) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're using the source as proof that Sojourners accepted the money, which goes beyond the exception carved out in

WP:RS#Statements of opinion. Also, we don't worry about who published something first--if there's another, reliable source, that source should be cited instead. Qwyrxian (talk

) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The language in

WP:RS#Statements of opinion

seems to clearly allow use of opinion pieces for statements of fact, as long as there is proper attribution:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

Drrll (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reread the sentence you just quoted, concentrating on not for statements of fact without attribution. If an op-ed column attributes the statement of fact, go look at their source; if they don't, it's bloviation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So the "attribution" refers to others sources, and not "attribution" to the author of the opinion piece? Drrll (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to the sources the op-ed uses; if we meant to distinguish anonymous op-eds (which are extremely rare) we would have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Over at Ghanaians in the United Kingdom, this book is being used as a source for a statement that there are 1.5 million Ghanaians in the UK, according to the Ghanaian High Commission in London. That's a very high figure. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 93,000 Ghanaian-born people in the UK, and the total number of black Africans in the 2001 census was only 485,277. Moreover, the source states that there may be 850,000 Ghanaians in London alone. If this were true, they'd make up 10 per cent of the capital's population. I'm a bit suspicious of these figures, to say the least. It seems odd to me that the source states "estimates suggest that the number of Ghanaians who are officially registered with the Ghana High Commission...". Surely this isn't something that would be estimated? People are either registered or not, so no estimate needs to be made. What are people's thoughts on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Larry, we should take care to represent official figures and if they are disputed then possibly comment about them with attribution but a excessive figure that sits in isolation is undue to report.

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the book's estimate could be mentioned in a footnote or something (because it's from a seemingly reliable source), but it seems implausible and probably inaccurate nonetheless. According to

Black British, there are only about 1.5 million Black British people total, and surely not every single one of them is Ghanaian. I agree that "estimating" the number of officially registered people doesn't make sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk)

04:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)