Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77

Fast Company (magazine). Yes, they are reliable. 98.180.30.146 (talk

) 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The BLP information come from these two (another similar source was added since) -- IMDB, and IGMA.
• This text - Aside from its advertising, the story of how Max's Restaurant started has entered into popular culture. It was portrayed in the episode "Sino si Max?" of the long time running Filipino drama series Maalaala Mo Kaya.[5] - goes to a Spanish language "tabloid" (the other editors description) that I just earnestly can't judge for myself.
• The history of the restaurant, which to me appears to be non-notable marketing materials, is sourced entirely to the company's own website.

Any input here would be helpful. Thanks in advance.Griswaldo (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Their fact-checking is spotty at best, especially for any trivia and the like. (I have an IMDb listing myself [14], and most of what's in there was provided by me.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I link to IMDB as an External link that can be used to confirm filmography info only. This works when the information is uncontentious - if there is a challenge to the filmography info, then a citation meeting

WP:RS needs to be included. Personal info should never be sourced back to IMDB. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the other site - IGMA? Is this as unreliable as IMDB?Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo you don't have the correct link. Here: http://www.igma.tv/profile/isabel-oli. That site is affiliated with the GMA Network. Maybe that will help. Lambanog (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see using the GMA website as an issue, it is a news network and the information that is being sourced using the GMA site is not negative or particularly contentious. That being said I removed the IMDB link and replaced it with a ref from the Manila Bulletin. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Max's is quite a notable chain in the Philippines, at least. Backing up the entire article with online
  WP:RS nature of the Philippine tabloids may be debatable, is there anything here that's really suspect? --Arxiloxos (talk
  ) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a ton. I do not think there is anything contentious about the material, it's just the principle of sticking with quality sources for BLPs that concerned me. I also brought this here hoping to get some help like this for the article, or else to figure out if such help was even possible. People often just drive by and remove tags from articles that need help simply because they know personally that the chain is notable instead of fixing the articles to comply with
  WP:N. It looks like Max's should now easily get the fixes it needs. Thanks for the help.Griswaldo (talk
  ) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went in and added some references to the article that clearly shows its notability. I think it's good now. Silverseren^C 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several theological articles here on Wikipedia that use this blog [23] to source an opinion of the Roman Catholic church. It appears to be a personal blog and is self published and has no apparent peer review of it. Here are three articles that use this blog for sourcing.

This would involve

WP:SPS. For the most part, yes, blogs are not reliable. While the creator of this blog appears to be someone who would have some credibility, there is no way to verify he is who he says he and, regardless, as you said, the information has not been peer-reviewed or even been considered by an outside, reliable person in the field. Silverseren^C

17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK to remove this source from articles that use it? Or would that be considered inappropriate? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Be sure to clarify in your edit summary that the "sources" removed were blog posts, which fail

WP:RS. --Orange Mike | Talk

18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Operation Pike has been tagged as "single source" [24]

As I explained on talk[25], it would be great to find more sources, but it is a very obscure topic. The source used, Osborn's book Operation Pike. Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941 is very well regarded. For example Keith Neilson (who himself is a Professor of history and author of several books on Anglo-Russian relations[26]) reviewed the book in the academic journal "Diplomacy and Statecraft". He writes: "Osborn, an archivist for the American National Archives and Records Administration, has provided a very useful study of British policy towards the Soviet Union from 1939 to 1941 and, in particular, of the little-known Anglo-french plans to attack the Soviet Union in the period from September 1939 to June 1940." In conclusion, Neilson writes: "This is a very good book on a limited topic. It does not promise more than it deliveres, its documentary base is exemplary and its conclusions are judicious and carefully considered."

So given that this is an obscure topic with scant coverage and virtually no prospect of finding additional sources that deal with the topic in detail, and that a published Professor in History has reviewed the only comprehensive source on the topic as exemplary, judicious and carefully considered, is this "single source" deemed sufficiently reliable that this tag is unnecessary? --

More than one source now, so I suppose the question is moot. :P But I would also advice that you use this to link to the specific pages you used in the book. That allows other users to verify the information. Silverseren^C 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good advice, will do. --

talk

) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this article also considered a valid resource? [27]

Here is a church website giving commentary on the article.[28]

"An early draft of this article was edited by Archpriest Thomas Hopko, retired dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (OCA), and this final copy has the approval of His Grace Lazar Puhalo (OCA), noted theologian, retired archbishop of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and abbot of New Ostrog Monastery near Vancouver, British Columbia."

The article also appears to confirm what is on the church dioceses webpage states as the church teaching on the subject here. [29] The OCA website is maintained by the editor of the original article Thomas Hopko who is also a main editor on the Orthodox Study bible. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that the article is not a reliable source, just because of the website it is printed on and the lack of ability to verify the writer's truthfulness. The Preachers Institute appears to be, while slightly exclusive, still fairly inclusive in who it allows in, as long as you have written sermons and things and proved yourself to them. So I wouldn't trust that either. If you want to go with the information, unless you have an alternative source, I would say stick with the primary information on the OCA website until something better is found. Silverseren^C 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK will do. Thanks Again. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1.A link to the source to on Russia as superpower[30] 2.The article in which it is being used is Russia 3.The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting down below:

The current writing is this: Russia is a great power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of the G8, G20, the Council of Europe, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community, the OSCE, and is the leading member of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

text here quote next to superpower on approval to use source as: I would like to replace it saying this: Russia is percieved as a superpower[31] and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of the G8, G20, the Council of Europe, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community, the OSCE, and is the leading member of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The source is "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear" - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010[32]

There has been no discussion on this source so I am sending it here to get some views. I looked at this source as it list references in the source as Russia as a superpower and why Russia is considered to the world as a superpower world affairs, using the issue with Iran and the world over Iran, people are wanting and using Russia as the term superpower in its world influence. I think this is a good source personally, maybe not as lengthly but does title it and talks about it in the article and references in at the bottom, it also is written from an institute so it is also education institution source.

Please see if you can give me some views if this would be an accepted source to use or maybe one with a couple of more I could also use as daisey chain source to the subject as Russia being a superpower. I am would like to use this source to use as Russia being a perceived as superpower again or a superpower as I think it is important and I think it is a good source. Thanks--12.40.50.1 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search for "Russia" and "superpower" and the things I found (this, for example) stated that Russia is no longer a superpower, but is still considered a "energy superpower". Then I ran across this, which states that Russia is no longer an energy superpower either, so...not sure where that leaves us. Silverseren^C 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search also too I found this on Russia for energy superpower[33] here[34] and here[35] there seems to be positive evidence Russia accounts for being an energy superpower no doubt and especially with their new pipeline. I did a thorough search and I needed sometime on searching "Russia Federation superpower" and "russia as superpower" this is what I came accross[36] here[37] here[38] [39] here[40] here[41] here[42] [43] here[44] here[45] and here[46]. I am sure I can find more of them but requires more time reading them yet each of these there is some positive evidence out there that Russia has a world view to the world as being a superpower by some important people. Whether as energy superpower or using it as a superpower request it is a superpower in my belief just in what I have read and they maybe some sources that may say different but the quick search pulls these first. Energy superpower is one thing but their nation as a world leader I can agree with that notion as them being a superpower on the world stage.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look myself on this and here's something I found a creditable source may also be worth reading ([47]) written by Steven Rosefielde called the "Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower" from University of North Carolina by a foreign relations professor. I have viewed a couple of these sources from a above has a lot to do what is in this book for Russia being placed as a superpower. This source you mentioned has some weight itself[[48]], maybe small form but does speak of Russia being a superpower including references is also counted as college material for adding as a verified source for any research paper so it is to me a reliable source. I will concur with you on it that's my take. Good luck.--24.205.238.10 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• To my mind, when one has to search hard to find some sources that asserts Russia is a superpower, as demonstrated above, then I think the issue of
  talk
  ) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of those listed above are likely to be found from a simple Google News search. Silverseren^C 19:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if reliance solely on news sources is sufficient, as much of it can be subject to spin and hyperbole. Looking at

talk

) 19:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinions from news sources (unless you are talking about specialized magazines such as

WP:UNDUE what MEMRI believes in shouldn't even be mentioned in the first place. Jim101 (talk

) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the "MEMRI" is a The Middle East Media Research Institute which is why I asked on this because it is not really an opinion but is a credit article since it is from a . org institute of studies. That stirs it away from media material but educational research material. I think it should be labeled as Russia is accountable as being a superpower by the The Middle East Media Research Institute and maybe the supporting sources one editor mentioned about on supporting case sources on Russia proclaimed as a superpower also sort of makes sense Russia is in that direction to use as a superpower. Anyway I am just trying to make a claim here as I think Russia it is in good standing for being a superpower and not a great power is all.--12.40.50.1 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a simmering edit war at Sahih al-Bukhari with an editor aggressively adding Shiite propaganda to the page. On other pages, these has been somewhat of an agreement that most of the mainstream Islamic sites, regardless of sect, are unacceptable as most are simply not reliable sources. In this particular instance, the strong bias of the two websites in question, as evidenced below, add to that unreliability. I cut and pasted part of what I wrote at Talk:Sahih al-Bukhari#Textual distortion section regarding this issue:

Supertouch (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the two sources. Answering Ansar is not a reliable source; as you said, it's self-published. But al-islam.org is a little more tricky. The site claims to be run by "Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project", a 501c3 - and as far as I can tell, it's an actual organization (1, 2). Just because it's a propaganda site doesn't mean that it can't be used per se.

Now I'm pretty sure this is the edit in question. What you've got there is a case of

synthesis. The editor is using an al-islam source that is just a straight scan of a book to make the claim that "proves that the Arabic text of the hadith and the English equivalent are completely different" and then goes on to do a self-translation of the text. That's just flat out original research and should not be included. So while al-islam.org may be an acceptable source in some cases, the way it's being used here isn't. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your prompt response. While I agree that perhaps the al-islam.org site is not necessarily a black and white case, how does its being operated by an actual organization affect its status as a reliable source? The sheer number of websites that criterion would therefore allow — specifically in Islam-related articles but also elsewhere — would allow anyone to say anything. Supertouch (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant it more as showing that the site doesn't clearly fall into

WP:SPS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress and so it can't be considered as an unreliable source. All can send comment, suggestion, information and ... to it, but it doesn't mean they will publish it. The text is verifiable, and I believe as the external link of translation exists in the article, it's necessary to have this section in the article. If a sentence, like what User:HelloAnnyong mentioned has problem, it's better to rewrite it or ask for citation, instead of deleting the whole text. I am ready to help to rewrite this section or a new article with user:supertouch or anyone else as I mentioned before, but for sure I will resist against the deletion of this important section as the text is verifiable and the sources are reliable.--Aliwiki (talk

) 13:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Buehler?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there?--UhOhFeeling (talk

) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

From Terms & Conditions:

• "Dennis does not endorse or control the Submitted Content delivered to this Site, and Dennis has no obligation to monitor such Submitted Content. As such, Dennis does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of any such Submitted Content."

If the criticism is "Submitted Content", then it's unequivocally not a reliable source. Given that the site itself is published in blog format and has no statement of editorial process for the rest of its content, I'd think it extremely unlikely that it meets

WP:RS anyway. --RexxS (talk

) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.blender.com/lists/67198/50-worst-artists-in-music-history.html so this article is no good?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI there are many notable and respected authors who contributed to the article including

Jonah Weiner - Currently a music critic for slate,

I would say with this stable of authors this article should be considered a valid source.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Any thoughts?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

HELLOOOOOOOO?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The stable of authors does sound imposing. I'm not sure if the list itself is supposed to be reviewed magazine content, or "submitted content", but if it comes from those authors, it seem reliable, per the part of

WP:RS that says "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --GRuban (talk

) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check the author's credentials but it doesn't appear to be user-submitted content. I would say that this qualifies as a

reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 13:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does not appear user-submitted. The authors all have strong credentials. Thanks for your help.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a question at

Well...i'm not sure if I would just call them unreliable. I mean, their about page does explain a lot and, if they are going through governmental sources to get their info, it would likely be accurate. Silverseren^C 21:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on the

--

Old Moonraker (talk

) 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting it another way, a number of editors are seeking to include recently cited testimony that the family of Titanic's most informed surviving senior officer, Charles Lightoller, received information from him which they kept secret for generations until recently publicised worldwide. The question is not whether the revealed information is true (or constitutes "a new theory") but whether and how the Wikipedia article should report this spectacular episode and its two pertinent allegations in a manner that enables evaluation by all readers. I note that a parallel controversy has been created in the article on Lightoller. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE appears to apply. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone

14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Spectacular the revelation may be, but their first appearance on WP nonetheless seems to be undue with respect to the treatment of other topics in the article, and unsustained by its source. Although it opens with "Lady (Louise) Patten has suggested", substantially it was reporting the tale as fact. --

Old Moonraker (talk

) 15:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Patten's 'steering blunder' allegation does seem like hokum. (If there had been a mistake with a helm order it's improbable that Murdoch would have been discreet about it, at the time. - Apart from anything else, he'd have been enlightening the helmsman and the junior watch officer about the errors of their ways, and everyone in the vicinity would have heard.) - Patten's assertion really belongs in the Titanic 'alternative theories' article. However, the longstanding 'tiller order' / 'rudder order' controversy is an area which needs to be clarified. Possibly there are surviving records connected with the manufacture and installation of Titanic's telemotor gear. Norloch (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently haaretz.com cannot be loaded inside the UAE (see P-800 Oniks history) and no doubt by other ISPs in the Islamic world.

Should we then consider all Israeli media to be non-reliable sources? And what should we do about all those sites that subjects of the PRC cannot see? Hcobb (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if you are being sarcastic, but if so please remember jokes are hard to transmit in bare text. Assuming otherwise then, can you explain why being banned by one country would make a source unreliable? Many good sources have been banned somewhere. I do not know of any WP tendency to see such political events as relevant in any way to sourcing questions here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that one reader, using an IP from Dubai, could not find the citation, does not mean that Haaretz.com cannot be accessed in the UAE. There could be many reasons for this -- parhaps his workplace blocked newspaper sites? How do we know?

And even if, for whatever reason (state censorship, editorial decision or technical reasons) Haaretz cannot be accessed in the UAE, that does not make it any less of a reliable source. The BBC has at various times been blocked by different states. There are probably states which block access to Al-Jazeera. And Wikipedia is full of links to articles which cannot be opened except by readers with access too an academic library. So what? These are all still reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The website [49] looks reasonably serious (a collaboration of

Given that all sound at first sight like reliable sources, the nature of the question is not so clear. We do not have to choose between reliable sources unless they disagree. But it would be surprising if they disagree in this particular case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless the start page is one huge, blatant lie, this is very obviously a reliable source. I don't understand why you want to replace NNDB entries in it with your list, though: Are you talking about LeMO entries which have incorporated the NNDB data or link to it? Then it would make sense. Otherwise, please note that the English Wikipedia tends to use a lot more sources than the German one; most good English articles are heavily over-sourced by the standards of the German WP community. Hans Adler 08:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually come from WP:FR where the policy is closer than on WP:DE but there is no source noticeboard, that's also why I asked the question here.

I had a look on this noticeboard and NNDB was not considered as a reliable source. So I was wondering what source to use to get the

List of University of Heidelberg people correctly sourced (and then to translate that back to WP:FR). There are also unsourced lines... on the page. For Mathematician, it's easy to find notable ones on Mac Tutor or the mathematical genealogy (I tend to prefer the first one) for other the only source may be in German and LeMo looked very good. --Anneyh (talk

) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

God help us, so far as I can tell there are only three WorldCat listings which deal with this subject: Religion and Subaltern Agency, written by a doctoral student and Christian missionary at the University of Madras as per here, Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and the stuggle for social equality in South India, of which apparently only Oxford University holds a copy here, and finally, a government publication called Colonialism, nationalism and legitimation : an essay on Vaikunda Swamy cult, Travancore here. The former is apparently slightly more widely available, the last seems to be only in the Library of Congress and the Indian government library. Does the first qualify as reliable as per our guidelines? John Carter (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be a matter of transliteration rendering different spellings. It seems to be the same as the

Vaikunta sect of Vaishnavism (this connection is made in Indian Church History Review, v. 26. June 1992. Serampore: Church History Association of India, p. 8.). There are likely other such articles with spelling variations in titles which should be merged. • Astynax ^talk

17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tamil sources listed (other than those published by the Ayyavaikunta Nather Sidhasramam - the sect's publishing house) in the main Ayyavazhi article look like solid RS to me. I am fairly certain it isn't the same as the Vaikunta sect. This is a unique sect/cult in Tamil Nadu--Sodabottle (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Libertarianism
• Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students

Is this book, which is written for English secondary school students for courses about American government, a reliable source for

While common sense tells us not to use the book, are there any policy reasons that state it cannot be used?

TFD (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable tertiary source (published by a reputable publishing house etc.)... however, this does not mean that it is the most reliable source possible. Secondary school level text books often simplify their material to make it understandable by younger students. We aim for better... so, while the source can be used... if there is a higher quality secondary source available, use that higher quality source instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar is exactly right. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some discussion about whether The Cambridge history of India, Volume 6 and other volumes of the series along with similar Cambridge history for other nations are reliable. The source is to be used for results and Casualties and losses section of Battle of Phillora along with other details described in the book through this section of book. The volume like the other volumes in the series is written by multiple famous and important historians and authors with knowledge of Indian history and even includes works of even historians and authors who lived in 18 and/or 19 century. The publisher of the is S.Chand, one of the largest publisher in Indian subcontinent and publishes the volume for sale in the Indian subcontinent. The information in the book is important because it is probably one of the only reliable neutral review of battle as other reliable medias only concentrated on the whole war rather than individual battles.

However one of the editor had been reverting the changes I made based on the source before I requested protection stating I need to come up with the name of the exact author or historian who wrote the lines in question out of the many who wrote the book. As far as I know Cambridge University would not publish any false information purposefully but clearly I am not the authority or have the power to gather information regarding "who wrote which line??" from Cambridge University.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Um...that's silly. No, you don't need to say specifically which of the writers wrote that specific line. If it tells you which one for some of them, it would be nice to have that as a part of the reference description, but it is definitely not necessary. You are referencing the book as a whole, not the specific "writer among many". Silverseren^C 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a reliable source to me. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, reliable and no need to specify what author(s) wrote the specific content in question. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually you need to provide a full citation including the author of the section of the whole text you relied upon. The object you describe has individual authors for chapters or entries. The author of the chapter you used, and the title of the chapter, should be cited. As the author of an individual chapter goes to its reliability, just as much as the publisher, the chapter's author and title need to be cited. This is also because you didn't reference the entire work, you referenced a subsection of the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. Well, if the author is listed at the beginning of each chapter, that's easy enough for the OP to list. The opposing editor in this situation (whomever the OP is talking about) though should have taken the time and initiative to look at the reference and add the writer's name to the description, instead of removing it entirely. Silverseren^C 01:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless the editor of a work is merely a compiler and "chapters" are position papers representing diverse views of different authors exploring a particular topic, that level of citation (author of particular section) should not be required for a work which is considered encyclopedic in structure, either general or on a specific area of study. That said, if individual authors are specifically noted at the start of each section, then I agree the actual author should be noted in the citation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it isn't necessary, but it does add that extra level of detail for a reader and it seems easy enough to list for this source as it is. Silverseren^C 01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo's suggestion is the preferred one but it should not be mandatory. User:UplinkAnsh is citing a book which lists five different people as authors. As long as he complies with the minimum requirements of the citation template being used, i.e, as long as all five authors are listed and the correct page numbers provided, there's shouldn't be a problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a 1964 reprint of a series that was published between 1922 and 1937, and should be avoided because as the New Cambridge History of India (2004) says, "it has inevitably been overtaken by the mass of new research over the past sixty years". TFD (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussion concerns the book's treatment of the Battle of Phillora, which took place in 1965, it can't be merely a reprint, nor one of 1964! But if extra stuff has been added for an Indian edition, distinguishing chapter authors becomes that much more important. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Grays Sports Almanac when I read this :) Zuggernaut (talk

) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I found that the section Political Developments Since 1919 (India and Pakistan)was written by Vidya Dhar Mahajan in the extended digitized version in 2009.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a reliable source. Citing the authors of the individual chapters/sections is best practice, though citing the work and page is enough to start. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned particularly with this article: [51], referenced here:

It caught my eye because this has been proposed again and again for decades, and always the answer is no. and this is no different, and no more significant. From the article: "So-called "nonlocal" phenomenon cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light but Putz and Svozil today ask whether it can be used to process it, to carry out computational tasks at superluminal speeds." The problem here is that processing information 'is TRANSFERing it. Processing is just another word for entropic transfer. (transfer with loss of

arXiv is not a reliable source, and a blog post about an arXiv article should not be considered a reliable source either. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i'm removing it. Kevin Baas^talk 13:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Having tried to edit the

Thanks for opening this discussion. As stated on the article's discussion page, my objection at this point is that the video is one that appears on a social networking website. Again, if it is genuine it would be better if a link to Suzuki's own website was used. ThatSaved (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to make any judgement on the video, since i'm not entirely sure. But the website is definitely not reliable and should be taken out. Silverseren^C 23:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To me the video, while posted on a MySpace page (that's still around?) seems legit. I don't know who found it or where, that'd make the video better as source material. But I'll definitely hold back a day or two or three while more disinterested editors ponder the matter, before I do any more editing on the article page.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Both the Suzuki Corp video and the Suzuki internal documents seem legitimate to me, but both have rather dodgy present locations. It would be better to trace both to more legitimate sources, if possible. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We now have a better source for the Suzuki documents and safety statistics, thanks to editor ThatSaved: [52], which is sourced back to CU. Now we just need a link for the video back to Suzuki & its law PR firm -- note that the video itself does assert this, is that good enough? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are policies or guidelines how to deal with book references without page numbers. --CarTick 01:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean that there's a reference from a book already in a Wikipedia article which doesn't have page numbers on it, you can read this quite long thread from a week or so ago - the executive summary of which might be something like: ask the editor who placed the citation for page numbers, or try to find the page numbers yourself, but don't remove the citation unless you have reason to think that it is bogus.

If, however, you mean that you have a book you want to use for a source, but it has no page numbers in it, then I would think the best thing would be to indicate what chapter or section the cited information is in, or if the book is short and has no such divisions, have the cite indicate that the book is "unpaged". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

wow. that is a long one. ^{[page needed]} and requesting the editor for page numbers seem like an idea everyone would agree on. guess, it is context dependent what to do if the editor fails to provide page numbers. The problem is you cant even search using the index if the page you are looking for doesnt even mention the key word or subject. of course, this happens only if it was added by a dishonest editor. --CarTick 02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem that the quality of indexing seems to have deteriorated lately (says the old middle-aged coot). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I recently tried to quote from the beginning of an old instruction manual, whose page numbers only begun circa twenty pages in. I called everything before that by i-xxii. Don't know if that's of any relevance, or if perhaps I done wrong.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnumbered front matter should be normally referred to as such, "Unnumbered front matter starting at the Introduction and the following 21 pages." Pages numbered unusually (i-xxii) should be referenced as pp. i-xxii; A-AF. Pages with implicit numbers (the first page of chapters are often not numbered) should be numbered with their implicit number. Pages which are unnumbered in sequence but containing numbered section or paragraph numbers should be referenced by section or paragraph number §57¶5, or 5.f.IV.71.A-G. Pages which are unnumbered in the sequence (for instance, the obverse of a numbered page, normally unnumbered and blank containing a plate or other illustration) should be described as "Obverse p. 2" or "Opposite p. 3". Pages with no numbering sequence should be referred to by their chapter, section, or first line of the paragraph. For example "Chapter 3, §Ducklings, ¶"The ducklings slowly waddled down…" and the following 7 pages." Your choice if you like using stuff like passim. versus found in passing; ff. versus following pages. When describe unusual page numbers, like "Fly sheet" or "Rear fly sheet" or "Note inside front wing of dust jacket" you should ideally spell out the information very clearly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue was discussed recently on the board. Assuming the book has page numbers, you should ask for the page numbers first, using a tag. If the person adding the citation refuses to provide it after a reasonable amount of time (give him/her several days at least), despite having clear opportunity, then you should remove the citation, and replace it with a citation requested tag. If you feel the information itself is untrue, you should remove the material as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --CarTick 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a user who claims that the following sources are not good enough to be used to state in the classical liberalism article that what is now called classical liberalism used to be called simply "liberalism." I know it sounds crazy that he is disputing something so obvious, but he is. Here are the sources he is claiming are not reliable:

"The Industrial Revolution that began in Britain saw the development of economic liberalism. That is, first of all, the belief that the free market was the optimal form of economic life, providing the greatest prosperity for all, and necessitating maximum economic freedom for everyone. This went hand in hand with a wider view of liberty which saw the maximisation of social freedom as the best way to run society in general. It was this version of liberalism that was the first to actually be called 'liberalism', which was in the nineteenth century. It is better known by the name 'laissez-faire liberalism', although it is sometimes called 'classical liberalism'." Page 13: [53] This book, as you can see, is cited in many other books as well as in peer-reviewed publications: [54] The author, Ian Adams is Honorary Fellow at the University of Durham, where he was a lecturer in political theory until his retirement in 2001. [55]

"It would be difficult to adequately characterize Jefferson's philosophy. It come closest to what was called "liberalism" in the nineteenth century, and classical liberalism after that term was appropriated by the progressive movement..." Page 846 [56]

""Classical liberalism - or simply liberalism as it was called until around the turn of the century - is the signature philosophy of Western Civilization." Page ix [57]

First I just gave one source, then he said that wasn't good enough, so I get another, he says it's not good enough, then another. It seems ridiculous for me to continue on when I'm sure he's just going to say the next one is not good enough either. Please give me some back up here. The above sources appears to comply with Wikipedia reliability standards. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The book is an introductory polisci textbook for high school/junior college and has no references and is therefore considered a

teriary source. The problem with this type of book is that concepts are often simplified for students and all views or even sometimes the most common views may not be presented. The book does not actually say that classical liberalism "was formerly called simply "liberalism"". It mentions that the term came into use in the 19th century but there were other ideologies called liberalism at the time: Whiggery, radicalism, and reformist liberalism, and conservatives, like Robert Peel pursued liberal policies too. The reference to liberalism as an ideology as opposed to a political movement probably did not take place until later. The other source is from a chapter on Jefferson in an encyclopedia about civil liberties, which is not the most direct source. The text you removed was sourced to a high quality secondary source and should stand. TFD (talk

) 04:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the guy ^ Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If there was something else called liberalism at the time, that doesn't take away from the fact that classical liberalism was called liberalism too. But now you're changing your resistive strategies. Before your only complaints were that the sources weren't reliable. Now that I bring them here where other more objective people can judge them, all of a sudden you start disputing something else. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Adams (1998) is a senior secondary or undergraduate textbook. It will not adequately discuss this level of minutae. Unreliable: User higher quality sources in preference.

Finkleman (2006) is an encyclopedia of civil liberties. As there is no author or article title here, I am assuming an unsigned article by a non-specialist in a Tertiary work. Even if it were a signed article by a non-specialist, it does not appear to be a technical discussion of the term liberalism. Unreliable for this level of technical debate: User higher quality sources in preference.

Denson (2001) "Introduction" is an introduction to a work published by a partisan press with some scholarly merit. It appears to be reliable for the point of fact, that "Classical liberalism - or simply liberalism as it was called until around the turn of the century." However, a specialist work on the topic of liberalism, rather than on the topic of the US presidency, ought to be used instead. This is a trivial fact of etymology, not a substantive scholarly opinion on the history of liberalism.

We aren't here to give you back-up. Concur with TFD. First two unreliable for claims. Third minimally reliable for a minor point of fact, highly desirable to replace with a specialist scholarly work actually written on the topic of the history of Liberalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite anywhere in policy that textbooks are not good sources? They're explicltly stated as being reliable sources in WP:TERTIARY policy: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources.This one certainly meets Wikipedia standards for reliability." This is not "minutae." This is something very broad, that you would want a tertiary source for. These sources are simply stating the obvious that classical liberalism has the word "classical" in front of it today, because it used to just be called "liberalism." It should be obvious, but the reason it should be noted is because someone not very bright that comes across the article may think it was always called classical liberalism. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The expected level of reliability for a source discussing the history of liberalism is a scholarly publication explicitly discussing the history of liberalism. A scholarly encyclopaedia of liberalism, containing signed articles by experts, would be appropriate. Policy clearly state that the reliability inheres in the author, work and publisher on a situational basis. The authors may be reliable (I have no idea for Finkleman, the author and title of the specific article is not given). The reliability of the presses is not in doubt. The reliability of the kind of work is the problem here: undergraduate textbooks lacking sufficient specialist depth, unsigned and off topic encyclopaedia articles, an introduction to a work on another topic. To address the encyclopaedia article and textbooks in relation to TERTIARY, you are not arguing a broad point, you are arguing a specialist technical point. Specialist technical SECONDARY works in academic publication are the expected standard of reliable sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently writers of articles in peer-reviewed publications who site Adams' book disagree with you. [58] Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They are conducting original scholarly research and have that luxury. We are writing an encyclopaedia from the best available sources and do not. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion makes we wonder what content is being disputed. The word classical has a meaning in English, and obviously as this WP is in English we do not need to source the meanings of every English term we use. Part of the nature of the word classical is that it is added as an adjective to distinguish the "old style" of something from the "new style". Obviously however, like 1+1=2 obvious, the "old style" would not have been used in the "old times". So if there is any level of sourcing for "classical liberalism" being called "liberalism" why would that be objected to? Is it being argued that liberalism is a neologism being applied to old movements retrospectively? Liberalism is obviously an "-ism" coming from "liberal", a term used in politics since the 1800s at least, and then obviously without "classical". I think I am right in saying the "-ism" also starts to appear in several contexts in the 19th century. More to the point though, it does not at first sight look like a "redflag" type of statement needing the highest quality of sourcing? Wouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt on a lesser source in such a case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is technical language related to scholarly ambit claims made by various post-Austrian economics authors and think tanks about the past extent of particular contemporary ideologies; and, as such, has been taken up in the polemic of non-scholarly believers in that particular politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the article in question, the disagreement appears to be over some subtle points concerning how the term 'classical liberal' came about, and how it was first used. The evolution of ideas over the history of liberalism is complex, a senior secondary/introductory undergraduate text is not an appropriate source to use. I agree with Fifelfoo that appropriate sources to use are scholarly publications explicitly discussing the history of liberalism. LK (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks. So, just to try to understand, you are perhaps thinking that liberalism in the 19th century had a looser and less technical meaning, and so indeed you are saying that "classical liberalism" is a retrospective definition for predecessors of a particular "technically defined" liberalism of today? That could be, but in fact the word liberalism still has a loose meaning. So then I wonder if a wording change might help. Looking at the quote above, "simply liberalism as it was called until around the turn of the century" it does not state that classical liberalism was the only thing called liberalism at that time, but maybe you are objecting to the fact that this wording implies it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK looked at the article and see this:

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[5] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.

So in effect the argument is really about whether the text book is good enough to "trump" this summary? I think the summary is better and more comprehensive, allowing for the variations in meaning at the time, so I do not really see why anybody would want to replace it with an over-simplification. I believe liberalism was indeed not a "technical term" in the 19th century.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I recently created an article

Lists like this are always controversial. Ideally you're looking for reliable secondary sources, but notability isn't really a RS issue (though the two are often related), it's more an AfD issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't see this sooner. The description of the dispute is misleading, as it doesn't involve sources. Being discussed at

talk

) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This website appears to be a compendium of press releases, and hence in general not a reliable source. In particular, International Pole dancing Day, a press release from "The world’s largest independent pole-dancing-fitness school, Polestars" does not seem to be a reliable source for the history of pole-dancing at Striptease#Recent history. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask if others are sometimes uncomfortable with the following, and whether anyone has any practical suggestions about it. The most common scenario is something like this made-up case:- "this online review article looks well-written and well-sourced, great, but because RS debate is possible you should just use its handy bibliography for what you wanted to put in and not mention what led you there". Sound familiar?

Even when people then get copies of the articles in said bibliography (as per

I was recently involved in an example where a sourced quotation which had been subject to some questionable RS debate was removed, and a re-written sentence openly intended to capture something in the old material was then inserted without sourcing. The wording change possibly improves the article, and is (and was!) obvious enough not to need special sourcing, but I don't feel good about the deliberate lack of attribution.

In academic literature one still sees authors who are correct enough to quote a source as something that they read in another source. Indeed this is often quite useful. In WP, it seems odd to see people on WP argue quite strongly sometimes that an apparently good source should be used indirectly and without attribution supposedly due to WP rules. In reality of course what people mean is that it is better to avoid a long RS debate about how the WP rules might apply, and to find a "path of least resistance".

Just trying to think why this is happening, it occurs to me that it is relevant that if you put words in an article without sourcing, then someone needs to actually look at the content and understand it before they can judge if they need more sourcing. Feedback is likely to be informed in such cases. OTOH, if you try very hard to mention all sources, you can expect "feedback" which is generalized and awkward to deal with: based not on any reading of the content but upon quick browsing for theoretical sourcing warning signs. Are the incentives wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the question, so let me tell you what I'm hearing:

• You read Mary's paper.
• Mary's paper cites John's book.
• You read John's book.
• You write about the subject, and cite John's book.

This is 100% acceptable: It is not necessary to document how you found John's book, or how many other sources you read before writing a sentence.

What's not acceptable is to read Mary and then falsely claim that you read John. If you only read Mary, you must cite Mary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. There's an unwritten rule when blogging to make sure to mention the intermediate steps (the ubiquitous "hat tip") but while that's of some importance to bloggers who are looking to take credit for their blogging, it is not an issue when assembling encyclopedic content. Having said that, if I felt that Mary's paper was the key to finding the info in John's book, I might try to find a way to cite Mary, if it could be done without compromising integrity.--SPhilbrickT 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the two responses are both looking at the most controversial type of example. I'll try doing a rewrite of WhatamIdoing's useful summary which is both based on real (but more messy) experience and also more designed to show how this can become more ethically dubious in more realistic and less extreme cases:

• You read Mary's paper. You consider it an RS.
• Mary's paper reviews works by 10 authors in a particular are of research, categorizes them in a neat uncontroversial way, and gives some neat comments about them which are not particularly controversial but handy nevertheless.
• You make an WP article citing Mary's paper as a source. You use Mary's neat way of summarizing the field, as well as some of her observations.
• Another editor arrives and a content debate ensues during which the editor claims Mary's paper is not a good enough RS. Let's say for example the field is a quite technical one and Mary published in a less technical journal (not a blog). Let's say the visiting editor cites
  WP:REDFLAG
  for example.
• After some circular discussions the two of you come to the practical compromise of getting around silly debate by simply pretending Mary is not a source, but instead the 50 authors. Direct quotes are simply reworded into new words that mean the same thing.
• When the visiting editor sees what the result looks like after simply deleting mention of Mary, they are satisfied there is now no sourcing problem because nothing stands out as the kind of thing you would tag as needing a source. Nothing adapted from Mary was controversial. (Yes, this raises the question of why redflag was incited, but in the real WP, people are not always that consistent and you have to get past an argument.)
• Let's say for the sake of making a clear example that you have actually read the 50, but the person who insisted on deleting mention of Mary has not and was basically a visitor to the article who noticed a perceived sourcing issue but does not really know the field.
• Let's say this editor is unable to debate what is really controversial in the field and so simply takes a hard line of saying redflag can be assumed to be relevant whenever an article in a less technical journal seems to be trying to review something in a more technical field.
• The implied defense of this compromise is that deleting mention of the source was OK because everything Mary wrote might have been arrived at by someone reading the 50 authors.

It seems to me that if an academic or student got caught plagiarizing and gave this excuse it would be laughable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be, because the academic wouldn't have to deal with drive-by editors. We do. Our work is the product of committee, so we must make compromises. If you want to soothe your conscience, you can remind yourself that we are quite different from academics or students, because they are expected to do original research. We're specifically forbidden to. An academic who writes what would be a Wikipedia featured article as a dissertation will rightly be criticised because it has no original work or at least analysis. All our work is required to be copied, and we are not allowed to enter our opinion. That's a much greater difference from academia. --GRuban (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. But just considering WP's own statements "to itself" so to speak, isn't this also a case where we break our own "rules"? Consider

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'd even go one step further and hypothesize that there are probably people who have learnt from the same pressures simply to avoid sourcing as much as possible, as a way to avoid drawing attention from drive-by editors in the first place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 14:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll call your hypothesis and raise: there are definitely people who have learnt not to edit the Wikipedia at all due to its multitudinous slings and arrows, and this one is by no means the most painful. But ... where does this lead? If you have a specific workable suggestion, please propose it. Just "say where you got it" doesn't work, because the article doesn't have just one owner/author, there is just the amorphous Wikipedia community, that can edit it at any time, and often do. Just because editor A got the information from source Bar by reading about it in Foo which references Bar, doesn't mean editor B can't get the same information from Bar directly. Does that mean that editor B isn't allowed to delete the reference to Foo, even though Foo isn't a reliable source, and the article now contains no information that directly depends on Foo, just because someone else who once edited the article once read Foo? --GRuban (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

People leaving WP no longer affect WP. I think you are missing the point that I am noting cases where WP accepted habits seem to be pushing people to break WP's own stated policy, on WP. Your scenario section seems to amount to saying that no one will normally notice the plagiarism?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, merely that I don't see a solution in which we can credit everyone on the chain of references. The problem is that our articles don't have a single author, so there isn't a single chain of where that author got it. "Say where you got it", doesn't mean what you think it does, it's the plural "you", meaning any editor who has ever edited the article, not the singular "you" meaning any one of them in particular. Let's look at your example from the other perspective. Joe read Mary's paper, which cites 50 sources, and then read the 50 sources. Frank read the 50 sources directly, he never saw Mary's paper. Should the way our article should be written really depend on whether Frank or Joe got to it first? Surely not, our articles don't have original and secondary authors.

Or let's actually quote

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT: "For example, a webpage may provide information that the page's author attributes to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your source is the webpage, not the book...It is often better to read the original source material yourself, in which case you can simply cite the original source." That means that, much as it may seem unfair to Mary, we don't cite her, we cite the 50 directly. --GRuban (talk

) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Please look at the example as I explained it. I am talking about cases where people knowingly used the secondary source also, and not just its bibliography.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the OP, and this is a problem that many WP editors try to dance around. Time and again, after I've put work into an article, using good sources and working to achieve a balanced, reliable text, on my won or together with others here, I run into editors (or they approach me) who are a complete PITA because they pretend that every single statement - whatever kind it is, even if it's uncontested or so obvious no one has ever needed to phrase it as a fact in print - must be shown to have been taken raw from a "reliable source" (however they define that) and that any attempt to rephrase, explain or bring out why something is important within the context of the subject makes it "original research" and inadmissible. In their view, the way to keep WP clean and reliable is to insist that every article should be a patchwork of statements that are vouched for, or verified/made falsifiable and controllable one by one, by the external source that says, or implies that "statement (p) is true".and put the citation for (p) in a footnote.

In reality that doesn't solve the issues, and real scientiests, scholars and encyclopaedic writers do not stop at simply saying a certain source has generic validity all the time because of what it is (reliable, an "honoured newspaper", a high-rank university etc). If a statement or a line of reasomning comes under scrutiny, it's those statements that should be discussed, not whatever source they were quoted by and the generic reliability of that source (which is most often not the ultimate source, anyway). Real encyclopaedias such as the Britannica are full of statements whose underpinnings are a swarm of minor facts, theories and inferences: the real voucher is the reputation of the guy who wrote the article and his knowledge, because unlike the average WP editor he risks something if he puts blatantly false, faulty or overstated stuff into his text. His colleagues might detect it and ruin his reputation. If any Jack Bass writes "Barack Obama is a practising muslim /source S1/ and he was born in Kenya /source S2, perhaps obamacrimes.com/" all he risks is an edit war and eventually, if he is really blunt, having his account blocked. The next day, or even before, he may open another account and keep on writing. So a standard view of what would make current WP policy says WP editing is a kind of collecting of raw facts that are sort of plagiarized, openly or thinly veiled, but in my view, and according to scientific standards, that isn't enough to make the outcome reliable.

If the idea here is to provide texts that are as reliable and s valid as a good paper encyclopadia, then it's just not helpful to pretend that this can be achieved simply by laying a million small "directly sourced statements" side by side but avoiding any discussion of those statements as such, and any attempts to bring them together. But if the hyperdeletionists who insist that's the way keep up their good work, the only way to avoid being clobbered with "original research!" seems to be to blatantly plagiarize whatever you can get accepted as a "good and reliable source".

Of course, sometimes this doesn't happen. It's just as pointed out here: sometimes the plagiarizing/rewriting thing is more discreet but it still sticks to rephrasing whatever you can find and which seems to vaguely fit with preconceived ideas of what should be in the article, "what it's like". Or you simply write a good article (or improve an existing one) according to your own solid knowledge - the article you'd have written for the Britannica if you'd have been asked to - and sprinkle it with some references although you know that it would be impossible to nail down every single statement, every nuance of the text, to a previous rock hard source. You add a list if books you know are central to the area. And then yoiu hope not to have some 15-year old newbie running onto it and deleting half of it, saying "not sourced" and "whattya mean by that? POV!!" (RS and citation discussion on purely generic terms). I find this unsatisfactory, but I'm not sure there's a way out of it as long as the Wiki bureaucracy insists on that every John Blow is allowed to write about everything but they must only parrot what one or another "reliable source" (in reality, there can never be an indisputable solid list of such sources, and what counts as "good sources" is in drift from article to article) has had to say in exactly those same words on the subject.Strausszek (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your remark about "generic" good sourcing and good sourcing which context relative is a very important point. It is already how WP policy is phrased, but this is widely ignored by some "sub-cultures" within WP. If it were not so widely ignored, then it would probably help reduce many types of problems including the one I have described above where a source's name is deliberately deleted, even though what it taken from it is considered OK without sourcing. If sourcing questions were always properly handled in a context relative way such cases would be immediately recognized as simply illogical.

OTOH, I am not sure my point if fully being understood:-

• This is not just a hidden problem. There are cases where you can see quite clearly on the talk page how people have been told to remove a citation but not whatever useful ideas were drawn from it. There must be cases which are hidden also, but right now it is something people do proudly in the open. That's what makes this kind of case "interesting". People think this is demanded by WP. It would not have been worthwhile to post hear about cases everyone agrees to be wrong.
• I would also say that it is not the newbies who cause the most of these problems, but rather experienced editors who are more willing and able to confidently claim that this is the way WP should work. In general I think experienced editors sometimes exaggerate about the amount of problems that come from newbies. This is I think something which has changed over time. The minority of newbies causing real problems seem to be picked up much quicker these days.

Thanks for comments. My understanding is that basically WP as a community does not yet think much about this particular point. OTOH, if everyone would remember that sourcing should always be discussed in a context the problem might well reduce a lot.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've run into this kind of crummy behaviour too. We're discussing a few different facets now, so here's a few outlines of the varied issues:

• cropping out a section that contained valid points without bothering to discuss the content, the new editor only throwing in a quick argument to the effect that the stated source is not RS, or that he has an RS statement himself, one which he adds inline notes to. he then claims this new source trumps what you or other people have written, adn your sources, and argues that his new text can only be contested or modified by finding a fresh RS statement to contest his. In reality, what he's written is largely his own ideas and the RS support is just a token.

• the new editor removes a section even though it has several good sources, saying "what those sources say can only be verified (shown to be finally true) with complete certainty by asking person X, or by going to archive documents. But those methods can't be rapidly checked by every WP user, so we must remove the entire section". This confuses two senses of verifiability - verifiable as in "demonstrably and finally true" (e.g. a person's birth date or education from valid archive documents, or their presence at a given time and place, or sometime during a certain span of time, from photographs that have been shown to be genuine) and "possible to assert and put to the test with the help of sources". The latter really is falsifiability (Popper) from accepted sources or authorities, but because many statements on WP are "interim true" and used to support more statemnets in turn, people confuse those two senses of 'verifiability'.

• Cutting every instance of the use of a certain word on the grounds that it is "vague" and "can't be defined properly" except in a very narrow way, the way user X likes and which he claims is the Wiki way to define it. The other day I saw a user who had been running about masses of film articles and cut every instance where the words "surreaiist film" or "surrealist cinema" - meaning, inspired by surrealist aesthetics or strikingly relying on subconscious or juxtaposed disparate images - were used. In the process he cut a good deal of useful, sourced and relevant content too, but his only argument was that "surrealist film" is a dummy concept, except when it relates to the early French surrealist film makers. There's no way of knowing how much he knew of the subject: by avoiding discussion he kept off having anyone find out.

• the content of a section or a few lines is largely based on a few sources quoted and fully summarized with page references by the main book used at hand by user A - an intermediiate source. user A footnotes the WP text with those ultimate sources and their page refs, but also paraphrases the book that he found them in. User B comes in and is hostile to the intermediate source, so he removes the entire bit saying it's vitiated by an unreliable source. not bothering to discuss the value of the statements that were culled, of what the WP article bit in question said, or whether the article is helped by cutting that bit or just becomes less coherent. Or even prone to misunderstanding. In the really bad cases, and I've seen those, user B wants to encourage misunderstanding in a certain direction, but without having to put the cards on the table.

• Working to keep a certain line of thought out of an article, or a bunch of interrelated articles, by insisting on very high demands for when a source can be classed as "reliable" and denying anyone the option to use sources that support an opposing view, or claim such a view exists, saying they are non-notable sources, polemical sources etc. Most often this is done bt a gang of people who have taken it upon themselves to keep articles in line to their views, but I've seen it done by indefatigable single persons too.

Newbies or experienced but determined veterans? Well, I've seen these kinds of edit turf war and control strategies both from people with tens of thousands of edits, and sometimes it seems with good academic credentials, and from people who are complete newcomers and who don't really know the dough they're trying to knead. But both kinds can be just as unwilling to discuss what they do. In the bad cases, they just crop away and add their own material, without any prior discussion, claiming that they're executing 'sanctified WP policy'. In reality, they are claiming that the principles they find are WP laws, not guidelines, which cuts the space for any discussion that would take the context or interpretation problems into account. And quite often, too, the limits of which sources are RS are completely different from one article to the next, or from one subculture or editing gang to another.

Essentially, sometimes RS is whatever you can get classed as an RS. I've been trying to make people understand that an op-ed comment or a lighthearted, provocative column in a big morning newspaper, or a tv interview with some journalist or politician, isn't necessarily as reliable as the news reporting of that paper or tv channel, - the standards from the paper are simply not the same for different kinds of material, and a column or an interview isn't meant to be an indisputable lecture. But if people are committed enough to keep a certain angle out of an article, or to avoid criticism over blunt editing, they tend to resort to "it must be true because I read it in such and such newspaper" or "because I heard it on this tv channel", and if you reply 'that the statement they quote and lean on is overstated, or false, or it in turn obviously relies on a partisan train oif thought, a partisan definition of something supporting it - or that it's simply illogical - then that criticism is ranked as "original research" as long as you don't come up with another notable source who has said what you said (your discussion of the state of reesearch and knowledge on the matter, and of the sources and writers invoked) in exactly the same terms. Of course this is often impossible, or it would take a hopelessly long time, prowling dozens of books to come up with citations matching your critical points, and some of what you end up with might be in a language the other guy doesn't understand and he and his editing buddies will then discard it. That kind of thing means dumbing down any discussion and unfortunately it's quite frequent on Wikipedia talk pages. Strausszek (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confident we've all seen similar things. Not sure these are all facets of exactly the same problem. Some are related. Many have in common that they are areas where judgement is required, and as such are "natural" places for arguments to happen - something we'll always have. I think for practical reasons we have to be careful about bracketing problems based on similar attitudes or intentions, as bad intentions can cause all kinds of effects. As I mentioned above, the main reason for posting on this noticeboard was a particular type of behavior which, whatever the intentions, appears to be openly encouraged and proclaimed as the way WP works. Many of the other examples are the sorts of things people do while claiming to be aiming at one thing but apparently aiming at another - again something we'll always have to some extent. The problem I am talking about is one that people do not make any effort to hide. It might be related to the fact that it often seems even on this noticeboard, which I've taken to watching lately, that in RS discussions people make no effort to say anything about the context a source might be being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, the most stubborn editors are not often interested in discussing the argumentative or historical context of the statements they pick up. Neither in their original place, nor where they get quoted and reused. Sometimes they don't want to discuss with you at all, except from a hilltop. They tend to take everything they find at face value, and of course the most histrionic comments and most striking statements will often be the ones that are given pride of place. Absolutely agree.Strausszek (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference "Mary" as a general reference or add her work to the "Further reading" section. Inline citations are not the only acceptable way to acknowledge sources. It's something editors have apparently forgotten with the trend on Wikipedia to drench articles with inline cites. Lambanog (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Might just be me but I would never think of anything in the Further Reading section of an article as somehow an implied source, and indeed it is often a very mixed bag and hardly connected to the article? I agree that one effect of trends like the ones I am describing is "drenching".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we are closely reproducing the style, order, or organization of Mary's work in our article, it is likely that a citation of Mary's publication would be appropriate. In such a circumstance plagiarism looms large as a concern (and I feel that she should be credited on that basis alone), but there are other, Wikipedia-specific issues that apply. In the absence of a reference to Mary's published guidance, how are we sure that the list of sources and statements present in our article are not the result of cherry-picking among primary sources? Without the guidance of suitable secondary sources and review articles, we are at risk of presenting works of

original synthesis

. In the alternative, if Mary's original work wouldn't qualify as a proper reliable source on its own, then is it inappropriate to rely on it to structure our article because it represents original research and synthesis?

Obviously there will be specific circumstances governing each individual article and each individual 'Mary', but if all of one of our article's (or article section's) references are being drawn from a single review article then that should raise some flags to say that citation might be necessary. In grayer areas, we might be able to get by with a more general entry in a 'Further reading' section, but that's an ugly hack — it really ought to be under a 'Works consulted' or 'Bibliography' heading. Perhaps a subheading within the 'References' section dealing with review articles? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The example I gave covered the details quite specifically. You appear to be implying that we can ignore the example I gave because it was impossible? You appear to be suggesting that there would be something else controversial about the material taken over from Mary, and therefore there would always be some justification for one editor deliberately and clearly demanding that other editors remove mention of her, but still use her. It was realistic, I can assure you. People are not as logical as you think. Just because material is non-controversial and even desired in an article does not mean that the same people who want it in the article will not also want the source covered up because of some other "issue".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be reading things I didn't say into my words. Without knowing the specific article or references involved I cannot make a final pronouncement, but my comment essentially agreed with you that we should cite 'Mary'; why are you biting my head off? Yes, I offered some more general comments, principles, and guidance — if you didn't want general discussion then you shouldn't have opened this thread with a hypothetical case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I certainly did not mean to bit your head off. My above post is how I understood you. I used words like "appear to be implying" because I was not entirely sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about all the intermediate step stuff, but plagiarism is a risk which is difficult to avoid if you want to say precisely what the source says and avoid original research. Using a thesaurus to come up with synonyms will often change the meaning. There's a WP article on the topic at Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing. There was a very good editor, User:Eubulides, who cited very close to the source for accuracy, but because of this he was closer to this issue than others (see my comment the first nomination of water fluoridation for featured). I've adopted this practice and accidentally cited too close in sentence structure to a source a couple times. However, I think the other point is that you can't plagiarize simple facts, and often what's being added to the encyclopedia is simple enough that it's not a big deal. II | (t - c) 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are describing are methods of hiding plagiarism? If the source was good enough to copy from then even if you re-word it, it is a source, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can note an interesting case, still at issue: the intro paragraph to

Okay, that was a bit of thesis nailing, but while those points are obviously true to me and, I hope, to most of the people in this thread, they are at odds with what many WP editors think we're doing.Strausszek (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I discovered a couple of articles that had been plagiarized from a website calling itself Encyclopedia of the Nations and have added copyvio tags to them.

But has anyone noticed this website before? What is the origin of the content of this "encyclopedia"? It seems to be run by a company called Advameg, describing itself as "a fast growing Illinois-based company", but I see nothing indicating who the editors or authors are. --Hegvald (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable, unsigned tertiary with no evidence of editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the material has been reliably published elsewhere. The same content is published as the "Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations" under license by Thomas Gale Co., i.e. The Gale Group owns Macmillan Reference, Charles Scribner's & etc. This encyclopedia is one of many available at Encyclopedia.com (although, that doesn't help with the original copyright problem mentioned above). harlan (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if starting a whole new section is appropriate but it's a problem with a different article. A while back I found the article

I disagree with the description of the dispute. As I identified the problem , the dispute is over external links in the Further reading section, which I moved to the External links section, proposing that most be moved to article talk. When my edits were reverted and the Further reading section renamed to "References" [59], I restored the Further reading section and moved the external links that were once in that section to the article talk. --

talk

) 19:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, I think you need to take a look at

WP:FURTHER, as that section should be titled Further Reading (you are correct about that), but none of those links should be moved to the External links section. When both a further reading and a external links section are utilized in an article, the external links section should only contain relevant web pages, such as a home page or similar things, but not news articles and such. News articles not used directly as references should be placed in a further reading section. Thus, Lambanog is correct in keeping those links in further reading, they should not be removed. Silverseren^C

19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't looked at FURTHER in some time. It doesn't make a strong case for keeping the links there. I prefer to keep them out because they tend to become an exception to applying WP:EL.

Still, FURTHER makes it clear that a Further reading section shouldn't be changed into a References section. --

talk

) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I put the sources in Further reading as a convenience both to those reading and myself as I sometimes work on the article. But they can and do serve as general references. So when Ronz took issue, I moved them to the References section and noted in the edit summary they are general references. He still removed them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it they have been removed because they have external links. Looking at

WP:EL may currently state. The sources moved as far as I know are valid and I do not know why they have been otherwise removed from the article. Simple questions I wish to be answered are "Why have they been removed?" and "Should they have been removed?" Lambanog (talk

) 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If they were intended as references, they shouldn't have been added to Further reading.

If they were added by you, then you should be able to add them as in-line references. --

talk

) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on Further reading sources being later used as references. Removing perfectly valid references on the other hand is questionable.

Adding inline cites to an article started by someone else is not as simple as removing the same. An editor who regularly adds references should know this. Lambanog (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is no prohibition on Further reading sources being later used as references." Not according to WP:FURTHER, which specifies that entries "were not used to verify article content." --

talk

) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, essentially, if they are later being used as references, then they need to be inline citations and then taken off the Further Reading section. Ideally, you would be working toward making most of the Further Reading sources into inline references in the article, so you can eventually do away with the Further Reading section. Silverseren^C 22:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a discussion but the bottom line is I wish to restore the references taken out by Ronz. Here are a sample of three items out of seventeen that were removed. I do not see any issues with them that warrant their removal. I'd like to see if anyone else aside from Ronz thinks otherwise and the reasons warranting their removal. From what I gather Ronz took them out based on

A clear example I can think of would be the "haplogroup predictor" website of Whit Athey which is cited by most major peer-reviewed Y haplogroup papers in the last few years (at least when they contain STR based haplogroup predictions). (Try google scholar with "Athey haplogroup". I can of course post examples if necessary, but for the sake of discussing principle I keep this short.) This is a website set-up by Athey to run a prediction method described by him in an article he wrote which is also very widely cited in the best possible sources in this field. However am I right that such a website would either pass WP:SPS or else not be considered an SPS in the first place?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say that if the website is published in other reliable, strong sources in that field, then that is an implication that the site is 1) notable and 2) reliable. With that implication in mind, I would think that that would mean that, yes, information from that website itself can also be considered reliable. Though this is only true on information in that specific field it is considered reliable for. Anything that the website puts out on unrelated subjects likely shouldn't be used for those subjects, since it has not been determined that it is reliable in those unrelated fields. Does that help? Silverseren^C 14:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It might. Thanks. I would say you agree with me 100%, but as mentioned this is a side question in a bigger discussion, just trying to eliminate one possible disagreement. I am wondering what others think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue here is a re-hash of whether or not jogg.info in general and Athey in particular (one of the people who run it) is a reliable source. jogg.info is a website that has the appearance of being an online genetic genealogy journal, but is run by people who actually work in other fields (e.g. family lawyers, economists, physicists, engineers (like Athey), etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is what it is Jayjg, and can and should be discussed. The bigger JOGG discussion you mention has many aspects including behavioral ones. The above question is based on a specific point which was raised at a specific article discussion which has been confused and diverted in striking ways by yourself[60]. I would like to try to avoid drama and handle specific RS questions as specific RS questions. If the questions seem odd then that is in itself interesting, because the questions are based on the bars being set by you, and indeed moved around by you, in various places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A second example

OK, here is another related question. I really hope I can get a few responses. Suppose:-

• Combination of Article X1 by Author Y in publication Z is one of the most cited sources in the best peer reviewed journals, in a field. (Author Y has other reasonably well cited articles in other publications also, but less cited, he was a co-author etc.)
• Wikipedian A cites Author Y also from publication Z but another article, X2.
• Wikipedian B argues that publication Z is not strong because published online etc. and wants it removed.
• Could it ever be valid for Wikipedian B to claim that the reliability of the citation X2 can not be based at all on the evidence of reliability of citation X1? (Perhaps it makes it easier to say that you can assume there have been no special challenges about the common sense likelihood of the content of the citation. It is not surprising or in conflict with anything widely known or believed etc.)

Cheers--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all very theoretical. If you want to open another section on jogg.info, which don't you just do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we will need to try another approach Jayjg, but as mentioned above, I am splitting out specific aspects for discussion at this time. Would you be so kind as to allow me to attempt that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Less theoretically

Here is Jayjg's current position in one place, in his own recent words. I would like community feedback on this statement:

What satisfies me "personally" is something that complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Neither of them mention anything about being cited in reliable sources, they talk instead about being published in reliable sources.[61] (emphasis added).

My questions above are about whether this is a logical argument. Do WP:V and WP:RS envision cases where an author+publication which is one of the most widely cited in the field can NOT be an RS? Jayjg also says that

If Athey's posting itself were cited by reliable sources, that might be an indication that that specific posting had a degree of reliability. However, it's moot, since it hasn't been. (Same post, emphasis added again. Note that unlike academics who cite it, Jayjg refers to the journal as a website and its articles as "postings".)

Is it reasonable to demand that for an Author+journal combination which is extremely strongly cited in a field, for several articles, that another article by the same Author+journal needs to be cited independently and specifically to be an RS? Feedback from neutral Wikipedians would be very welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this be accepted as an RS, a website quoting a magazine article? I guess the question is, is the website itself a reliable enough source to accept that they're quoting the magazine appropriately. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the writers appear to be professional. With a site like this it is best to use I saying something like " according to X magazine, quoted on SciFiPulse.net, blah, blah..." Of course it would be better to get a copy of the magazine from a library. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the website. The editors appear to have credentials, according to them, but is there any way for us to verify those credentials? Otherwise, I agree with Jezhotwells, getting a copy of the actual magazine would work better. Silverseren^C 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article Ken Livingstone, the following material describes Ken Livingstone's speech at the Durham Miners Gala 2010 as it appears in the Wikipedia article: 'In his speech he suggested the "solidarity" and "strength" the "working class culture" of the Gala gives could have reduced "some of the problems and alienation" in London had it been brought there during his time as Mayor.' The quotations are supported by a video of the speech on YouTube here. Specifically, the quotations are taken from a section of the speech made between approx 1:00 min - 1:20 min. However, one user has objected to the use of this video, stating that "I do still think a personal users uploaded video is not a correct place to support any content, we use youtube extremely sparingly and only use official content from recognizable uploaders". I object as it represents a primary source. It seems quite absurd that I have to look for a secondary source (somebody who heard it and wrote it down), which is inevitably likely to be less reliable. I propose using this YouTube link as a primary source. The discussion can be found here (most relevent material is found towards the bottom of the discussion). 79.79.186.76 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The uploader is not a reliable source. He does not have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. We don't know if he shot it or if it is someone elses. We don't know if it was modified. Those might be unlikely but we simply don't know. Are those points you are looking to add from the speech discussed in reputable secondary coverage? If not, it simply may not be worthy of inclusion. But it is safe to assume that it was if you do a little searching. It looks like the speech is out there. We don't need the video since Wikipedia is not a mirror of what could be on the subject's website or for campaigning. It is not a primary source since it is not published by the subject. See an essay I am working on here: Wikipedia:Video links It is all based on current guidelines, policies, and previous discussions. Cptnono (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say the real issue is notability. A you-tube video doesn't establish notability. But if you can find a secondary source to establish it, i see no harm in the the video, but then again, what's the point, now that you have a better source for the same content? Unless the video itself is the notable part... Kevin Baas^talk 13:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a Youtube video can confer notability (say, if it was of a news broadcast), but the video itself has to be hosted on a Youtube channel that is understood to be reliable, like an artist's channel or a news channel's channel. If it is not hosted on a reliable Youtube channel, then it cannot be used, period, per

WP:YOUTUBE. Silverseren^C

15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A little off topic but a quick note: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." (emphasis not mine and that is from the guideline that WP:YOUTUBE is in a section of)Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication that this Youtube video is in any way official, and therefore it does not satisfy

primary sources, so there are inevitable issues of notability and OR. Jayjg ^(talk)

16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the video is on a recognized channel on Youtube it can't be deemed as reliable. I mean think about what some famous documentarians have done with videotaped speaches... there are plent of examples (from award winning shows/documentaries) that have doctored speaches!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Kevin_Baas made the relevent point that if the speech (and particular elements of it) are just in the YouTube video then it is probably not notable, so therefore using notable secondary sources establishes this notability. I think it's absolutely absurd to suggest that the speech might be doctored (in terms of motive, the technical skill required, and the track record of the uploader). Seriously, I think

WP:COMMON is needed here. Anyway, I agree that notable secondary sources should be used to establish notability. Thanks. 79.79.140.195 (talk

) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What do we think of www.bitterlemons.org as a source for historical fact in Israel/Palestine articles? It's run by Ghassan Khatib and an Israeli editor. For example, for the 1940s section in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? I'm sure that the website editors are serious, and Khatib is an expert on the area as well as a politician. But we set the sourcing bar high for history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you give example claims and the sections of the web site sourced to them? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the one I'm looking at at the moment, but there are likely to be others. Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, which I'm slowly working through to try and improve the referencing:

Resolution 181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy<ref>[http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl130904ed34.html#is1 Palestinian-Israeli crossfire 181 - A Palestinain view - The first milestone, Ghassan Khatib]</ref> for the creation of the state of Israel; as it was the first formal recognition by an international body of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, to exist within a partition of the territory along with an Arab state. Israel's [[Declaration of Independence (Israel)|declaration of independence]] soon followed on May 14, 1948, the [[Nakba Day]] for Palestinians.

Itsmejudith (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! bitterlemons is a non-partisan internet magazine with editorial oversight by experts (Khatib for example). A problem with "181 - A Palestinian view" is that it is an opinion piece authored by an editor; standard scholarly generosity ought to indicate that the other editor had an oversight of some kind over its publication, for instance, at the policy level or at the broad presence of content level. The claim "181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy…" is a scholarly claim about international law and diplomacy. Sourcing what should be a scholarly opinion (re: international law and diplomacy's foundations) from a partisan opinion piece in a magazine is highly problematic. I would suggest _not_ using Khatib for this, but using a scholarly source. Statements of fact, in pieces authored by experts, in bitterlemons, where the expert is making an expert opinion (but not a scholarly opinion) which is not declared partisan (Khatib declares his opinion to be "A Palestinian view") ought to be okay. Treat like any other non-peer reviewed periodical with editorial oversight. I hope that this helps with reliability questions. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Really helpful, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We just had a few threads on Bitterlemons and the gist there was that since it's principally a website that publishes opinion pieces, it's not an RS despite having people who collect the texts. Some texts they host are usable on a case by case basis, if the authors are established experts in the field who have published in WP:RS. The site apparently tries to collect pieces from notable persons, so several of the texts may qualify under this heading. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

They also collect PRIMARY documents, which should be used rarely, if ever, and generally only then as illustrations of points found to be significant in RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the people most involved in the article has suggested on the talk page that the article ought to be written up from primary rather than secondary sources. More eyes would be welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently removing non-notable/unsourced entries in the article

If the site relies entirely on visitor contributions with no sort of other editorial oversight, I'd say it should be treated as an open wiki, which are never considered

reliable. So the site should be expunged wherever it's found here, as well as the information the site is being used to source (unless a better source can be found). Good find! — e. ripley\^talk

16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure where to ask this question, and I hope I asked in the right place. There was an addition to Columbia writing professor Janette Turner Hospital's wikipedia page because of an article on the Gawker website that listed her as "The World's Haughtiest Professor." I guess... it just doesn't sound very nice to do to someone. It was just ammended today, apparently, and the wikipedia article's sentence acts like it has happened in the past. Is Gawker really that credible of a resource to list an article like that? It just to me, seems very cruel. I think this professor's email did come from a place of wanting to better her former USC students and from the excitement of her new place. Several other people (on the Gawker comments page) have also wondered if the wikipedia reference is a little "scary."

I apologize if I am asking this in the wrong place. If anyone can can explain to me how or if that edit was fair and why, I would be grateful. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about the way it is written seems a "off". Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.19.247 (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2010

Gawker is one of those that can be a borderline case, as I understand past discussions, but based entirely off of your description I would say that this kind of detail isn't really appropriate for a BLP. It's titillating and tongue in cheek but not really of any encyclopedic value. — e. ripley\^talk 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This query relates to the repeated addition of unflattering and possibly defamatory material to a

BLP, by an editor who has a history of negative and poorly sourced edits to this article. The addition of this material, sourced only to Gawker, drew the comment from Jimbo Wales that "you are way off track in your edits to Janette Turner Hospital"[62] RolandR (talk

) 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds more like an issue of due weight than an issue of reliability.

Taemyr (talk

) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ McKenney, Paul E. (December 27, 2003). "Introduction to RCU". Paul E. McKenney. http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/. Retrieved September 24, 2010.

   Not RS, SELF.

2. ^ McKenney, Paul E.; Walpole, Jonathan (December 17, 2007). "What is RCU, Fundamentally?". Linux Weekly News. http://lwn.net/Articles/262464/. Retrieved September 24, 2010.

   Edited news source, reliable.

3. ^ McKenney, Paul E.; Slingwine, John D. (October 1998), "Read-Copy Update: Using Execution History to Solve Concurrency Problems", Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems: 509-518, http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/rclockpdcsproof.pdf

   No such publication? There is a "Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems", there is a conference "Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems" but this is not a correctly formatted conference publication citation, for instance, it doesn't indicate it is a [Conference] Probably reliable

4. ^ Hart, Thomas E.; McKenney, Paul E.; Demke Brown, Angela; Walpole, Jonathan (December 2007), "Performance of memory reclamation for lockless synchronization", J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 67: 1270-1285

   Reliable, peer reviewed

5. ^ Guniguntala, Dinakar; McKenney, Paul E.; Triplett, Joshua; Walpole, Jonathan (April-June 2008), "The read-copy-update mechanism for supporting real-time applications on shared-memory multiprocessor systems with Linux", IBM Systems Journal 47: 221-236

   Reliable

6. ^ McKenney, Paul E. (January 4, 2008). "RCU part 2: Usage". Linux Weekly News. http://lwn.net/Articles/263130/. Retrieved September 24, 2010.

   Reliable

7. ^ Desnoyers, Mathieu (December 2009), "Low-Impact Operating System Tracing", Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, http://www.lttng.org/pub/thesis/desnoyers-dissertation-2009-12.pdf

   Incorrect citation of a thesis. If EPdM is a research university, if the thesis is accepted, if this is a research higher degree thesis this is reliable. (It is PhD, it appears accepted)

8. ^ McKenney, Paul E. (January 17, 2008). "RCU part 3: the RCU API". Linux Weekly News. http://lwn.net/Articles/264090/. Retrieved September 24, 2010.

   Reliable

9. ^ McKenney, Paul E.; Appavoo, Jonathan; Kleen, Andi; Krieger, Orran; Russell, Rusty; Sarma, Dipankar; Soni, Maneesh (July 2001), "Read-Copy Update", Ottawa Linux Symposium, http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/rclock_OLS.2001.05.01c.pdf

   Reliable

10. ^ McKenney, Paul E. (October 2003). "Using {RCU} in the {Linux} 2.5 Kernel". Linux Journal. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6993. Retrieved September 24, 2010.

    Reliable

11. ^ McKenney, Paul E. (July 2004), "Exploiting Deferred Destruction: An Analysis of Read-Copy-Update Techniques", OGI School of Science and Engineering at Oregon Health and Sciences University, http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/RCUdissertation.2004.07.14e1.pdf

    Incorrectly cited thesis; same criteria as before (appears accepted, PhD, Oregon State is a research university)

12. ^ Kung, H. T.; Lehman, Q. (September 1980), "Concurrent Maintenance of Binary Search Trees", ACM Transactions on Database Systems 5 (3), http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=320619&dl=GUIDE,

    Reliable

13. ^ Manber, Udi; Ladner, Richard E. (September 1984), "Concurrency Control in a Dynamic Search Structure", ACM Transactions on Database Systems 9 (3)

    Reliable

14. ^ Pugh, William (June 1990), "Concurrent Maintenance of Skip Lists", Institute of Advanced Computer Science Studies, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland (CS-TR-2222.1)

    Incomplete citation; incorrect citation; departments and institutes are not publication titles; suspect unreliable

15. ^ Adams, Gregory R. (1991), Concurrent Programming, Principles, and Practices, Benjamin Cummins

    Incomplete citation, publisher and place missing; unable to determine reliability

16. ^ Gamsa, Ben; Krieger, Orran; Appavoo, Jonathan; Stumm, Michael (February 1999), "Tornado: Maximizing Locality and Concurrency in a Shared Memory Multiprocessor Operating System", Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, http://www.usenix.org/events/osdi99/full_papers/gamsa/gamsa.pdf

    Reliable

17. ^ McKenney, Paul E.; Walpole, Jonathan (July 2008), "Introducing technology into the Linux kernel: a case study", SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 42: 4-17

    Reliable

Improve the standards of publication formatting by improving the fullness of the citations, particularly by noting that conferences are conferences, theses are PhD theses, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the web page to "external references". Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems really was a conference; I was there. I marked the PhD theses, which Wikipedia now notes as "(Thesis)" in the references list. I am guessing on how to do this because [63] does not provide that level of guidance. If I still have the PhD dissertations incorrectly cited, please point me at information that will show me how to do it correctly. Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal is a legitimate research PhD-granting university. The Pugh reference is a technical report, but one that is cited in refereed publications -- and I do believe that it is important to give Pugh credit for this contribution. When I get home, I will double-check the Adams book. PaulMcKenney (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I note a potential

conflict of interest with User:PaulMcKenney inserting content as sources written by Paul McKenney. Active Banana (^bananaphone

19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have been following Wikipedia's guidelines, so please tell me exactly what about my recent changes you find objectionable. The page was recently marked as needing citations, so I added them. I suppose that I could (for example) cite the materials for an MIT class covering RCU, but their course material refers back to one of my papers, so it is not clear to me that this would be helpful. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. If I don't hear otherwise from you, I will re-apply my changes. PaulMcKenney (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Purcell and I have been discussing this on the RCU talk page [64]. The proposal is to: (1) expand the scope of the RCU page to include uses of RCU as well as the underlying mechanism, which will bring in citations from other authors, and (2) update the "History" section, which will bring in more recent discoveries of RCU-like mechanisms, again bringing in citations from other authors. If there are no objections, I will move forward with this approach on Friday October 1st Pacific Daylight Time. PaulMcKenney (talk

) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. PaulMcKenney (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Would these two articles by Hyde Flippo be considered

I have searched for "Schönen Tag noch!" ("have a nice day" in German) and "Hyde Flippo" (Google search link) but have been unable to find any mention of it in any of his books. A Google search for "Schönen Tag noch!" returns mostly unreliable sources and the articles by Hyde Flippo are the best ones I could find about the subject. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cunard asked me comment here. I'm not qualified to discuss Hyde Flippo's articles and I think the earlier comments are right - there's usually a better source, but it can be used with caution. I would double-check it - what statements are you using it for? Have you checked Google Scholar and Google Books? II | (t - c) 06:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w II. One of these is at best a

primary source, while the other is an anonymous commentary in response to a blog entry. Without knowing what statement you want to support, it's hard to tell if they're any use at all, but they certainly are not very high quality sources. LeadSongDog come howl!

14:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The second source is also by Hyde Flippo. The author of the article wrote:

In an earlier feature, "Language and Culture," I discussed some of the connections between Sprache and Kultur in the broadest sense. This time we'll look at a specific aspect of the connection, and why it is vital for language learners to be aware of more than just the vocabulary and structure of German.

Cunard (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The statements I want to use from the source are:

Trying to say "Have a nice day!" in German is a good example of language that is culturally inappropriate—and a good illustration of how learning German (or any language) is more than learning just words and grammar.

It is becoming more common in Germany to hear the phrase "Schönen Tag noch!" from sales people and food servers.

In an earlier feature, "Language and Culture," I discussed some of the connections between Sprache and Kultur in the broadest sense. This time we'll look at a specific aspect of the connection, and why it is vital for language learners to be aware of more than just the vocabulary and structure of German.

as well as:

Beyond smiling, most Germans consider the phrase "have a nice day" an insincere and superficial bit of nonsense. To an American it's something normal and expected, but the more I hear this, the less I appreciate it. After all, if I'm at the supermarket to buy anti-nausea medicine for a sick child, I may have a nice day after all, but at that point the checker's "polite" have-a-nice-day comment seems even more inappropriate than usual.

I want to use the source to provide information about how "

McGraw-Hill, his article published on about.com is also reliable, though I acknowledge that it likely does not pass FA 1(c). Cunard (talk

) 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

About.com varies. Most principle articles are made or at least checked by a selected list of contributors, whom they claim to screen for expertise--read the article on it. It s furthermore published under the control of an undoubtedly reliable publisher, the NYT company--it's not a bunch of miscellaneous amateurs like here, though one does not know their actual standards. I would not automatically reject such content. I wouldn't use it for negative BLP, but the part they prepare themselves does have editorial control and is therefore usable. Actually, I think it has as much editorial control as a normal dictionary, though they seem to design the site to obscure the fact. . Certainly it is usable for description of contemporary usage, as here. The article is explicitly stated as staff written; it would, of course, be much better to know by whom--some of their features & some of the more academic articles are in fact signed--those are in my opinion perfectly good RSs. . Why the rest of them, likethis, are not signed is something I do not understand, especially as they're normally written in the first person.It puts them more in the category of a somewhat RS, if there's nothing better. (the stuff the readers write in as responses are another matter entirely, just as anywhere else, unless they happen to be a signed posting from a known authority) DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Would the fact that Hyde Flippo has been published by

high-quality reliable source" as required by FA 1(c)? Cunard (talk

) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, as you've told me on my talk p. that the statement of authorship is in an earlier column: [65]. That removes any doubt--just find some way of giving the authorship in the reference. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've become aware that several articles (including at least one on the Norwegian Wikipedia) have the following source, in this format:

Sjöström (2007): "Scandinavian medieval descendants of Charlemagne: A detailed genealogy of the issue of Agnes Haakonsdottir, of the so-called Fairhair dynasty", Foundations - Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy vol 2 (2007:4, July), ISSN 1479-5078, pp 253..276

The journal is paywalled: this link takes one to abstracts of the articles in the issue, but when one clicks on the particular article, a dialogue box appears asking for payment, and does not go away until one has clicked repeatedly to close it and been transferred to a registration page or back to the issue contents list. This makes the article inaccessible as a source and there are other sources on scholarly doubts as to the reliability of accounts in