Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88

I would like advice on the reliablity of The Free Thought, a Ukrainian-language weekly newspaper issued in Sydney. Although a weekly publication and published since 1949, tt doesn't come up in google news and seems to be run by volunteers for the small Ukrainian expat community. I found the newspapers website which seems to confirm the amateur nature of the newspaper. It is listed in Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia as a reference but no inline citations provided. I am arguing in the AfD that mainstream press is a far more reliable source for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't get to the content on the site. In general I think we would take community newspapers case by case, with a particular eye to what assertion we are trying to source (controversial or obvious, BLP issues, etc). Volunteer nature wouldn't automatically rule them out. However, I couldn't access this one and it also isn't used in an actual ref in the article, just the bibliography.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

it doesn't seem to be online. However, the strength of editorial review makes print publications more reliable. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* I've already taken this source here and it was rejected, but one user is repeatedly re-adding it with the claim that it's reliable, so let's go through this whole process again.

Brian Clowes works for Human Life International, a rabidly anti-abortion political organization. He has written a book called Facts of Life, which was published by the organization he works for. This book is being used as a source for the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been consistent for two millennia in its condemnation of abortion. (In fairness, we have made some progress - now at Ensoulment it says "Dr. Brian Clowes has written that..." rather than just stating the claim. However, since this is a reasonably common sentence structure when discussing academic publications, the sentence still comes across as authoritative.)

Clowes has no expertise in early Church history that would make him a reliable source per

Haymaker, who has repeatedly inserted this information, claims that because Clowes has worked for Human Life International for fifteen years and his book was "published," his total lack of credentials, and the publisher's lack of reliability, don't preclude the book from being RS.

Kindly set us right.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Two editors have backed this inclusion. Dr. Clowes has worked in the abortion field for over 15 years and has published several books on the topic. The statement "Dr. Brian Clowes has written that the

Roman Catholic Church has been consistent for over two millennia in its condemnation of abortion" is perfectly reasonable. - Haymaker (talk

) 05:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement that "Dr Brian Clowes hasn't been about for two millennia, so he needs to demonstrate why he writes what he does" is perfectly reasonable too. See

WP:RS AndyTheGrump (talk

) 05:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, would be more comfortable with the assertion if it were from a more authoritative source on church history. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User has vanished and edits removed.  7  04:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone who is not stuck behind a corporate firewall (and who doesn't have kids in the room) check the source for the controversial BLP edit here and confirm if it is reliable. I am unable to access this site, and unable to find other details of this interview. Thanks  7  07:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be removed. It's sourced to an interview on Howard Stern's show. Here's what the summary says: "Garver asked Vanessa if she's worried about Artie Lange's health. She said that she listens to him every day and she would like to help him get healthy. Garver asked her if she's ever had sex in her movie trailer. She said she did that once in a B-movie she did one time. She didn't say the name of the guy but they looked him up and found out that his name was Sam Jones. He played Flash Gordon in a movie that she was in." If we don't accept things such as YouTube videos as reliable sources, why would we accept a recording of an interview on Howard Stern? Also, she didn't actually name Jones in the interview. Per BLP, this shouldn't be in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't have the codec to play the audio, but isn't that link a copyright violation? If so, we need an archived copy of the broadcast to satisfy

WP:V. I haven't listened to Stern in years, so there may be archived copies, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"They looked him up"? How the heck do we know how exhaustive their search was? Maybe she was in a lot of movies. Are they academic researchers, or The Economist or the New York Times, or something? For this kind of allegation we would need need that level of reliable source. Reverted. Herostratus (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if she did name names, it would be inappropriate to include unless verified by reliable secondary sources, she's a primary source about her.... --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been given another final warning for adding this back in after Herostratus's removal of the comments. Marking unresolved so a few other editors keep an eye on it as I will be busy today.  7  03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have engaged this user on his talk page. I find this preferable to slapping templates on new users who are trying to contribute. He hadn't even been welcomed. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the subtle suggestion. I agree that it is better to AGF and welcome new users who show a intent to positively contribute. However, this user is 8 months old and has created one article which was deleted for copyright violation infringement and has had all their other edits reverted. I have "slapped" two warnings on their page as opposed blocking them already despite what I consider to be the severity of their infractions.  7  04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In this section a user is tagging and requesting translation and referring to

From

WP:NONENG: When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. Without any translations of the relevant text, it's difficult to verify primary legal sources for correctness. The one English language source does not mention Haktning at all. aprock (talk

) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You are just yelling an unspecific: "Translate!" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to complicate this further–I don't know how exacly lagen.nu is used in the article–but it looks like it might not qualify as

WP:RS. The about page[13]

says it is a volunteer-run wiki, with commentary "written by law students and practicing lawyers." Likely the primary sources they are quoting verbatim are reproduced correctly, but it looks like it might best be used as a convinience source for accessing the primary legal texts.

Re: the English language source[14] not using the word "häktning", it's in English, so it's using the English term "remand" instead. Look up the word "häktning" in a dictionary:[15] Siawase (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A question of principles: if a news organisation is generally considered a reliable source, then should all its articles it publishes be automatically considered reliable sources, too? For example, what if two articles from the same newsorg contradict each other? Or what if there is an article about a product quoting or paraphrasing a company press release without any indication of fact-checking? Or what if there is an article about an organisation that just paraphrases/quotes that organisation's homepage without any indication of fact-checking? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You ask four questions. 1) yes if a news organisation is reliable, all its (news) articles are considered reliable. For example, all reports of Agence France-Presse are to be considered reliable unless there is a clear indication to the contrary. 2) if two articles contradict each other, you should look at the dates, in case a later report has corrected an earlier one; potentially both articles are reliable and should be cited alongside each other. 3) yes, if a normally reliable newspaper or broadcaster uses a press release liberally, that's their prerogative and doesn't usually make the source unreliable. 4) that's in principle OK too; if there's a consistent reputation for fact-checking we presume that fact-checking has been applied. Please come back if you want to see whether these principles work in a particular case. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 1), did I misread

WP:NEWSORG's "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." to mean that reliability is not universal and automatic? --Rontombontom (talk

) 13:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't misread it, but it follows the statements that mainstream news sources are generally reliable, but that they can contain errors. For more comment you should add the details of the particular case. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As the range of the questions indicate, there is no single particular case, these questions gathered in me over time (though a dispute over the last was the trigger). I give some exampes below.

Regarding contradiction between two articles of the same RS: I am indeed thinking of articles with temporal separation. I see two possibilities: (1) the older article is unreliable because the newer one corrected some mistake, (2) the older one is reliable because it reports an event as contemporary while the newer article gives an imprecise recollection. An example for the latter would be this 1999 Taipei Times article on the Taiwan Shinkansen Consortium (TSC) winning a contract from the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation (THSRC) at the end of that year, and this 2005 article dating the event to 1998 (they confused the dates for TSC's and THSRC's wins).

Regarding product data: I come up against this fairly often when editing articles on rail vehicles. When news organisations report about the technical and performance data of rail vehicles (speed, power, number of passengers...), then they are usually quoting company material or claims, which they don't have any means to fact-check themselves (like they can for cars or photo cameras), and they can't rely on independent test reports by third parties either as those are rarely made public. An example I came across recently would be technical data contained in this Railway Gazette article and this Siemens Mobility leaflet. I guess the situation is similar for ships and airplanes.

Regarding articles on organisations based on those groups' web presence: an example would be this 2005 San Francisco Chronicle article as a source on the anti-war group The World Can't Wait. The entire article seems to consist of paraphrases and quotes from the group's homepage, in particular the two paragraphs about its political background. This could have been fact-checked with interviews or checks on individual named members, but there is no indication of that, unlike in this 2006 article by the same paper. (The 2005 article is also problematic for its over-generalising headline, but the replies to the archived question Headlines address that by emphatically denying the RS status of headlines.) --Rontombontom (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Another general question. Are only text-based sources proper sources, or can photos and diagrams count as such, too?

An example. The article Iore is about a class of locomotives with cabs only at one end, which normally operate in pairs. However, according to a recent edit, in some cases, they also operate single. One of the sources cited to support the claim is this railfan album, which contains a photo (third from top) showing a single unit heading a regular train. As evidence that's pretty solid, but is it acceptable as RS? --Rontombontom (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with that. If a RS comments on the photo and makes the connection, fine. But for us? It's very OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, a photo (on its own) is not reliable... We need text to substantiate that the locomotive in the photo actually is considered an Iore class locomotive. Then there is the question of the website's reliability... it's a fan site... and fan sites are prone to errors. To be considered reliable we would need to know who runs the website, posts the photos and identifies them by type or class. Are they an expert? Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The above may work to dismiss this particular photo as evidence, because it's low-res and we only have the photo caption; but had it been uploaded with better resolution, "IORE" would have been readable on its side. So, to move to the general, what if a photo itself substantiates the loco class? --Rontombontom (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, unless the photo itself is from a reliable source that can be verified. I remember a while back how someone doctored a photo of Ma Ying-jeou to have him perform a Nazi salute, for instance. Ngchen (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Another example, for a diagram: this (archived) merger chart on the site of company Adtranz. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It also seems that the train photo would essentially be a

Primary Source. It would require a secondary reliable source to analyze it—people here are interpreting the subject based on a firsthand eyewitness view, albeit a photograph of that view. First Light (talk

) 16:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO NO. The photo could have been edited in some way to make it have a meaning opposite of the original, or distorted meaning, etc.

onau

) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see Ngchen's comment above when I did this, but that is an excellent example.

onau

) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

C:\Users\Damian\Desktop\dam.jpg

I am not sure what photo you were trying to reference, as the link is dead. However, a little bit of research indicates that an article you proposed for creation, "Damian Dulczynski", resulted in rejection under speedy deletion criteria A7, "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I retrieved a copy of the deleted page and note that it is brief, unsourced and contains statements like "very mysterious,he's IQ reach 144 in 2007". A Google search on the subject reveals only that he has a Facebook page and some similar mentions. Biographies here will not survive the

reliably sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 20:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The ordinance of southsea castle by A.L. Boxell is basicaly self published. However it is described by Philip Magrath (Curator of Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum based at Fort Nelson who probably knows what he is talking about)"A well researched and well written publication". I can't dig up anything about the author on the web. Is using it as a source remotely viable?©Geni 19:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't tell us what article we are discussing, nor any other context (is this a hypothetical question, or is there already an edit war?) Treating this as hypothetical: The

ignore all rules, Magrath's statement validates the source. Its probably best to try and find another, less debatable source, but if you can't I would try citing Boxell. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking about

boldly add the reference. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The following link has been used as a reference in the "Awards and Recognition" section of this new article:

External, Independent Review of DOVICO Time Tracking Software by TopTenReviews

Has toptenreviews.com ever been evaluated before as a reliable source? I am concerned that the "buy now" link on the review page, which leads directly to the Dovico site (with the interesting destination URL www.dovico.com/index-toptenreviews-time-tracking-software.html?cid=503) suggests that the relationship between the reviewer and the reviewed may not be wholly impartial.

Thparkth (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to get some more info on this company from LexisNexis, but there is no Dovico Software among the 43 million companies in their database. I'm not sure regarding the notability issue. Regarding Top Ten Reviews, I don't think there's a relationship between the reviewer and the reviewed. But I'm somewhat familiar with that site and am not sure that it's a good source for "Awards and Recognitions." Their content seems facile, and certainly not the sort of in-depth comparison of a Consumer Reports. I'd say leave the article in Wikipedia for now and further research notability, but perhaps not use the Top Ten Reviews site as a source for Awards and Recognition. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain further why I'm pretty certain the toptenreviews.com site isn't neutral with regards to Dovico. The toptenreviews page which reviews Dovico has a "buy now" link. When you click on that link, you are taken to a site on Dovico.com with a toptenreviews-specific URL (index-toptenreviews-time-tracking-software.html). This can only happen as a result of coordination between the two companies, almost certainly for affiliate marketing purposes. In other words, toptenreviews.com almost certainly profits financially from recommending the Dovico software. There is nothing wrong with that of course but I'm pretty certain it makes the source non-neutral and not editorially-independent. Thparkth (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. In any case, I question its use as a source. It seems a bit of a stretch to cite it in a section on Awards and Recognitions. I'd be comfortable with removing this info. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Nicholas Hagger and Overlord (epic poem) use correspondence between Ted Hughes and Hagger as a source. The letter or letters praising Hagger's poem have apparently been published as an appendix in one of Hagger's volumes of poetry, but there is no confirmation of the content in reliable third-party sources. User:Sanrac1959, who has self-identified as Hagger's personal assistant, seems to be taking very personally indeed my removal of this information (and the sourcing to Hagger's diary of comments allegedly made by Ezra Pound). Since I have nominated both articles for AfD, comments by uninvolved editors at Talk:Overlord (epic poem) may be helpful to defuse the situation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If the letters are included as an appendix in a volume that is published by a reputable third-party publisher, then it they would qualify as a RS, because presumably the editors would satisfy themselves that the letters were authentic before publishing them. If self-published by a vanity press, then they would not be a RS. What use they could be put to, beyond relating what the opinion of the writer was, is another question.

Fladrif (talk

) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me if editors are employed by this particular publisher. On their website they state that are not a vanity press, but explicitly note that some books are "subsidized by the author" including particular mention of "poetry" in that regard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the website and those of that imprint's parent company, it is actually quite clear that, as to something like poetry, it is explicitly a vanity press. That means that this is basically a SPS, and should not be used in a BLP.

Fladrif (talk

) 03:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed,

WP:SPS is categorical that self published sources may never be used which "involve claims about third parties".Jonathanwallace (talk

) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Below is a copy of the reference about Ted Hughes with details of Christopher Reid's verification of the letters and publication of a letter in a Faber and Faber book:

WP:ABOUTSELF applies, see Overlord (epic poem) talk page. Sanrac1959 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting the same text into multiple discussion pages is unnecessary and counter-productive. It would appear from your recitation that (i) the cited Hughes letters commenting on this work do not appear in the Letters of Ted Hughes, only a 1994 letter that predated the first publication by a full year (ii) the only place they do appear in print is in the appendix to the recent edition of the work. They do not qualify as RS under the ABOUTSELF exceptions to SPS, because they involve comment by Hughes about a third person, not about himself. Finally, I would agree that one could cite a published diary entry (unpublished entries would fail

Fladrif (talk

) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I had reverted this edit upon entry as I did not recognize patch.com [16] however, the about us makes me wonder if patch.com might be a legit non-profit news agency. What is the consensus? Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard of it either, but it looks professionally edited and authentic. Here is a bio of Noah Cohen who reported the Juelz Sanatana piece: former journalism student and college reporter who has come up through the ranks at Patch. I'm gonna say its

WP:RS.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 02:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting case. Patch.com is part of the trend toward local news sites and is owned by AOL. As traditional newspapers fade, it's thought that these community-based news sites will fill the gap. They seem to lie somewhere between a personal website and a newspaper. There's really no way of knowing how much editorial control there is. Patch has 775 outlets. The writers are simply members of the community who submit stuff and get paid $50-100 per article. They work under community-based editors who are said to be full-time, but basically just put in whatever time it takes to deal with and post submissions. Small newspapers are a notch down from the New York Times, and Patch.com sites may be a notch down from local newspapers. Still, it seems like they could be used in a limited way for local information. Not sure about a BLP. I think a good step would be to examine other content on that particular community's Patch site to get a sense for the quality of reporting. And if it seems solid, then perhaps go ahead and use this information. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• All, Patch.com is reliable ..please see Wikipedia's entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch.com (apologies if I am doing this wrong, still new to editing items on here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nc582 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't understand what about the Wikipedia article on
    Patch.com proves that it is a reliable source. It doesn't clearly indicate to me Patch's reliability or nonreliability either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
    02:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)There are numerous links to NYT, AP, etc stories indicating Patch is a local news outlet using trained journalists.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8601/pub_detail.asp The Shi Lang (formerly the Russian Varyag of the Kuznetsov-class designed during the Soviet Union) will operate Su-33 fighters already purchased from Russia ...

I shall be scrubbing them from our database: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=familysecuritymatters+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org Hcobb (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They are an extreme right-wing think tank and have attracted quite a bit of controversy, but I'm not sure about their reliability or lack thereof in terms of factual issues. Of course, there is always the issue of how notable their views are. Ngchen (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Looking at the hits... a lot of the references seem to be phrased as "statements of opinion"... ie attributed statements as to what the FSM says and thinks. For such statements, the FSM website is reliable. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth". The fact that you think FSM is "wrong" is not enough to go on a campaign to scrub every reference to them from our database. I am not saying that you should not challenge individual references... only that you have to do so on an individual, article by article basis. Look at the context of the reference... that can make a world of difference as to whether it is acceptable or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than in an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (err... wrong FSM), it seems like their opinion isn't likely to be

worth including. If they've weighed in on a controversy and they've been a significant part of the conversation, sure. Definitely a source to use with attribution (i.e. "FSM says that foo is bar") rather than for unqualified statements of fact. While many sources are conditionally reliable, this is one that is likely only useful once in a blue moon and scrubbing them as a source seems reasonable as long as it's done carefully. SDY (talk

) 16:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hcobb, they are citing an AP report that ran in the San Francisco Gate on Jan 11, Report: China largely restores aircraft carrier, which said pretty much the same thing, and in turn it was citing a report from the Hong Kong-based Kanwa Asian Defense.

Most of us on RSN aren't familiar with the context of this. Can you explain what is wrong about the report? Do you have other sources that contradict this report?

At any rate, this hardly disqualifies FSM as a source, no more than it would disqualify the Associated Press. So don't remove it just yet, though for this particular article you may want to cite Sfgate instead, with attribution to Kanwa. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm/deny whether a list like this is a "reliable source?" It's being used to source dozens

First off, the standard for an article is notability, not for the author of a source. Dr. Eisen of

Nazareth College has worked with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on an exhibit about the participation of Jewish athletes at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin and is the author of several books on the history of Jew in sports, including Bibliography of Sport and Leisure in Jewish History and Culture, a standard work listing texts published on the subject of the role of Jewish athletics and individual athletes. While this material has been published elsewhere in print, the link in question to Dr. Eisen's research on Jewish Olympic athletes is most easily accessible in a version published online by the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. The author is a recognized expert on the subject and the material is reliably sourced. Alansohn (talk

) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You included Eisen's name in the bio, so yes, her notability matters now. Does Eisen even pass

WP:PROF enough for her to get an article? A lot of professors publish material on niche interests, it doesn't make them world-renowned experts worthy of having their name included in that person's bio. Bulldog123

22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The list is being published by the

Fladrif (talk

) 15:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And the beat goes on. I just became aware of Judaism and Bus Stops which was someone's attempt to make a

point about all these Jewish lists and categories. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern would be that the list on www.jewishsports.net has several disclaimers including "there are some questions about the Jewishness of these Austrian athletes" and more pertinently "it may include athletes who might not be Jewish". Because of that, I do not think there is any way we can consider it a reliable source for this kind of information. _wjemather^bigissue 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That a college professor would acknowledge the possibility of error in his work and seeks input and corrections to his research only seems to add to the veracity of his data when so many others in his position would simply present their information as gospel truth regardless of possible inaccuracies. The specific athletes that he marks with an asterisk are the only ones that appear to be in question and there is no evidence that the source is not reliable for any of the other individuals included. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, his final disclaimer encompasses the entire list. _wjemather^bigissue 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed the disclaimer is for the whole list. But just because there are errors does not render it non-RS (I know that sounds weird) just that we should also include the disclaimer. Thus in the body it could be used thus "according to Dr. Eisen X may be Jewish but acknowledges that her work may contain errors". Thus its RS for her opinion that an athlete may be Jewish, but its not RS for the fact they are.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside my distaste for ethnic tagging and categories, and treating this solely as a sourcing issue, our

living people exception: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Since Dr. Eisen has been published by reliable third parties, I understand this to mean the list may be reliable for dead athletes and is definitely NOT reliable for living ones. Eisen's disclaimer IMO does not completely eliminate the list as a source, but puts it in question, as does his failure to give his own sources or to say whether he is basing inclusion of a particular athlete on female parentage or self-identification (his two announced criteria). This would make the list a disfavored though not impermissible source. Our self publishing policy contains this relevant further warning: "However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Jonathanwallace (talk

) 16:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd generally agree with all that (both Slatersteven & Jonathanwallace). By extension, can we say that this source should absolutely not be used to add Jewish categories or include people on a list of Foo Jews or Jewish foo-ers. _wjemather^bigissue 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this list is currently being used for almost two-dozen articles on List of Jews in sports, most of them BLPs. Try your hardest to get that list removed though, you'll be met with long anti-semitic accusations and rants. Bulldog123 21:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that she hersefl is not sure of her fact no I would say we cannot use this source to say that some one is Jewish.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree if you mean living people. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's important to know that most of these articles have absolutely nothing on them. They just say stuff like "X is an Olympian. They did this in the Olympics. They are Jewish." Of course now, it's going to say "Dr. Eisen of BLAH BLAH says they are Jewish but might not be." Wow. Three references to them being Jewish (an article mention, a category, and now a "See Also" link --- which pretty much implies that this wrestler was wearing his yarmulke while wrestling) and one to their Olympic careers. If these people were ever to use wikipedia, it'd be great to see their reaction. Bulldog123 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not reliable, IMO - I'm leaning towards calling the source unreliable. Has anybody noticed that it may be a
  tertiary source? It's a compilation of things that secondary sources have said regarding people's religion and ancestry, with regard given to self-identification as Jewish, evaluated by some stated inclusion criteria... basically the way we would do things. The admission that it's a matter of definition and may not be fully accurate, is more than casual. Professors and journalists don't normally make such disclaimers when they're acting in that role. I think it's because the author is dealing with the same issues as an encyclopedia. I also think that their saying they are going by the matrilineal religious definition also discounts reliability. That's not a criterion we would use. Whether I'm right or not about that, I do think the disclaimer about the accuracy of the list makes it unusable. Sure, if they had been less conscientious and ran the list without the disclaimer, we might decide otherwise. I don't really see it as a self-published source. The professor wrote it, the organization published it. It's not obviously a blog. The organization has some editorial control. Whether they exercised it, and exhibit the same sort of standards for accuracy that make a source reliable, is a different question we don't have to reach in my opinion. Even if they do, that disclaimer troubles me. If we cannot find a better source than this that someone is Jewish, we should not say they are Jewish. If they are Jewish in any meaningful way, surely there are other sources. - Wikidemon (talk
  ) 05:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your last comments are right on the money. I wanted to mention this earlier but the discussions have gotten so sidetracked and diluted that I don't think anyone would know what I'm talking about anymore. If we have to rely on blogs, fan-mags, and tertiary-sources to cite someone as Jewish, then there's a problem regarding its meaningfulness. If they are notably Jewish then there will be other sources. (i.e., You'd be hard-pressed not to find a source calling Jerry Seinfeld Jewish because it actually is relevant to his comedy). Also, I should have said "self-compiled" and "unpublished" rather than self-published. Bulldog123 05:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hall of Fame membership

A related sourcing question. What about the reliability of using a person's being elected to the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame[17] to source that they are Jewish? I think it's a perfectly valid

• My opinion, no. Membership in a hall of fame implies some criteria which may or may not be apparent to us, and assuming that because a person is elected to membership that they in fact did meet the criteria seems a little bit like
  WP:OR. A reliable source is one where a journalist or other author writes an objective claim of fact, and an organization with editorial oversight, fact checking, and/or other indicia of reliability sees fit to publish the piece. A tribute group may have a vetting committee but that's not really the same thing. It's hard fore me to get my head around this, but... well, I'm sure there's a better example but Oskar Schindler is in a number of Jewish halls of fame but that doesn't make him Jewish. - Wikidemon (talk
  ) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think its so clear cut. If the requirements were that the person be Jewish then I'd say his peers would be considered experts in this regard. If its not a required criteria (ie spelled out explicitly) then that's another story.陣内_Jinnai 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the ref in question:* Kastenbaum, Robert (2004), "On our way: the final passage through life and death", Life Passages, vol. 3, University of California Press,

The author is a Professor of Communications at Arizona State making four self-admittedly and crystal clear speculative guesses regarding a medieval practice as applied to Hugh Despenser the Younger. This is not a Reliable Source on the event.

• It is outside the area of expertise of the author. (The event, the practice and the participants have no shortage of historians engaged in deep scholarly work here)
• It is entirely speculative, nothing more than four guesses, with the writer even encouraging the reader to join in the guessing. Nothing is less Reliable than a self-confessed guess - especially in an area where none is necessary owing to the overwhelming centuries of historian's attention to the period.
• And to repeat the authors own intent and warning: "No documents have surfaced to tell us precisely why these indulgences in overkill were considered necessary. We are free to speculate. The following are four possibilities, perhaps you can come up with others."

"Questionable sources are those.... which rely heavily on ... personal opinions." And that's just it. It's not Reliable, its not an educated reasoned postulation derived at from expertise. It's a two-page self-flagged guess that has no place at Wikiepdia as a sourced and referenced basis for choosing one of the guesses and cloaking it in weasel-worded language to make it seem to be something it is not. This particular guess (the one out of the four that enters the article) is not a Reliable Source. Note that this:(1), although not directly related, was also recently brought here from the article.99.135.168.164 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite why this editor feels it necessary to copy and paste this entry onto the article's talk page is beyond me, unless some drama is involved. Nevertheless, Kastenbaum's peers would appear to disagree entirely with this IP's opinion of him (a quick search for reviews of his books shows more than a few positive comments from other authors), and I would also mention that some of his speculation is not completely dissimilar to that mentioned by J G Bellamy and Michel Foucault. Kastenbaum has more than a few entries at Google Scholar and appears to have plenty of experience writing about death. I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to refer to his speculation, it isn't as though the article as it stands is trying to present that speculation as fact. Parrot of Doom 21:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless, I have offered no opinion of Kastenbaum. You introduced a reference and cited pages 193 and 194 of the ref. I disputed the utility of that specific ref - quoting directly from the same cited pages 193 and 194. The question is clear.99.135.168.164 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a reliable source on the psychology of death and the matter in

Drawn and quartered is clearly presented as his expert opinion. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 05:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can add to the list of sources that generally agree with Kastenbaum, Danielle Westerhof, Death and the noble body in medieval England (2008), with regard to the removal of "evil thoughts" by the destruction of the viscera, and "there was general agreement on the fact that these executions served as a deterrent to others". Parrot of Doom 13:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

One aspect of this posting is that the work being cited is openly a guess. However, I notice that the guess is only being cited as a guess. So that seems no problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is but one of four guesses offered, and it is a guess regarding areas of well known historical analysis, such as his speculation regarding funeral practices and "evil spirits". We do have Reliable Sources on all this. And if the legion of Reliable Sources are silent on these Original concepts - it is likely because there is nothing there. We do a disservice by taking a fringe theory, one of four random guesses really, and presenting it in our article. It's just not the place and it is not a Reliable Source on the article's subject.. 99.135.168.164 (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add that the record number of weasel words required to even begin to shoehorn this

WP:OR (why we chose some of his guesses randomly for the article and not others is even worth considering) in is itself quite telling - "In Professor Robert Kastenbaum's opinion ...presuming that ... may have ...He speculates that ... may have been ... or even to ... ...may have reflected ..." Not to mention the fact that we refer to the Arizona State Professor of Communication as simply "Professor" in an article on a medieval legal practice. It gives the false impression that Kastenbaum is an expert regarding the subject of the article. I don't believe a two page self-flagged four guess riff on the subject qualifies the author as a Reliable Source. Nor would I think he would claim it himself were he here now. 99.135.168.164 (talk

) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Most history is an educated guess. Kastenbaum speculates on the reasoning behind such displays, and his speculation appears to tally quite well with other, more specific sources (which I have provided). Parrot of Doom 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Parrot. Every historical interpretation is more or less a SWAG (scientific wild assed guess) (surprised that usage of SWAG doesn't have its own article). Kastenbaum is just honest enough to admit it, and its presented in the article as an opinion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So for

Medieval European history, English Law and Western Philosophy as it relates to this subject we disregard Reliable Source rules? It seems odd that we require, contrary to practice elsewhere on the project, self-described guesses from an Arizona State professor of communication in order for Wikipedia to produce an article on this subject. ..99.135.168.164 (talk

) 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard is about reliable sourcing policy. In terms of the relevant policies, I think the source is strong enough, the attribution careful enough, and the position being taken is not

WP:FRINGE. So any disagreement about whether the sentences should be in WP seems to be a question of editing judgment which is not something this board is for. I think 99.135.168.164 you need to work with the other editor. This is not the kind of case where you can justify your disagreement based on a policy infringement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a WP:OR issue here (it isn't OR to say that someone said something and then cite where they said it) ... but there definitely is a

WP:UNDUE issue. If someone has no qualification in the field of Medieval history (which can include a reputation as a knowledgeable armature) it is Undue weight to include his opinion and speculation in an article on an aspect of Medieval history. So... the question here is: Does Katenbaum have any sort of qualification or reputation in this area? What makes his speculation worth mentioning? Blueboar (talk

) 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this is the RSN board. If you think there is an UNDUE issue you should go to the article talkpage and get in the discussion there? I do not think "guilty until proven innocent" should be the approach on this noticeboard towards possible breaches of policies other than WP:RS?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have that discussion on the article's talk page. For what it's worth Kastenbaum is talking specifically about the ritualistic nature of the disfigurement of the body. Looking at the number of books he's written on the subject of death, I'd say he's more than qualified to comment. I'm still in the process of getting source material (if anyone knows where I can get this for a realistic price I'd be very grateful), so it may be the case that his comments on the matter are pushed aside a little, as other, more authoritative sources are found. Parrot of Doom 23:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Located here. No, I do not mean using all users' posts as sources, but posts from the administrator and employee of Robbins as sources. She (Stephanie K.) is a spokesperson for Robbins and posts official announcements on the forum. I am just not sure if her posts should be used since they are located inside of a forum. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us an example? We need to know which article you want to use this and how it's going to be used? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. Sorry. On this page Stephanie said that a music video was being made for "Me and My Microphone." Would it be acceptable to put her post as a source? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is an acceptable

primary source to say that a music video is being planned for the song. However, keep in mind that articles should be primarily based on secondary sources and if the information is really worth including in an article, a secondary source is likely to have done so. IOW, you can use primary sources, but don't over do it. BTW, I would recommend you add some sort of hidden comment when using this as a source. Another editor can easily come in and delete the reference without realizing that Stephanie K is an administrator and employee of Robbins. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 23:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I know how at least 80 percents of the incident there started. In my opinion more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow ... in the demilitarized area. And we would know ahead of time that Syrians would start shooting.

— Moshe Dayan, In an interview

There are additional sources for Dayan quote. To the point of April 1967 aerial battle, Mark A. Tessler adds in his A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict book:

The final act of the prewar drama opened on April 7. Another conflict over the cultivation of disputed lands in the Israeli-Syrian demilitarized zone led to a major engagement between Jerusalem and Damascus. Following an exchange of fire between forces on the ground, Israel and Syria both sent planes into the air...

— Mark A. Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, page 382

Currently Finkelstein's book is used heavily in the article, to support different claims:

1. Israeli tractors with police protection used to go into the DMZ.^[1]
2. Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes.^[2]
3. Palestinian refugees were denied the right of return or compensation, and because of this they started raids on Israel. Syria supported the Palestinian attacks because of Israel taking over more land in the DMZ.^[3]

Some editors believe however that

I happen to be a fan of Finkelstein and think he got a really raw deal at DePaul. From where I sit, his scholarship (I've read only The Holocaust Industry) is rigorous and I would have no problem citing him as

WP:UNDUE or his (unquestionable) notability and avoid whether he is a reliable source for "x is true" rather than "Finkelstein thinks X".Jonathanwallace (talk

) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for your input. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is the question whether this particular publication by Finkelstein is reliable. It does not appear to be peer-reviewed, and was published with the "largest radical publisher in the English-language world". Not a mainstream source (as should be obvious given that he is controversial and that his scholarship standards have been doubted by serious scholars and historians, not just Dershowitz and the ADL). It offers of course a contrarian view. These are welcome, but this is an overview article on the country, and not an in-depth article on this time period that could actually present alternative viewpoints to the mainstream. Pantherskin (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody interested in this discussion should check out this Wiki article Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. Finkelstein dissected Dershowitz's book "The case for Israel" and found that Dershowtiz used a high school girl's work on the Internet as a source for his book "The case for Israel". Interested users should check out some debates between Dershowitz and Finkelstein and judge for themselves who the real scholar is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sws0V_pVhG4&NR=1. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"According to professor Norman Finkelstein etc." and combination with WP:UNDUE is a good solution. And what groups like ADL think is not important for his reliablity or unreliability. --Dezidor (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across this edit while working on an article yesterday and added it to a related article

Companies House is indisputably a reliable source for a company existing, whether it is active or dissolved, etc, and for a corporate document being on file with it; it is an official site of the UK government. Two problems, however, when it comes to using it as a source for the BLP's at issue:

First, as you pointed out when you added the "dubious" tag, the cited source doesn't support the statement in the text. The link is just to the Companies House site, and the page for the company doesn't identify the directors.[18] The page for the Company details doesn't identify the directors of the company. It does give you a list of the corporate documents on file with the government, but doesn't give the information needed to support the text.[19]

Second, let's assume you pay for copies of the corporate documents available on the website, and those documents do indentify these people as the directors. The corporate documents are primary sources, and you cannot use primary sources (no matter how reliable) in a BLP where there has been no discussion of that primary material in reliable secondary sources. See

Fladrif (talk

) 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's perfectly acceptable to cite the corporate filings of a company for the names of its officers in an article about the company. BLPPRIMARY becomes an issue when you're writing about a person, and search corporate documents to see what he might be an officer of. In this latter case, you want a secondary source to make that connection. But even in the latter case, it is acceptable to use the primary source to augment what was said in the secondary source, for example to source an officer's middle name. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. To be honest, I can think of much more useful ways to spend my hard earned cash than on company reports, especially as they wouldn't be regarded as source material for the article. Googling for "Craig Stewart Oliver" confirms the BBC World directorship, and shows references to other companies, but nothing for Paya. I was inclined to believe it as the rest of the information about his business interests seems to be correct. It also occurred to me that the person who disputed the edit in the Gosling article could have some connection to the individuals concerned, but I'm puzzsled as to why he or she was happy to leave the information in one article and not the other. I did suggest removing it from both if it was incorrect. One of life's mysteries, I guess. Thanks again anyway.

talk

) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And I mistakenly thought it required registration. Must get myself a bigger screen (or a decent pair of spectacles). :)

talk

) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondary source was published by Telegraph Online yesterday so I have restored the information with one or two minor adjustments. I don't know about the middle names as there's nothing else online to support this so I've left that out. Cheers and thanks for all the advice.

talk

) 22:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And I know we can't use this as a source, but 192.com's electrol register records show a Joanna Marie Mussett Oliver living in west London. Too much of a coincidence to be anyone else so I'll re-add the names.

talk

) 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is YouTube a reputable source when one is using the "official" channel of a given entity that seems to have found it cheaper to begin hosting its videos on YouTube instead of on its own servers? Banaticus (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think so, if there's no reason to doubt that video is indeed sponsored by the entity. If this is disputed, though, there's no way to prove that its not counterfeit, right? Who exactly do you have in mind? Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it helps, as noted at the top of this page, to give

1. A full citation of the source in question.
2. A link to the source in question.
3. The article in which it is being used.
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.

Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Banaticus had in mind, but as an illustration of the point, I offer this passage that I added to

Tennent's Lager.^[4]

"

The link is to this page. I added this note in comment brackets: "This YouTube video was posted by Tennent's so it's not a copyvio."

I agree that, if there's a good-faith dispute about the provenance of the video, that would be a different situation. JamesMLane t c 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A better reference might have been this. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I second the points in Kenilworth's very intelligently worded statement at the beginning of this thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed in the essay I created:

WP:VIDEOLINK

. One thing that I have noticed from conversations on this noticeboard is that consensus has allowed such videos if it is verifiable that the channel is undoubtedly from the organization that is RS. Ways to check are looking for press releases or links from the RS's main website confirming that the channel is actually from them. Some editors still frown upon it though since YouTube itself is not RS but this appears to be the minority opinion.

One other thing to consider in this scenario is if it is an appropriate use of a primary source.Cptnono (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Dr. Wolters. I'm glad you think the description is correct. The purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve disputes. Is there a dispute related to this article? I don't see that any issue has been raised on the Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is [20] which states clearly and without any equivocation:

Officers formed cordons to separate about 2,000 supporters of the English Defense League from 1,000 members of left-wing group Unite Against Fascism and Muslim organizations marching through Luton, a working-class town near London with a history of racial tension.

a Reliable Source for calling the UAF "left wing"? Note the editors who found The Times, Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, etc. not to be RS seem to feel the AP is also not RS for such a drastic claim. Collect (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not this again! All of these are reliable sources, with attribution, that UAF is a left wing organization. This has been discussed to death on this noticeboard, and there is no merit whatsoever to any argument to the contrary. The reliability of these sources for that purpose is not subject to reasonable dispute. Whether, and how to use the sources in the article is a matter for another noticeboard.

Fladrif (talk

) 02:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The ones opposed have insisted that every single one is opinion only and not usable. Please look at that talk page :). Collect (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am familar with the talk page. RSN has no enforcement mechanism; if editors are systematically defying policy and consensus at RSN, there are other dispute-resolution mechanisms to pursue.

Fladrif (talk

) 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

New argument - editors assert that papers who do not say something are of significance, that because many papers do not make a claim, that therefore the claims made by reliable sources in news articles (not "opinion" as one editor asserts) are therefore invalid. I found this a most interesting argument - akin to the man on trial who said he could find a thousand witnesses who did not see him commit the murder. Collect (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's a view I subscribe to NPOV-wise. Confirmation bias in source selection is rampant in Wikipedia. Not sure about this case though...haven't looked. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This has been brought up before. AP is a reliable source for news, but the opinions expressed lack weight. The proper noticeboard is NPOV. TFD (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Brought up before and resolved recently here, NPOV and an RfC. As before we have an attempt to make an issue of WEIGHT one of RS and a general refusal to look at the wider context and nature of the sources. --Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• note - actually the issue is not of weight but of ownership of the article by supporters of the group.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 12:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your view, a counter would be that a group of editors wish to label it "left wing" in conformity with the position take by the far right groups EDL and BNP and have come back here yet again, within weeks of an RfC being closed on the subject. --Snowded TALK 14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As I see it we are not trying to label them as left wing, merley report a (clearly) widespread view that they are. Worded to make its claer that this is just that, an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If all (or even the vast majority) of the sources that have addressed this group's political leaning have described this group as left-wing and there is no serious dispute among reliable sources about this, then we can safely describe it as left-wing in our article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Sean.hoyland's comment about confirmation bias, those editors opposing calling this group left-wing can help address this issue by producing

reliable sources which describe this group as right-wing or centrist, or which dispute that the group is left-wing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quest on this. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The group is an anti-fascist group and has left-wing, centrist and right-wing support. --Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just becasue a group has support from A does not mean (given its a one issue organisation) that it is A. You need sources saying its not A or that they deny they are A. What we have is a dispute on wikipedia that is not being played out in the real world.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that both the presence and the absence of an adjective can count in these decisions i.e. if half the sources say "The chubby singer X" and the other half say "The singer X" then the degree of chubbiness confirmation is 50% according to the sources. It would also be 50% if half the sources said "The chubby singer X" and the other half say "The not chubby singer X". In other words, the absence of the adjective has the same weight as the presence of the adjective or alternative adjectives. Of course, if anyone is able to do this kind of rigorous source analysis they probably have far too much time on their hands....as I clearly do by writing this comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not every news or magazine article on

Fladrif (talk

) 16:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel compelled to reply. That is true, the sources that didn't mention it are obviously not reliable sources for the proposition that she was thin. They are however reliable sources for the negative results of the test, which sources described her as overweight or thin? They are reliable sources for the absence of that information from sources that specifically address the subject, Cass Elliot. So they have something to say about both the proposition that she was overweight and the proposition that she was thin. They tell you something about the weight that those descriptions are given by the total set of sources, information that is required for decisions about the usage of those terms (and any qualifiers attached to those terms) in a Wikipedia article that purports to comply with NPOV. Negative and null results count in science, in medicine, in IT, in many things,

figure and ground, it's natural. Sean.hoyland - talk

18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hat this, please This discussion has nothing to do with the unquestioned reliability of AP as a source for this purpose. The discussion of how this, and other sources should be reflected in the article, should move to the NPOV Noticeboard, here I would suggest that an admin hat this and redirect the discussion there.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 16:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a number of supporters of the British National Party and the English Defence League who wish to portray their opponents, including Conservatives as "left-wing" and have Google-mined for the rare references that refer to them in this way. Unfortunately a number of other editors have chosen to side with them. Could these editors please click the links to these groups. Opposition to them is not ipso facto left-wing. The overwhelming majority of people would be opposed to these fringe groups as well. TFD (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

AGF and refrain for PA please.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland's point is correct. Which is part of the reason why

We've been through this whole saga here, at NPOV and then finally with a RfC, all within weeks. The sources now being suggested are the same as those which were discussed in all three of those forums. All we have here is a group of people who edit warred to insert a label, and then fought the case over multi forums and lost. They have now started up again, I assume in the hope that others will just give up and let them have their way. The BNP and EDL are opposed by all mainstream political parties in the UK; their tactic in response to try and label their opposition as left wing. We've had two years of this campaign, mostly from SPAs and IPs more recently by a concerned group of editors who edit on right wing issues.

WP:DUCK supports TFD's statements above although I don;t think it applies to all. Personally I think its getting close to an ANI case or possibly an arbcom referral as behaviour is becoming an issue, this is not just about content --Snowded TALK

17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We've had two years of this campaign Interesting way to put this, when you say "We" do you mean UAF or the editors who look after the article? Either way, it looks like

WP:OWN Tentontunic (talk

) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and it was found then that these are RS for this claimk. It ws found that it should not go in the lead, not that there should be no mention of it (and in fact you appear to have agreed that it should be mentioned). I agree that given the blatant assumptions of bad faith and contant accusations of political bias that an ANI may be in order. Eitehr state who the POV pushers are or stop the inuendos.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And there is a reference in the body of the article --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is what is being objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I put the latest version in place Slater, using RS --Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Ken" and Socialist Workers Party members. --Dezidor (talk

) 17:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Many sources called them left-wing no reliable source called them conservative or right-wing. That´s all. The main problem is that sources do not specify what kind leftism they have in mind. However from context is clear that they do not mean economic left (high taxes, high tariffs, rights of employees...) but cultural/social left (open borders, multicultural and multiracial society, criminalization of "hate speech"...). It is logical that somebeody who is for free trade, low taxes etc. but supports multicultural society and mass imigration can support UAF and it´s violent actions. It's the same problem like with the BNP that is right/far right in cultural/social issues but is obviously not right-wing in economic sense. The real problem is not reliability of sources but ownership of articles and POV pushing by UAF supporters. --Dezidor (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A very small number of sources call them left wing and not consistently. The Times which is quoted uses the label once in over 14 articles for example. So far if we look at the quality press in the UK (those with a reputation for journalistic standards) we have three references out of hundreds of reports. We have no academic articles as we do for the BNP and EDL --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims" apply here? It is quite extraordinary to claim that a group officially supported by David Cameron is "left-wing". Itsmejudith (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he actually supports them, theres nothing in the article about him and if perhaps if he has ever commented it would only be a passing soundbyte comment.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He is (or at least was) listed as a supporter [[21]] (though it would be usefull if we actauly has something sadi by him recently to establish he still does).Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That signatory to the founding statement is not a sign as a support of the UAF as I see it, it is quite possible to agree with a founding statement but not to support at all the actions of the group associated with it.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dezidor, the context does not imply that they are "cultural/social left" - in fact that expression is probably alien to British politics. TFD (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about terms like "right-wing" and "left-wing" are always complicated because there is no simple answer what is right-wing and what is left-wing. In the Czech republic, where I live, many people who are right-wing in view on economics strongly disagree with labeling parties like BNP or NF as "far right" because the are not far right or even right-wing in questions like social benefits, low taxes, free trade etc. I just tried to explain that context imples that supporters of UAF are left-wing in cultural issues like immigration and multicultural society. They oppose groups like EDL and BNP in that issues not in questions like taxes where they can by supported by fans of high as well as low taxes. Of course, UAF attracts often people like

Red Ken and members of Socialist Workers Party who are left wing also in economic issues. --Dezidor (talk

) 19:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Czech Republic has had far right political parties -

Coalition for Republic - Republican Party of Czechoslovakia, the National Party and the Workers' Party. Are you claiming that they are not called right-wing? TFD (talk

) 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is somewhat OT but...

Czech Social Democratic Party than to right-wing parties. A day after the party was established, it published a press release that it planned to compete about same sort of voters mostly with Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. They had contacts with Nazis but also with Klub českého pohraničí that is communist group. --Dezidor (talk

) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link is to an editorial called "Authentic right-wing Workers' Party". It confirms that that party is called "ultra right" in the CR. TFD (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No. :-) That title is meant ironically and they make fun of people who call DS´s political program "right-wing" or "far right". But our discussion about Dělnická strana is OT. --Dezidor (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The article

The mentioned articles only need a little bit of information, I'm an expert in this area, I can help with it, please contact me Wikifanuk (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was really looking for someone with a little experience of reliable sources, whereas this reply is your very first contribution to Wikipedia.

Dmcq (talk

) 14:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A quickie hopefully. Would http://wallblog.co.uk/2010/12/22/social-media-movers-and-shakers-the-ones-to-watch-in-2011/ be considered a reliable source? It has blog in the name but I think it might get in under newspaper rules. Thanks

Dmcq (talk

) 13:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As you know, reliable sourcing is not a black and white issue. The source has to be considered in the context of the text it is supporting and if there are any other sources that supplement that text etc.Generally on WP we prefer well known secondary sources but there is a time and a place for primary sources and/or little known sources like this one. Of course a personal blog cannot be used but this web site says that it "features expert commentators and analysis of digital developments" so it might have some relevance. However, if the entire article is based on sources like these then that could be problematic.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I just looked at the article and made some copy edits etc. It was just created a week ago and it is tagged as needing secondary sources. So until article is developed further and better sources are found, the current sources, at a glance, seem to be OK for now, in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We are working on the problem of links to reliable sources going dead. We would like to get more input from the greater community. Everybody is encouraged to voice their opinions here. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Informations were controlled in Nazi Germany, some "informations" were created by Nazi propaganda, some were censored or potential authors expelled, imprisoned or killed. Are there any general rules of quoting Nazi Germany printings?Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer this question in the abstract. Is there a specific article, source and text that you have in mind?

Fladrif (talk

) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The short answer to the specific question, "Are there any general rules of quoting Nazi Germany printings?" would have to be no. Rules of verifiability and reliability will yield all the tools necessary, in so far as sourcing a ref. 99.135.168.164 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with case by case approach and would add that generally these publications would be

reliable for their own opinions and to give historical context, but virtually never for the truth of their assertions.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to use this source for such a topic. Quite apart from the Nazi taint (which makes it basically worthless as a secondary source on matters of race, ethnicity, and European history), it's also 75 years out of date. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is being added to various articles, eg [All elements and energies in the Cosmos can be influenced and guided by Mantras. ] (it was removed earlier as self-published), here to back an assertion that "All elements and energies in the Cosmos can be influenced and guided by Mantras, here for an assertion on diet, here for an assertion about a translation. Thanks.

So it seems that you are asking if this self published book [Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, Yoga in Daily Life - The System, Publ. by Iberia/European University Press, Austria, 2000] is a reliable source in those (or other) contexts. IF it is true that it is self published than it would seem to NOT be acceptable as

WP:SELFPUB says self pub books are "largely not acceptable as sources" unless the person has had previous books in the same field published prior to the self pub book. Thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk

• 17:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is of course reliable as a source for the Swami's own opinions. As to whether it is reliable for those opinions being cited as facts, no it is not per

WP:FTN. Kenilworth Terrace (talk

) 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The self-published question is only indirectly the issue—which is really the related question of whether he is notable enough to have his attributed views in the articles, or recognized by adacemics as an authority on these things. I think the answer is 'no' on both counts (notability, recognition by academics). First Light (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points from both of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user is posting material to the

PRNewswire is a reliable source which is used by thousands of news media on a daily basis since 1954. Please note PRNewswire Wiki article. Izrus is a news site based in Israel which has been granted credentials by the Israel Government Press Office. That these two sources and content to Michael Cherney's article were deleted constitutes vandalism. moscowrussia

No way does taking care with sources in a BLP constitute vandalism! Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read

Dmcq (talk

) 15:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed the header to focus more on the reliability of PR Newswire and Izrus. PR Newswire has been discussed before on this noticeboard: "News releases are primary, self-published sources, no more reliable than blogs." I don't find any discussion here of www.izrus.il, described in Haaretz in July 2009 as possibly an attack organ of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Article quotes an un-named foreign ministry official: ""It is his mouthpiece....At worst he wrote the article himself, and in the best case he was the inspiration for it." The question is whether either PR Newswire or Izrus is

WP:RS for contentious material about living people.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PrNewswire, which was established in 1954, carefully reviews each and every news release which is sent to them for accountability before they are edited and sent from their offices to thousands of respected , established media. They also have a very strict legal policy to make certain that no laws of slander or libel are being breached. I suggest that you read Wikipedia's article on PRNewswire. Thanks. moscowrussia (talk) Moscowrussia (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PR Newswire isn't really the source of a new release, it's the entity issuing the release that is the source. PRN would essentially be the publisher. I think any questions about reliability are if PRN accurately published the information given to them, but that's it. Anything about factual correctness, etc would be for the entity issuing the release. Anything used in an article should attribute the information to that entity, and the only mention of PRN would be in the ref, identified as the publisher and in the url.

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Press releases are reliable sources. They're not secondary, but

WP:PRIMARY allows them.陣内_Jinnai

22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Press releases may be reliable sources for new product announcements from IBM. Press releases from organizations with unknown agendas are certainly not reliable for assertions about criminality of living persons, see

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of strict interpretation, if its otherwise a reliable source, the answer is yes (one copy vs. many shouldn't matter more than offline or paywall issues, because its still

verifiable. ). As a tactical matter, the more controversial the assertion (and the more it relates to a living person) the harder i would search to find a more easily available source. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The EADT may be tabloid in physical form, but it is certainly not "tabloid" in the pejorative sense -- it is clearly a reliable source. WP:SOURCEACCESS is clear: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I believe it is available in local libraries in Suffolk as well, and at their Ipswich offices, BTW. Why the focus on the Essex edition rather than the mainstream Suffolk (not Sussex) edition? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

COI alert: I used (>10 years ago) to work for this paper.

As Kenilworth Terrace says, it's a well-respected and rather conservative title, tabloid only in dimensions, so I don't think there's any problem with it as a reliable source on that front.

As for availability - I presume the newspaper itself also has archive copies, and I'd be surprised if the local Suffolk and Essex library systems don't also have it; they don't seem to have their catalogues on WorldCat.

All in all, I suggest its availability is not substantially more restricted than that of any other medium-sized paper in England, or indeed elsewhere, and that even material that's not in the online archive should be okay as a source - except, perhaps, for assertions so very controversial or unlikely that readers and editors really are going to want to verify them quite often. Barnabypage (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually question the reliability of the paper's news reporting. I'm just using this paper as an example because it happened to come up. More of a theoretical question, where one has a source that is presumably reliable, but it is extremely inconvenient to verify what the source actually says, because there are so few copies available. Maybe an obscure, out of print book or periodical with only a couple of copies worldwide, kept in a university library rare book room which only can be checked out be researchers? I dunno. Does the difficulty in obtaining verification at some point mean that, notwithstanding SOURCEACCESS, that we say, "Source X is so hard to verify that we shouldn't use it"? The EADT is probably not something that has crossed that line, as presumably hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedians are only a short Tube ride away from being able to verify an older article in the British Library archive.

Fladrif (talk

) 18:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My take on it would be that, ceteris paribus, more-accessible sources are preferable to less-accessible ones, but we shouldn't leave useful, interesting, relevant material out of articles just because the source falls into the latter category. It's also worth bearing in mind that, presumably, at least one Wikipedian has been able to get to the source without too much trouble, in order to cite it... Barnabypage (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added it today, at

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Victor Serge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please consider some changes and additions to the listing for Victor Serge. First, he is identified in the opening as (French--and this does not include a close paren. He is, of course, not French; he wrote in French. I also urge your editors to add reference to the outstanding introduction to Serge's Unforgiving Years. Written by Susan Sontag in the 2000 edition, it is an important look at Serge's literary contributions, which the current Wikipedia commentary lacks.

Thank you for your work.

Sincerely, Bonnie Bekken [contact information removed]

I'm puzzled. The entry for Victor Serge in En.Wikipedia indentifies him as a Francophone in the lede, not as French, and the biography states that he was born in Belgium. Are you referencing an different edition of Wikipedia perhaps?

I would be cautious about citing a forward to a book as a source. I should think that Sontag's essay "Undistinguished" would be a superior source.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am new here and obviously not clear on what goes where and am not even certain that editing this is what I am supposed to do to add to the discussion. I asked for clarification about what blogs are considered reliable sources versus what are not and was sent here by Dmcq from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Clarify_please:_Blogs_as_independent_reliable_sources:

You're at the wrong place, the guideline is at WP:RS and there is a noticeboard for questions like this at WP:RSN. The answer is not totally straightforward, it depends principally on whether the blog is from a reputable source e.g. a newspaperman or a working scientist writing about his field would I think be okay and some newspaper blogs are fact checked, but the reliable sources noticeboard is the right place to go. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In the discussion about The Affiliate Marketing Awards at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Affiliate_Marketing_Awards SummerPhD states, "At present, this article has 9 sources. However ALL of them are either theaffiliatemarketingawards.com or blogs. This article needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to meet notability guidelines."

In the Internet Marketing industry which includes Affiliate Marketing, all of the notable independent reliable sources I can think of ARE blogs:

   * http://mashable.com/ PR8
   * http://techcrunch.com/ PR8
   * http://www.readwriteweb.com/ PR8
   * http://www.adotas.com/ PR6

Blogs such as these ARE our "independent reliable sources", aren't they? Most high quality sites today including major media sites are blogs:

   * http://www.cnn.com/ PR10
   * http://abcnews.go.com/ PR8
   * http://online.wsj.com/ PR8

We need clarification of what blogs qualify as independent reliable sources and which do not. As TomSF100 added in that discussion "They may be blogs but they are corporate blogs. Adrants is a blog with editoral guidlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomSF100".

Some blogs are promotional; some are associated with businesses; and many of us write the truth in our blogs as we see it - unhindered by having to kowtow to advertisers. Blogs are not all the same and ethical bloggers are different than run-of-the-mill bloggers.

Please clarify for us what information you favor on Wikipedia and which is a waste of time because it will be summarily deleted anyway. We do not wish to waste your time nor our own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Please clarify (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that guidelines may have been written before so many major news sites switched to a blog format. The Affiliate Marketing world is not likely to be written about by CNN, ABC or the Wall Street Journal so Internet Marketing news sites are probably the most reliable sources we can cite. Will those be suitable?

Keithbob: You wrote, "Of course a personal blog cannot be used". Could you please define "personal blog". Do you mean a personal diary type blog or are you including single-author blogs that publish posts by others in their industry? Many blogs that originally were single-author blogs are moving toward multi-author blog status. What about group blogs like http://FamousBloggers.net or http://ComLuv.com or well-respected single author blogs like http://Kikolani.com ? Does recognition by industry lists that publish lists such as Technorati's Top 100 Small Business Blogs List at http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/business/smallbusiness/ or the AdAge Power150 at http://adage.com/power150/ indicate reliability?

The issue is editorial oversight. Blogs are a slippery slope. I think that some blogs of news organizations have been allowed because those posting come from a context of editorial oversight -- they're working journalists in a tradition of fact checking and objectivity. And even then, one should be cautious how these blogs are used. Beyond that, it doesn't seem like a good idea to use blogs as sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As per

WP:ISNOT Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It needs to ensure that what is in it is verifiable and notable. Your standard blog is nowhere near adequate for that. A cat playing the piano has made it in the notability stakes, but should for instance Scottish country dance to the music of Rasputin by Boney M[23]

be included? Exactly how much weight should be given to a claim in a blog that all climate change scientists are in a global conspiracy? Are we really going to note down every change of clothes of Nicole Kidman? Wikipedia is not a repository for every last silliness or tittle tale of gossip.

Therefore I think you need to read the

Dmcq (talk

) 15:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.adotas.com/2011/02/affiliate-marketing-awards-where-affiliates-shine-brightest/ TomSF100 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate some guidance from the community with respect to the following question. If a BLP indicates that a third party referenced the subject of the BLP, is the transcript of such third party referencing the subject of the BLP an appropriate citation/reliable source? Thanks for any input. Lawblogger18 (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the transcript published? And in a reliable source? TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging by your name Lawblogger, I am guessing you may be asking about a court document such as a trial or deposition transcript.

biographies of living persons: " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I have argued that court decisions, which are acts of synthesis more like secondary sources, should be exceptions, but mere transcripts of court proceedings are clearly raw primary docs which should not be used.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan's take on this... Court decisions are acceptable (they are reliably published by the court after all)... but all the stuff leading up to the decision - the various filings, transcripts, testimony, documents used as exhibits, etc. are not. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - I am just trying gain an understanding to ensure I get this right going forward. I am currently working on a BLP for a forensic psychiatrist who was quoted by a judge when issuing a sentence for a notable case, as captured by a video transcript. Is a video transcript a reliable source for the fact that the subject of the BLP was quoted? Based on Jonathan's comments, it seems like it should be permissible as it is reflective of a court opinion as opposed to the assertions/evidence leading up to it. Any thoughts? Lawblogger18 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This question is a follow-up to a prior RSN discussion on using Oprah as a source.[24] This case would be a classic example for exactly why

Ah... specific context ... that does change things a bit. No, the quote by the judge is not reliable in this context. When we say "Court rulings and decisions are reliable" we mean they are reliable for simple descriptive statements as to what the court decision was. "The court found that Mr. Doe was guilty and sentenced him to a 3 year prison term"... or... "The court ruled that Mr. Smith was liable and ordered him to make restitution" Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am not the one proposing the quote nor pushing it. However, I am trying to understand the delineation between appropriate and inappropriate uses so I can get these issues right on a going forward basis and for future articles. I think I understand the delineation in this context. Per Blueboar - a primary text can be deemed a reliable source in circumstances where the underlying facts are reliable (i.e. published court decision). However, in the above context(per Fladrif) the underlying source is unreliable because the Judge's reference to the subject is inconclusive (i.e. referencing Weiner vs. Welner). Is that correct? Lawblogger18 (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I explained my thoughts in a related discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good application for common sense, but some editors don't seem to have that. If there is a university, and it occupies a site where the buildings are only a small portion of the property (the rest is mostly forested), would the brown square on Google Maps (in map mode) be a reliable indication of the property owned by the university, or would it be essentially guesswork by Google's team that could potentially have no basis in reality at all? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps would not be a good source of property lines - many of its boundaries, locations, etc are inaccurately located. The only reliable source for property lines would be the deeds of ownership of properties which might be available at the relevant local authority offices. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would this be necessary? If it is about a university article, could you post on WikiProject Universities, because exact delimitation of campus boundaries isn't something we usually expect to see in an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps is presumably a tertiary source- in the UK it would derive property boundaries from terrestial mapping by other agencies, who themselves would get the boundaries from legal documents. Ning-ning (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't you remember hearing about this? It would certainly make me wary of using google maps as the source for anything. I agree with Judith though - why exactly is this important? SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because a user insists on associating a building with a road its not even close to. When repeatedly asserted that the building is on a road off of a road off of the subject road, the user continued to assert the reliability of Google Maps. Even when I told them to use Toporama (a Government of Canada map source that does show property lines), they insisted Google Maps was a reliable source for everything.[25] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What article is this in relation to? Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Morningside Avenue (Toronto). By this point, the picking at the citations is a result of the editor uncooperatively willing to accept that if something is over there, its not related to over here, where you can't get to it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is in the Morningside Avenue (Toronto) article and the sentence that the avenue "forms the western boundary of" the University of Toronto Scarborough. The google map indicating this is here. Is there evidence this map is inaccurate in regards to that statement?--Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The same map is on the university website here. That lends it reliability. Is the problem just that the road is the boundary of the campus, but is distant from the university main building? I see "building" in Floydian's query. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The link above is to Google Maps which is no more reliable than Google Earth. If the University says in writing that such and a road or street forms the boundary, that would be accepatble use of a primary source. If an otherwise reliable sources states that then you could use it with attribution, but you can't use a map. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My actual issue is including the information at all, but I realize that isn't the function of this venue. Several editors have decided that since there is nothing else on the road (which lends to its non-notability as a standard suburban road that there are thousands of in the GTA), it should be mentioned. The campus buildings, parking, access, student residence, fraternity/sorority houses are all on Military Trail (a notable road that doesn't have an article yet; it was one of the first roads in Upper Canada), which is accessed from

Ellesmere Road

(a road that did have its own article, but which I merged until someone has the time to expand it with sources), which is then connected to Morningside Avenue. Trivia.

What really disturbs me is the refusal by the editor to use a source that's actually reliable when presented with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This [26] source is being used to claim that "Such was the influence of Achaemenid architecture...that is set the definitive style for Western architecture". I find this claim extraordinary, as to my knowledge the primary influence on western architecture is Greek, and the primary influence on Greek architecture is Egyptian. Already by the 10th-7th centuries BC, long before the Greeks had contacts with the Persians, the familiar Greek temple architecture was already in place. Thus I find this claim extraordinary. However, since I am not an architect, I am unable to evaluate the source. Who is Marco Bussagli? What are his credentials? To my admittedly limited knowledge, the book seems a little lightweight and tertiary as a source. It doesn't go into any depth at all. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

OK, this source actually cites the following not exactly in those same words. It states that "From the artistic point of view, Achaemenid architecture-albeit with major adaptation by Greece and Rome-established the defining style of the Western world." So it makes no claim about Architecture as is mentioned above, and it states clearly that it is from an "artistic point of view" as in "art" not as in architecture or foundation of architectural style. As for the author Marco Bussagli, from my study on him online is a established author with more than 20 titles on art and architecture found on the Google book storage, some of which are very heavy and in detail. I believe perhaps this can be resolved on the fact that the statement must be thought of in the context of his book and what he is stating. Bussagli is not saying that "Persians laid the foundation for Greek architecture" as it seems is the misunderstanding here (or perhaps my poor wording as I first presented it to User Athenean) but that Persians influenced architecture in a way artistically that despite being influenced by the Greeks (and other cutlures around them), was eventually adapted by the Greeks and Romans or rather utilized by them in their works, which through their works has defined the style of Western world. In other words this statement recognizes the Persian artistic influence, not necessarily reflect the straight forward claim above that "it is the definitive style of the Western world." The problem here is that the statement is perhaps misunderstood as Bussagli specifically places stress on the artistic nature of the work and its ramifications for the arts and architecture abroad, since at the time Persian Achaemenids were at the borders of Macedon and an exchange would have been quite feasible. I am actually currently discussing it with User Athenean on my page. I was going to simply allow him flexibility to work it out, but if he wants to get tertiary opinions on this instead of working it between us to an amicable end, I am all over for inputs! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Athenean, this book looks like a popularisation rather than a scholarly study. Other books by Bussagli might be better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is really all perfectly fine with me. I strive to read before I write and to develop a deeper understanding of the topics. I enjoy the process, because I believe it is only when you try to explain a phenomenon that you really understand it. I know Bussagli is a great author, having just read some of his writing on Baroque which inspires me to perhaps contribute there later on. At any rate, the issue with the quoted text use is null, as I mentioned to Athenean that I won't utilize it until a consensus is reached between us. In this case, I will not utilize this quote. Perhaps further study in the role of art in Persia and its reverbration worldwide and particularly in the West is in order. No matter, I look forward to be part of the process. From my perspect and I judge by association, that of Athenean this "reliability" contestation is no longer needed as I am not going to use this quoted text, however I want it to be known that my initial use of it is justifed as per application of published literary content. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across a link to this site concerning the recent death of the rock guitarist

It looks to be, but I don't know. More importantly, It's not a particulary controversial fact, so we might as well let the site stand. It also seems easy to find sources for this. Google insists on giving me norwegian sources, but here is one that I know is reliable, [27]. Since it's non english it's presumably better to use typicallyspanish.

Taemyr (talk

) 13:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm planning to do a bit of copyediting in the next day or two so I'll take it out (unless I can find some way of better utilising it).

talk

) 16:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a search on this in the archives here and came up empty. Basically, can this be considered a reliable source for citing WP articles?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) is a reliable scholarly publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the site, so that's why I asked on here. Thanks for the clarification.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Over at

IGN and Gamespot are well-known gaming sites, and I would think they are okay to be sourced just as long as you attribute it correctly. As far as attribution goes, remember that using common sense works quite well.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So your saying for claims about a video game's development, its okay so long as you say something like "According to IGN..."?陣内_Jinnai 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would think that in every case attribution would be a good idea, unless it's a statement of fact such as when a game was released or how many players there are. Also, personally I would think that since a review is often simply personal opinion, and since those opinions tend to vary widely, and since there are likely many published opinions, one wouldn't want to overwhelm an article with attributed opinions. It seems like an article should be mostly facts, and then a few opinions about how a game was received. It sounds like a site such as Gamasutra could be used as a source to add some interesting context. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on how the source is being used. Is it being used for a statement of opinion or a statement of fact?

• If it's an opinion, in-text attribution should be used. For example, "IGN called RacingGameX 'the best racing game of the year'."
• If it's a fact, is there any dispute over the fact?

• If not, in-text attribution is not required. For example: "Nintendo makes the Wii" is perfectly fine whereas "According to IGN, Nintendo makes the Wii" wouldn't sound right.
• If there is a dispute over the fact, use in-text attribution. For example, "According to IGN, the Wii has sold X units while Gamespot says Y units have been sold."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that those sources contain a verity of content, some of which would not be usable. Forums, for example.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about info on the development/production of game(s). on feature articles; not forums, not walkthroughs, not even reviews, but feature articles like "History of role-playing video games" or something along those lines. The question is asked here because as mainstream press sources in video game industry they should be known for fact checking and have inside connections to video game industry. However, the counterargument is there is no way to know if what they say is their opinion or fact for development info, unless its attributed or backed up by the developer/producer elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Echoing Jinnai's clarification, most editors are already in agreement with the suggestions above: review pieces should be used primarily for the author's opinion with attribution. However, this question stems from other content on sites like IGN and GameSpot. Particularly feature articles found here and here. What guidelines should be followed when citing those articles? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

It might help to give us a specific example of a sentence that you'd like to cite to one of these articles. But there is no requirement that a secondary source such as IGN or Gamespot also be confirmed by a primary source (i.e. the game developer). It's nice if you can find it, but it's not required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

well an example doesn't come to mind as it evolved from discussion of a review which isn't quite the same. But basically it would be like IGN claiming that during the development process of

If a third-party such as IGN or Gamespot publishes this, it's no longer 'insider' knowledge, right? Again, I would just cite the source. There's no need for the developer to confirm the information. If you're really in doubt about the factual accuracy of the statement, you can always use in-text attribution ("According to IGN..."). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for the SDCC event and it's exclusives? It's a named review, has an editor Rob Bricken, the former Associate Editor of ToyFare magazine, and the site is held by © Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/07/tr_special_hasbros_sdcc_exclusives_rundown.php

Hunch time: it feels a bit like a blog masquerading as more, but OTOH a bit of Googling suggests that Bricken is a legit journalist in this specialised field, and Village Voice Media Holdings is certainly a respectable publisher, so I'd say yes, it's okay for the kind of assertions you'd expect to be covered by its field of expertise. (Obviously, comments on articles aren't RS.) Barnabypage (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't expecting the comments to count, but news of a convention's exclusives seems to be reliable. According to one interview the Bricken I saw he is paid to edit that sight by Village Voice, so it has paid editorial oversight.

Mathewignash (talk

) 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Majestic 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a problem I have mentioned in this section:

• Talk:Majestic_12#Massive_use_of_fringe_unreliable_sources

More eyes are needed there. --

Sorry to be snarky but: "The significance of this paragraph is that it ties MJ12 to the Aquarius document, a purported fabricated document, that alleges that Jesus Christ was an alien.[citation needed]"

You are fighting a valiant fight, but if this article was "reliably sourced" in the traditional sense it would be a one or two sentence stub.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not editing there. I just happened by and saw the mess. Maybe it should be AfDed. --

talk

) 06:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

An AFD wouldn't work because there would be a substantial keep vote and anyway, the concept is probably genuinely notable. If you didn't know, there is a

three revert rule and all that. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does need a massive rewrite and a thorough gutting of the fringe sources. There are indeed reliable sources that discuss this topic as notable conspiracy folklore and popular culture artifact, such as this book by Michael Barkun and published by the University of California Press.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Per previous consensus it was determined that reports from Media Matters would be considered reliable. I would like to ask an extension to this discussion, it is generally considered that blogs attached to a reliable source are reliable themselves, does this apply to Media Matters hosted blogs or not?

Also, please do not turn this discussion into reliability of Media Matters, that is not the question. The question is since Media Matters is reliable, are blogs from Media Matters reliable?

I notice there are only six links from BLP articles to the blog section of the media matters website and currently less than thirty links in all our articles to the blogs on the website and I was wondering if there is any editorial checking of the blogs?

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, "opinions are citable only as opinions" is a sound rule. Blogs not written by paid employees under some editorial supervision are absolutely not "reliable" in the same sense that ones written by paid employees with editorial supervision are. No matter what the website. Collect (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blogs on Media Matters' website are written by paid employees, I'm not sure what kind of editorial control goes into the blogs however...

O

02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From the blog sidebar: "County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff." So then I'm thinking that it is considered a reliable source? Comments?

O

02:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If paid and under editorial control, then the opinions are citable as opinions. Simple. The problems arise when editors decide an opinion is some sort of fact. Collect (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously anything from Media Matters is cited as "has been noted as" or "Watchdogs have stated" or something like that, or even "Media Matters said that" whatever the case may be. Thanks, I think this is resolved?

O

02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag, because it's not resolved. County Fair is a blog aggregator, and doesn't appear to accept any sort of responsibility for its posts. (Caveat Lector, essentially) If there was some sort of acceptance of responsibility (or fact checking of the independent blogs involved) I'd agree, but absent that, it's not any more acceptable than any other blog. Horologium (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Collect's previous comments, it is apparent they're by paid employees, surely Media Matters would exercise some sort of editorial control over what they're employees put on its main blog? As it says, the posts are from "from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff." Since Media Matters itself is considered reliable, wouldn't it be counted in the same way that say a Washington Post blog that links to other blogs would be counted? As opinion?

O

02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the part I'm addressing is the "links to progressive media criticism from around the Web", which means that they are linking to other blogs. Unless they are willing to take responsibility for the opinions of those other blogs, there is no editorial control. WaPo doesn't link to anything other than mainstream newsblogs (IOW, you won't find links to DKos or RedState). Horologium (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the WaPo does link to progressive blogs like Blue Virginia and Not Larry Sabato but that's irrelevant. I think its fair to say that Media Matters wouldn't post anything they disagree with without stating so, don't you?

As with other sources, such as newspapers, it likely depends on context. If a blog post is making an extraordinary claim, with little evidence, then it may be good to have a better source. If a blog post is simply repeating a claim in a blog post on another website, then I wouldn't think that the post would be any more reliable than the original source. If a blog post on Media Matters is original, in-depth analysis by a senior editor at Media Matters, that would seem good to go. I'm wary that this discussion would be interpreted as giving an imprimatur to any Media Matters blog post. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, I have removed the resolved tag, because the person adding it has added a conclusion that has not been made by anybody other than the one who has added the tag. Nobody other than you is willing to agree to a blanket claim of County Fair being a reliable source; please stop trying to close the discussion as resolved with that conclusion. One thing upon which everyone does agree is that original, in-depth reporting by a MMfA senior editor is acceptable, but nobody but you is interpreting this to mean that everything in the blog is appropriate and reliable. Horologium (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• A blog from a partisan organization, particularly one with anonymous bylines, should not be taken as a RS. - Haymaker (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not a big fan of MMfA (an understatement), a substantial portion of the blog posts are signed by their authors, so direct attribution is possible. The problem arises when a post simply links to an anonymous (or pseudonymous) blogger; MMfA would not accept responsibility for making the comment themselves, should the blog turn out to be wrong, which means that MMfA cannot be used as a source for the item. Things written by their staffers can be used as opinions, as long as they are clearly stated as such, and I would argue against their inclusion in a BLP, because they manifestly fail the limitations on blogs in BLPs. Horologium (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of what MMfA talks about has been covered by another less biased source. MMfA should never be used for factual information based on a derivative of the original source because of the inherant bias in their reporting. This is not only good editing, but reduces tention on the usually contentious articles that would invite MMfA sourcing. Their opinion is reliable, but only if their opinion is somehow notable. MMfA comments on pretty much every little thing a conservative says, but it doesn't neccessarily make what they have to say notable. Original sourcing should always be used when possible. This applies to the otherside as well. Hyper-partisan sources like MMfA only serve to fuel edit wars. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not a discussion on whether MMfA is reliable, that is already determined per previous consensus. The discussion here is whether their blog, County Fair, is reliable in the way blogs of other sources we have determined reliable are used. So its not blanket reliable, but it can be used, and if its by an editor or paid staff of MMfA, written in the blog in the way they would write a report? That seems to be the conclusion.

O

16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Arzel brings up a different point, one which would be better addressed at the NPOV noticeboard. Reliable sources are not necessarily NPOV sources, and using Media Matters (or FAIR, or MRC/Newsbusters, or AIM) can fairly quickly unbalance an article or raise Undue Weight concerns. These groups have "opposition research" staff members obsessively watching the news programs of networks with whom they perceive an ideological opposition, looking for opportunities to blow even the most minor of gaffes into a three news-cycle media circus, but that is a discussion for another noticeboard. And WMO, remember that

consensus can change; the discussion you linked at the top does not conclusively demonstrate that a consensus was reached in any case. Horologium (talk)

16:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the "previous consensus" and I'm not sure what there was consensus of, nor that it should be used as a hammer to prevent further consideration. Articles posted in the blog section of their site are written by the same people who write columns or content in other sections and is no more nor less reliable. As in all things, you should use common sense when dealing with MMfA. For example, don't cite their opinions as though they were facts. If they make a factual claim (eg, FoxNews said xyz on a particular broadcast), if it's an exact quote, they are probably reliably transmitting that quote. If it's a summary of what they claim FoxNews said, then I would strongly suggest attempting to verify it - MMfA tends to take things out of context just a bit. There is not (and should not be) an ironclad rule for whether or not they are reliable because, as with any biased political source, you are going to find things they say that are just plain wrong or hopelessly biased. Is there a particular blog post in question here? It may be more productive to consider a particular post, than to make broad statements about their reliability. --B (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing NPOV here, we're discussing reliable sources. Media Matters' reports on facts then, the conclusion I'm drawing is, whether on their blog or in reports are then reliable. Let's stop trying to make about partisan B, there's enough of that on other parts of the site.

O

17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a blog post in particular you are looking to use? I think the answer to the question is "maybe", but there shouldn't be a 100% rule one way or the other.

WP:RS says, "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." That seems pretty clear to me. --B (talk

) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say NO Country Fair is not a reliable source. MMfA is not a traditional news source for which the Blog rule is defined. In fact, MMfA is not much more than a Blog to begin with, much like NB's relationship to MRC. Arzel (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, wikimanone says earlier -"Blogs on Media Matters' website are written by paid employees," - is there a link for this? Is there any link that asserts editorial oversight about what is posted in the blogs? Clearly there is no obvious wiki reliable status to these blog articles and as someone suggested earlier - it might be better to bring individual requests here and ithe writer of the blog and the controversial or non controversial aspect of the content would be a clear issue for individual discussion and consensus.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The first part, though, is the problem. There is no indication that the stuff they link to from elsewhere has been vetted, and as you noted earlier, they link to blogs such as "Not Larry Sabato" and "Blue Virginia" which are both pseudonymous (or in the case of BV, some of the contributors are), and none have any particular credibility. Unless MMfA is willing to stand by the statements from these anonymous bloggers (unlikely, considering how carefully they parse everything), it's nothing more than saying, "hey, look what so-and-so say", which is not an endorsement. What precisely are you wanting to link, and in which article? It appears that nobody is willing to accept that anything from MMfA's blog is fair game, so you either need to provide a specific case or let this drop. Horologium (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I noted, I noted that The Washington Post not MMfA has linked to Blue Virginia and Not Larry Sabato, in the same way the MMfA may have (I actually haven't seen an example of something they published that wasn't true).

O

22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this question has been answered, but could you link to the specific blog post that you are looking to use? I don't think Wikipedia, or this noticeboard, needs to be in the business of playing pin the tail on the reliable source. --B (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[28] is being used to back an assertion, added by the subject of the article

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source is a review in

Fladrif (talk

) 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As a source for 'she has perfect pitch' which is what the subject of the article is inisting on, or 'she has been described as having (or said to have) perfect pitch'?

talk

) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is only the opinion of the reviewer, so I would say that it is reliable only for "is said to have" or similar wording, not for "she has"

Fladrif (talk

) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The subject has now deleted the whole claim. She doesn't like 'is said to have' or similar wording. :-)

talk

) 08:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKnovel.htm is this reliable on the article about the living person - to support this content - Columnist

I would say no - it's not at all apparent, at least as far as I can see, who wrote the content on this site, or what if any editorial process it went through. Barnabypage (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has come up several times on RSN and is consistently regarded as not reliable. It appears that the content is all written by John Simkin[29] and that this is a Self-Published Source.

Fladrif (talk

) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting - articles been userfyed so the question not currently an in article issue anyways, the situation that we have over 2100 externals to this website and it is classed here as not reliable it's hard to comprehend. Is anyone that has discussed this previously got any idea why this wiki should have so many links to a site that is judged as unreliable?

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• - I was looking and this from three years ago with the comments of two Administrators that support the site, although, times change. Although - if its not reliable why have we got over 2100 links to it - imo that reality asserts a degree of trust and opinioned reliability.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 01:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember previous discussion that ruled this site unreliable, so agree with Fladrif. It would be good to examine all the referencs to it. It could meet EL criteria sometimes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is used a lot in UK-related articles. For example History of West Ham United F.C., an important football article, uses it extensively. It was discussed at WikiProject Football fairly recently; [30], with the idea being that RSN hadn't ruled it out and it was still useful. It must be decision time, and I think we have to say it is not generally reliable. Clearing it out of all articles, if that is indeed consensus, will be a mammoth job. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the past discussions suggested that the site is not adequate as a source, but it's good enough for external links sections.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been an ongoing edit war over this bio, where a user (now blocked for 24 hours) has repeatedly inserted material about alleged criminal activities of living people. This diff includes two contested edits.

The first is sourced to Izrus, an Israeli based Russian language site. This Haaretz article suggests that the site is a captive organ of controversial Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman who is described in our Michael Cherney article as a friend of Cherney's.

The second set of assertions, originally sourced to PR Newswire, has now been sourced to two Hebrew sites, this and this with (suspiciously) the same headline given.

Would anyone able to read Russian and Hebrew care to comment on whether these sites 1. support the assertions made in the article and 2. are

If you turn on the translation function in Google Chrome, the sites will come up in English. Just tried it and it works. Lawblogger18 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a topic which is being handled twice on this noticeboard now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I opened the first discussion and got feedback only on the use of PR Newswire in the Cherney bio. I opened this one to see if I could get some feedback specifically on the Russian and Hebrew sources. Hope that's all right. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! OK. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject page Michael Cherney has been locked while the dispute continues. Assuming the sources say what they are claimed to say, do any editors have a view about whether or not the above sources - namely Izrus,globes and ynet - are reliable ones? JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I continue to think Izrus is suspect for the reasons I gave above (attack organ of Cherney friend Avigdor Lieberman). Globes is a respected business publication but a search at their English site produced nothing on any spelling of Cherney, wiretaps, etc. I noticed the disputed assertions are currently out of the locked version, but this is all still of interest as we can be sure that as soon as its unlocked, more mysterious users will turn up to re-insert the content with "vandalism" messages.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Globes is the established, business news publication in Israel. Should there be any doubt of this fact, I kindly suggest editors to contact the local Israeli consulate and ask their media representatives, as I have. Please find the following translation from Hebrew to English of the Globes article in question: "The story of spying on Cherney: Avigdor Ekin is charged with eavesdropping. The economic branch of Israeli state prosecution filed an indictment against right wing activist Avigdor Eskin who followed orders of Alexey Drobashenko to spy on Oligarch Michael Cherney in the summer 2007. Eskin is charged with illegal eavesdropping. According to the charges, in April 2007, Drobashenko, CEO of one of the companies of Oleg Deripaska (the richest man in Russian and in the past partner with Cherney in the huge aluminium Rusal company), turned to Eskin who in that time was involved in Deripaska's PR. As a result of this request Eskin started various PR activities against Cherney. In the range of those activities Eskin met with private eye Aviv Mor and asked of him to follow Cherney. In the future, Mor together with Rafi Pridan and started to gather info on Cherney and his associates, where Eskin acted as a broker and passer of info between private eyes and Drobashenko, whom he met once in a while. Also is stated in the charge that while gathering info on Cherney, the accused Eskin, Mor and Pridan eavesdropped on conversations of Elena Skir, private secretary of Cherney, without her knwowledge. For all that they got from Eskin 50,000sh in cash. In September 2010 charges were served against Pridan and Gurevich, who was also involved in the case and was also prosecuted for his involvement in the kidnapping of businesswoman from Jerusalem in April. In January 2011 Aviv Mor was found guilty (with his admittance to eavesdropping on Elena Skir) in the deal he cut with the Israeli Prosecution. He got 6 months of public service and 20,000 NIS fine." YNET is the Website of the established and largest daily news publication - Yediot Ahronot - in Israel. Should there be any doubt of this fact, I kindly suggest editors to contact the local Israeli consulate and ask their media representatives, as I have. Please find the following translation from Hebrew to English of the YNET article in question: "Activist for extreme right wing is being accused of secret listening on Cherney. Avigdor Eskin is being charged that three and a half years ago took initiative to do secret listening on a business man, on behalf of a worker of a Russian Oligarch who had a dispute with him. Prosecuting country office served yesterday to the District Court in Jerusalem an indictment against extreme-right-wing-activist Avigdor Eskin, for secret listening on Michael Cherney which are not in accordance to the law. The accusation shows that in April 2007 Eskin who was noted as someone who did ceremony of pulsa-denura on deceased PM Rabin, received request from Aleksey Drobshenko, an employee of the Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is in dispute with Cherney on the subject of money and business, who asked him to find a private detective company which can gather info on Cherney to hurt him. As a result, Eskin asked private detectives Rafi Frider, Aviv Mor and Maxim Gurevich to help him gather infomation on Cherney and all sides agreed that info on his Cherney’s associates. Prosecution is stating that in the months of August and September of same year Eskin and the accomplicies performed secret listenings on the private phone in the house of Elena Skir, the secretary, in Tel-Aviv, without her knowledge or agreement. According to prosecution, Gurevich would get tapes that contained the listenings, and after that he would pass the transcripts to Eskin. Prosecution charges that Mor and Pridan received from Eskin 50,000 NIS in cash. About a year ago the District Court in Tel-Aviv found private detective Mor guilty of violation of privacy and sentenced him to 6 months of public service and fine. Against Gurevich and Pridan were served similar charges." globaljournalist (talk)Globaljournalist (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that YNET could be reliable for the substance of court proceedings. We would need a better English translation than this, though, for verification. Is there a Hebrew-English translator (not English-Hebrew, of course) around? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Globes and Ynet are WP:RS sources. Unfortunately I have little time to translate, but if anyone tells me what fact needs to be found in the article, I'll see if it's there. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. See this diff for the information in the article sourced to Hebrew language publications which has been the subject of dispute. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The general gist of the paragraph seems to be accurate, but it was clearly not taken from either of the two sources provided, which are almost identical and neither gives the same information as in the paragraph. Firstly, the indictment was handed on January 4, not January 3, and most of the other info is absent. I'd leave the following information:

On January 4, 2011 an indictment of Avigdor Eskin, a political activist, was submitted an Israeli court. The indictment relates to the case of illegal collection of information about Michael Cherney at the request of Oleg Deripaska.

Hope that was helpful. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Very, thanks. If you don't mind, one more question: if the two sources are reliable, how can they possibly run the same article? Is it like something in a US newspaper attributed to a syndicated news service? Or is it possible they both reprinted a press release of some kind? The controversial edit was sourced to press releases in PR Newswire before being changed to Ynet and Globes. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a question about whether or not the site Vampire Freaks is a reliable source. I've used it as a source for interviews with metal/industrial/goth musicians. I thought sourcing interviews was not as stringent as general news. Opinions on this would be appreciated. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand when you say: "I thought sourcing interviews was not as stringent as general news." I don't know why the bar would be any lower for interviews than anything else included in articles. Further, if the subjects being quoted or discussed then

WP:BLP probably applies which creates an even higher standard for source reliability. ElKevbo (talk

) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think by "not as stringent", Torchiest means that for a statement of the form Musician X stated in a 20xx interview with $_SITE ..., we only need to verify that $_SITE is showing an accurate portrayal of an interview that actually occurred rather than the rather higher standard of verifying that the site itself has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We still, of course, must determine the

relevance of a particular interview before citing it in any article. As long as relevance is established and in-text attribution is given (always to the interviewee, often to the interviewer), their interviews should be usable. - 2/0 (cont.

) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It would also depend on the nature of the assertion. People are a reliable source for their own likes and dislikes, opinions on political events etc. I would not source certain biographical information to an interview without checking other sources first, as people do lie about their vital stats in interviews.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If we analogize statements made in interviews to

self published material, we may use it if: "it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."Jonathanwallace (talk

) 11:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Really I support the if in doubt leave it out policy but a couple of other opinions would be appreciated : - Is this youtube upload official and is the copyright status clear enough to use it to cite, this content ...

• - Fresco stated that at one point to see if his theories worked he joined the
  White Citizens Council
  and dissolved them.

• - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJbo5RI0To|title=The Venus Project London Lecture - October 2009 - Part 2 of 2 (see 36 mins)|The venus project - via Youtube|accessdate=Febuary 11, 2011

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the only discussion I know of related to YouTube,

O

23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The main issue with youtube as I understand it is copyright ... and perhaps also deterioration, as the uploads are sometimes, here today and gone tomorrow, the only question to ask is, is this video uploaded by someone that has the right to do so? If he, she or they have the right to publish it via youtube them we can cite it. The channel http://www.youtube.com/user/tysoneberly appears associated to the venusproject and the upload is a recording of a lecture that leaves me wondering if there even could be any copyright on it anyways. 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk

)

Agree, youtube videos shouldn't be used unless they're posted on the official channel of some established reliable organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If the person recorded is clearly Jacque Fresno and it is used to source an assertion "Jacque Fresno said...." I think its all right, assuming no copyright issue.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like YouTube would fall in the category of a self-published source and that

WP:SPS would apply. If so, then one must be cautious regarding the advice in the guideline that a self-published source should only be used if "the material is not unduly self-serving." Also, an excellent point was made in the previous thread linked above that YouTube videos "are primary sources, and if their content is significant enough to mention in an encyclopedic article, there ought to be appropriate secondary sources discussing that content." The claim made in the article that Fresco dissolved the Ku Klux Klan is an extraordinary, self-serving claim, and we may need a better source to support it. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Can anyone clearly see that this unloader has a right to upload this video?
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• - This is clearly the official youtube channel for Fresco and his the venus project. http://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia - this is what you are looking for that clearly asserts right to the uploads you find there. Now have a look at this - what is the official status of this uploader http://www.youtube.com/user/tysoneberly - and if you think it is a WP:RS - who is the publisher to be added to the citation?
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/ is used as a source in many articles about wrestling, including many

No. no, no. It is a user generated site. Look at the Researcher FAQ which says, "The Online World of Wrestling Website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans." Similarly, the Columnist FAQ makes it clear that any user can declare himself a columnist. The only standards are: "Basically the only things that will get your columns deleted from the Forums is excessive profanity (never use the F-word, Sh-word, or B-word) or blatant defamation of someone’s character — oh yeah, and plagiarism. DO NOT PLAGERISE!" Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lanix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a problem with the Lanix page. User:Foxxygrandpa has added a section on 3D TVs that is not supported by the provided citations.

All of the cited sources are in Spanish, and while all relate to 3D TVs, none support the claims they are cited to support.

I have provided translations of the cited sources and blockquoted the material they purport to support below.

In 2009 Lanix revealed that it was working with the National Autonomous University of Mexico, DDD, and the Mexican center for research of applied technologies on the development of a 3D holographics based television which can be viewed in 3D without the use of 3D glasses.

Translation of cited source: here

As of 2009 the joint venture has succeded in producing two prototypes. Electronics industry analysts have reported that this could put Lanix and the Mexican consumer electronics industry as a whole on equal footing in terms of design capabilities with the electronics industries of Korea or Japan.

Translation of cited source: here

The secretary of academics at the university, who is heading the project, has stated that he wishes to use this technology to give Mexico a foothold in a specific large market which it can dominate due to its lead role in the development of these types of displays.

Translation of cited source: here

The project is being funded by both Lanix in the private sector and the Mexican government. Lanix hopes to began selling the televisions before 2020. If this goes to plan then Lanix will be the first company to sell commercial holographic displays.

Translation of cited source: here

If you look at the cited sources, you'll see none mention the Lanix Corporation. I have tried to engage the user about these edits, but Foxxygrandpa is non-responsive and reverts any attempt to remove the material. Fleetham (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're correct to be concerned about this and that it's up to the editor adding the material to demonstrate that it's related to Lanix. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this material. We basically have a devotee of Theosophy -- she's executive director of the Theosophical Publishing House -- make sweeping claims about her own organization. It seems to me that more independent sources are needed for us to assert the Theosophy Society's impact. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this might be acceptable if presented as a statement of attributed opinion (in this case, Shirley Nicholson's opinion) as to the impact of the Theosophical Society... but I would agree that it is not acceptable as a statement of unqualified fact (which is how it is currently presented). Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor is still making repeated attempts to include this, without engaging in discussion. I wonder whether semi-protecting the article might persuade him/her to talk? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, this time referring to me as a 'vandal' in the edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we get some help at Theosophical Society, please? The IP editor has continued to return the problematic material, and explicitly refuses to discuss the changes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to verify the contents of this source:

• In the steps of Peter and Pushkin Alexander Melnikov,
  Russia Beyond the Headlines
  , 28 August 2009 (English), review with useful tourist information.

included into "External links" section of the article Saint Petersburg, I encountered a technical problem: slow download followed by a Windows’ notification «Low Virtual Memory». In the browser cache I found the relatively small HTML source of "280809_peter.html" (with lots of links to different scripts), and a heap of secondary pages and scripts some of which are more than 130 Kb.

Please verify whether this source is dangerous. Thanks in advance. — Cherurbino (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If its that badly behaved, I would get rid of it on general principles. Its only an external link after all, not crucial to some assertion in the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that it's only badly behaved for Internet Explorer; I had no problem loading the page in Firefox, but the page source is littered with "Try this for Internet Explorer" script loads, and I can easily believe that those scripts load a bunch of other scripts. I don't have an opinion about whether we should be linking to this page, but it doesn't seem to be malware, and it's only badly designed with respect to one browser. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No malware or threats detected from the following;

AVG

• http://www.avgthreatlabs.com/sitereports/domain/rbth.ru

McAfee

• http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/rbth.ru

Norton safe web

• http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2Frbth.ru%2Farticles%2F2009%2F08%2F28%2F280809_peter.html

Google safe browsing

• http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=rbth.ru

--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if TV Guide's official website is a reliable source. I've been using it to source the episode titles and broadcast dates for the Mad episode list. Sarujo (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's not user-submitted content (and it doesn't appear so), I don't see why not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, reasonably reliable for things like episode titles and broadcast dates, as long as it's not user-submitted content. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a traditional commercial magazine, so it's fine... but please don't be surprised if someone fusses at you for "ref spam". One of their marketing people was trying to promote the website and/or improve Wikipedia last year (depending on your level of good faith/gullibility), so editors who remember that may assume that anyone using the website is a

WP:SPAMMER. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Does spelling and naming errors discredit a site? Their copy of the episode list currently features a small spelling error. On a previous instance, they had a wrong name for an episode, which was fixed later when they updated the list for more episodes. Sarujo (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, an occasional typo doesn't discredit a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith Ralston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judith did not go to Toronto Uni. She had no career in N. America and Europe, and won no competitions. This is mere fiction

Surely this should be a discussion at Talk:Judith Ralston?Billlion (talk)

There are no sources for this article other than her online bio at the BBC. For now, I've removed information in the article that wasn't sourced, including the details mentioned above. She seems barely notable -- there's been almost zero coverage of her in the media. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article doesn't establish notability and seems a good candidate for

WP:PROD.Jonathanwallace (talk

) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)