Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A very long page using repeatedly a book by Ralph Anspach which is self-published [1] (last paragraph) including as the first reference. Anspach is described as a fanatic ("We were fanatics," says Mr. Walker [2]) and has had major legal actions against the makers of Monopoly and website is still mainly an attack against monopoly and its makers [3]]

While the facts could be true, it clearly is not a RS and in my opinion should not be used as a source to verify facts but there is opposition to this.

The page has many other problems such as duplication and lines about Anti-Monopoly current trading status that is not well sourced and other sources regard as a self-published game.Tetron76 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

original research to interpret them. Bagumba (talk

) 02:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be used. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree, source should not be used. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is one that is being used as a source for

It is reliable for some things, but not reliable for others... like all news sources. Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is as reliable as any news source, see

WP:NEWSBLOG. Passionless -Talk

02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The source itself says this: "As the uprising in Libya continues, we update you with the latest developments from our correspondents, news agencies and citizens across the globe. Al Jazeera is not responsible for content derived from external sites." I question the use of this blog, since Aljazeera itself doesn't stand behind the accuracy of all the information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

From the words you quote this seems like the normal warning about external sites, and not their own site? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, it seems like a routine disclaimer to me. The blog is by Al Jazeera Staff, it has images and links provided by external third parties such as Getty, Reuters etc and it has comments from the public. AJ can't stand behind the accuracy of material from other agencies, they attribute it like all agencies do, and they aren't responsible for the veracity comments by citizens across the globe which aren't relevant for our purposes anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the BBC disclaimer. It's similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember that news reports of the "latest developments" in any ongoing situation are, by their nature, likely to include inaccuracies. It is quite common for news agencies to report things that later, with more information, turn out to be be inaccurate. This is true for all news organization... CNN, BBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Aljazeera, etc, etc. An inaccuracy in a specific report may make that report unreliable, but the fact that a specific report may turn out to have been inaccurate does not make the news organization, as a whole, unreliable... because subsequent reports will correct the inaccuracies. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and using news blogs is probably the most extreme form of recentism possible on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether WP should try to cover really new news is another question than RS, but anyway I notice news is being updated on WP very quickly and at least in principle we should in any case not be more strict for some subjects/sources than others, because neutrality is a pillar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a partison source also being used. What I am getting thusfar is that these are ok to use as Reliable Sources as long as there is consensus for doing so at the individual articles? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That is how it seems to me. But please note the point being made above, that you need to look at who has written the material and whether it is part of Al Jazeera's professional publishing process. When you get news from a major media organization's website you should avoid any parts of the website which are being fed in from outside by people who are not staff of the media organization, or not being controlled by the editors/moderators. To take an extreme example, we would not normally quote from the comments that the public sometimes may leave on articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Another point we are making... be hesitant about including the newest, "breaking news" reports ... that is what our sister project, Wikinews, is for. Here on Wikipedia, we want to focus on presenting the significance and context of events, and it sometimes takes a little while for that significance and context to become clear. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, your www.libyafeb17.com source is completely different from the likes of Al Jazeera reliability-wise no matter what the consensus is at the article's talk page (I haven't looked). It seems to have some coverage here including Channel 4 News describing as "Another key website dedicated to the cause of the protesters". As an activists site I'm not sure it should be used directly even with attribution. It doesn't seem to have any information about itself. It's the kind of site that I would expect should only be used if reliable sources report something they say. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, it looks like that activists site has been removed already as a reference there. The article seems ok now as far as RSourcing, but the newsblogs are constantly updating,changing and deploying contradictory,often self-contradictory, content not to mention some of the mainstream sources have become more "activist" and propagandizing than I've ever seen before(seems like both the "right" and the "left" are together this time), even with Saddam. But, even if that's so, that has nothing to do with this noticeboard I suppose, so, thank you. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Article: List of vegetarians
Source: http://brooklynology.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/post/2010/07/22/Little-Known-Brooklyn-Residents-eden-ahbez.aspx
Edit: [4]

I'm interested in your thoughts as to the reliability status of the source of the above for the claim that eden ahbez was vegetarian. The source itself is the official blog for the library so probably a primary source rather an an SPS. The author of the piece is a research assistant who works for the Brooklyn Collection. It looks well researched, but I'm unsure of the level editorial oversight and whether it qualifies as an RS. Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a primary source (the primary sources would be the documents and records that the research assistant used to write the blog entry). I would say that the library's blog is self-published... by the library. However, I would also say that there is a good case for claiming the "expert exemption" here. This means that the information should be presented as being an opinion and attributed ("According to the Brooklyn Public Library, Eden Ahbez was a vegetarian"), and not presented as an unqualified fact. (and, of course, we have to ask whether the opinion of the Brooklyn Public Library is worth mentioning per WP:UNDUE... but this isn't a reliability issue)

Unfortunately, the structure of List of vegetarians (and indeed most of our List articles) does not allow for in text attribution. So... barring a better, more definitive source, I don't think the list should include this person. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree in practice, not having looked closely, but just on the "wikitheory" of this explanation, I think the exemption is not going to be the so called expert exemption in WP:SPS which you mention. This is because this is currently very specific about people who are published elsewhere on the same subject, and no one seems to be claiming that in this case. OTOH, the questionable sources section

WP:REDFLAG. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 14:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. I think we are essentially saying similar things and only disagreeing on the petty details. Information from this particular source is best presented in terms of being an opinion, not presented as unqualified fact... and since this particular List article does not lend itself to such presentation, we should either omit the person from the list, or look for a more solid source to support inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments; I'll pull the name and include a link to this discussion in the edit summary. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would unhesitantly accept anything coming from the NYT as an RS. However, this page says that info is taken from "All Movie Guide" and that source I do not know. It is being used to source some fairly grandiose claims, which may well be true (although if they are, I don't really see why the guy himself is putting in all this effort to get a WP bio...), but we need good sourcing for that. I'm not very well at home on the topic of movies (just stumbled upon this one when patrolling new pages), so more opinions will be appreciated. --Crusio (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

InBaseline is a subsidiary of the NYT company so is probably considered reliable, while All Movie Guide is considered reliable by the Film Project for film related content (ie film credits etc). Anything to do with films it is probably reliable, but it might be challenged as a reliable source for biographical claims. Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is a lack of secondary sources about the subject. I've contacted the user on their talk page and I've left a message on the talk page of the bio offering my assistance. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

On

Speaking as someone who uses a fake birthdate on my Facebook profile, I don't think it is OK to use Facebook for that information. Perhaps if a celebrity has an official Facebook page rather than profile where they show their birthdate, one could make an argument. II | (t - c) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Would there be a need for a link between the facebook account and an official website to determine if they're the real official facebook page? I ask because celebrities have so many copycats, posting official Facebook pages, when they're not the actual person.--John KB (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There is no way of kniowing how accurate the information is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If the Facebook account is legitimate (as opposed to run by a fan or an imposter), it is an acceptable source per

WP:BLP

.

Also, you only asked about dates of birth, but I want to point out that primary sources should be used with care. If the information is really worth including in an article, mostly likely a third-party reliable source will have covered it, and then you can just cite that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is useful. --John KB (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This pretty much echoes what has already been said, but might as well pile on - in any circumstance that a reliable source has a birthdate (particularly if it's different birthdate) the facebook page should be outright replaced, not "supplemented" with a second source.

ImperfectlyInformed's states comment is also a good one to keep in mind -

_complex

20:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) is another example. Who's Who (which relies on subjects self-reporting) gives his year of birth as 1943. But Chris Masters' biography of Jones notes that his year of birth is somewhat rubbery, suggesting he was more likely born in 1941.

I think in general we should be willing to take the subject's word on information like this unless there is some reason to doubt them (e.g. a reliable source has challenged it, or context makes it a self-serving claim). This might occasionally let a fib through, but honestly, Wikipedia's not going to explode if a celebrity bio has the wrong birthdate. --GenericBob (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But keep in mind one of the claims most likely to be "self-serving" in a primary source is birth date, especially if by a celebrity. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't actually need birthdates, and they can be a sensitive issue. I can't see Facebook as an acceptable source for birthdates, or anything self-published. Not having a birthdate isn't going to bring down Wikipedia.

talk

) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dates of birth are notoriously problematical. Southend sofa (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's say I have a fictional character who has officially licensed toys, for instance the Transformers character

primary and thus unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Primary source info unreliable? It's totally RELIABLE. If Walt Disney says Mickey Mouse's middle name is Fred, it's reliable because it's primary.

Mathewignash (talk

) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, but (to use your example) this isn't Walt Disney, this is someone who's got a license to make a toy Mickey Mouse. (And now to abandon that example:) I think the box label is a primary source about the toy (potentially reliable, but is the toy notable?); it's a secondary source about the character (and no strong reason to think it's reliable). Andrew Dalby 12:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should find a book written by a PhD in fluid mechanics that identifies the top speed of Rodimus - but since it is a fictional character it is doubtful that any source of this type exists. I see no problem with noting things said about a toy on the toy box, so long as the source is identified. It's not as though the information can be empirically incorrect. If the toy box (or the comic book) says he can zigzag through the sun at a million light years per second, that is true of the fictional character even if it would defy all laws of physics in our real world. Just throw in an "according to the box for series X by company Y" and let the reader decide how "reliable" the information is. The community of interest for transformers knows the difference between what's in the comic and what's on the box. bd2412 T 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BD4212. First, there is not ban on using primary sources. It depends on context. In this case, fictional facts about a fictional character ONLY appear in the products associated with that fictional world, so what kind of secondary sources about details are we ever going to find normally? Second, we need to be practical, and in order to be practical attribution is often a good way to alleviate valid sourcing concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer Andrew Dalby's arguement, in this case Hasbro is the creator of the fictional character, not merely licensed to make the toy. This would be like a Mickey Mouse toy made by Walt Disney. Also, that brings me to the hard part of my question, how do you write a citation for the toy box? I don't think I can name an ISBN, or even the name of the author (whoever is the box blurb editor at Hasbro that year). Early transformers fictional biographies were written by Marvel Comics writer

Mathewignash (talk

) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not need to make up rules that do not exist. We can cite sources without ISBNs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The information printed the box is definitely a reliable primary source for a statement as to what is printed on the box... so if there is any question we could say... "According to the statistics on Superduperman that were printed on the back of the box of Geppetto Toy Company's line of Superduperman action figures, Superduperman can run at a top speed of 925 mph".

As for a citation... I would say something like: "<ref>Statistical information on Superduperman, printed on boxes of Superduperman Action Figures (sold between 1998 and 2005), Geppetto Toy Company, copyright 1998</ref>" would be the way to go. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary, -and- reliable. That said, there are some legitimate questions about WP:V and the proper way to cite this. a model/catalog number, or a UPC barcode on the package, may be welcome here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Geppetto Toy Company (1998) Printed Matter regarding Superduperman, on Superduperman Action Figure box. Made in Taiwan. Action figure sold 1998–2005 with Model Number #12345678 and UPC #87654321.  ;; We have a corporate author, a publication date. The "title" should not be italicised or quoted, as the title is a description of an "unpublished" work. We also have a place of publication (manufacture). Include any and all codes which allow others to identify the work, and to locate or verify it. If there is a Collectors' catalogue which everybody in the field uses which assigns unique codes, use these codes as well "Geppetto Collectors Society object number #98765". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

http://blog.tvguide.co.uk/?p=4192 is used as a source for the title ("Demon's Run") of forthcoming episode seven of the sixth series of Doctor Who (see here for the diffs). It's understandable to assume that this is the UK site of the US TV Guide magazine, but it isn't. http://www.tvguide.co.uk/aboutus.asp reads "Over a decade ago we had a dream that everyone would search and watch TV online, so we registered the domain name TVGuide.co.uk. Ten years later this vision has become a reality and TVGuide.co.uk has flourished as the UK's favourite Interactive Programming Guide. TVguide.co.uk site is run and managed by Imano the ecommerce and online marketing agency." There's nothing there to suggest a journalistic pedigree and their content consists of a blog, some episode guides, a twitter feed and UK TV listings. In the absence of an official announcement from the BBC about the episode titles, I think for a source to be reliable on this we have to be confident that they have access to the production team, I don't think that's the case here - it can only be a site repeating a rumour. What makes things worse is that that blog entry was published on March 10th, the same day as the issue of Doctor Who Magazine (#422) came out with a column from the show runner, Steven Moffat, in which he said that "Demons Run" was a working title and it would be changed before broadcast. That's maybe more of a content dispute issue - but it suggests to me that we have to be certain about the reliability of a source that contradicts this. Talk page discussion:

Your points are well made, and I agree with you that this blog posting isn't a RS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that this is an unreliable source, and have a couple significant issues with the arguments that underpin the assertion. First, Maccy69 would have us accept that, simply because the site is not affiliated with the US publication and its website but rather is owned by an e-company, it must on the face be unreliable. Why? There are several similar sites (Zap2it, Digital Spy, TV by the Numbers and Futon Critic to name four) of comparable origins that are widely accepted a reliable, as is this site in other Wikipedia articles. The site's origins do not, in and of themselves, establish it as unreliable; that's a big assumption on Maccy's part. Worse, he feels they cannot be reliable unless they have access to the production team. That's nonsense. The most reliable information comes from the production and network's press releases, which are carefully fact-checked, not from second-hand reporting of conversations and interviews, which too often prove to be contradictory and unreliable. Second, Maccy would have us believe, in no small part on the strength of a single tweet relating to another episode's title, that "Demon Run" is not the final title of the episode. Again, that's a big assumption, and a bit

WP:CRYSTAL issues. At the moment, Maccy has not, to my mind, established the site is unreliable, nor has he fully addressed himself to the criteria for a reliable source in questioning the source, notably sidestepping the issue of the accuracy of the site's content in general. I'm also concerned by the over-reliance on Doctor Who Magazine, a print publication available in the UK with no electronic edition, as a means to discredit this site. Doctor Who will be shown concurrently in the US and UK this season; how does an American (or other non-British) editor verify information sourced by this publication, which is not widely available outside the UK and quite expensive when it is? There's too much problematic about Maccy's arguments to give much weight to his assertions that the source for the title is unreliable, and too much made of the possibility that the article would report a working title that will be (and can be) changed at some indeterminate point in the future. Finally, a common-sense thought: in its statement above, the site notes it aims to be the UK's favorite programming guide. If so, what does it have to gain from publishing unsubstantiated rumor, as Maccy would have us believe it has done? The answer is simple: absolutely nothing. Drmargi (talk

) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to prove a negative. I think that's the wrong way to look at it - if a source is reliable, its reliability should be demonstrated by those who are trying to use it. As far as the editorial structure of the site is concerned, I'm taking my cue from

WP:SOURCES which talks about fact checking and editorial structures as part of what makes a reliable source reliable. There is no evidence to suggest that tvguide.co.uk is even trying to be news organisation, it's mainly a listings site. The fact remains that no episode titles have been released by the BBC in a press release (it's easy to check this, their releases are here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/ ) or on their official site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw

) so if a source for title is to be reliable it has to indicate where it got that information, which this blog entry does not do. That's what I meant about a connection to the production team - in this case it can be the only source of reliable information. Forgetting about Doctor Who Magazine for the time being, how can a reader possibly verify that the title is correct, from the source given? And leaving it as "TBA" is not "failing to report the current title" since the episode doesn't officially have a title yet, no official announcement of the title has been made.

Regarding Doctor Who Magazine, it's a print source, which is acceptable. There's nothing to suggest that all sources have to be online ones. Its circulation is sufficiently large to allow many editors to check that it hasn't been misrepresented. Those without access to it have to trust those other editors, as they would with any other print source cited. To be clear, though, their report that "Demons Run" is a working title is from a column by Steven Moffat, the author of that episode and the showrunner of Doctor Who. He also says that the final title will be either "A Good Man Goes to War" or "His Darkest Hour". Here are a couple of online reports of this. [5] [6] There is no twitter involved in this (that relates to Matthew Graham's episodes the sources for which are also his twitter feed). So on the one hand we have the undeniable fact that no titles have been officially announced, plus a column from the writer of the episode (and executive producer of the show) giving two different possibilities for the final title - and on the other we have a blog entry that doesn't say where it go its information. Maccy69 (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a single instance of a third party referencing tvguide.co.uk for a TV news item. Here is a representative selection of the third party references I did find: [7] [8] [9] [10]. It seems to clear to me from looking at the site and from those reports that they are primarily a TV listings site. I have yet to see any evidence that they are a reliable news source. Maccy69 (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is a blog posting. Per

WP:SPS, blogs are not usually considered reliable sources. I think that someone wanting to use this as a source would need to show that it meets one of the exceptions in WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a personal or self-published blog though. It's a blog on the site of a commercial enterprise.

WP:NEWSORG and the lack of an official announcement of the episode's title. Maccy69 (talk

) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A further note about the availability of Doctor Who Magazine.

WP:SPS the fact that there are multiple corroborating sources gives editors without access to the print version a opportunity to confirm that the source has not been misrepresented. Maccy69 (talk

) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree regarding the blog: there's no evidence of editorial oversight nor are the contributors identified. Doesn't appear to meet any exception in WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is forthesound.com a reliable source? Specifically this review for inclusion in article about

WP:SPS clearly disallows sites with user-generated content. That's what this appears to be. It's not an open-source site, but at the same time those contributing are unpaid music fans, and it's not clear that there's editorial oversight. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The final three journals have been referenced in a couple of US issued patents for cow urine related products. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal #1 seems to have lasted all of two years in publication total, "journal" #2's website is hosted at [11] - I think enough said. Journals #4 and #5 do not appear to be MEDLINE-indexed, which is a big red flag. The article cited to Journal #3 (which appears to be a comparatively, at least, reliable journal) was a primary study and therefore should be avoided per MEDRS. I have reverted most of the recent additions, and more eyes on the page would probably be a good idea. Yobol (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to look at two things: (1) Does the paper show up in Google Scholar? If not, that's a bad sign. (2) Has it been cited by independent authors writing in books or in journals that are clearly reputable? If not, that's also a bad sign. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See [12] - it includes links to copies of posts to Usenet, eg the copyvio here [13] and a lot of other stuff that is copyvio. I haven't found anything not copyvio that looks like a reliable source and if there is anything it should be directly linked.

Would the additional text preserved in the late Slavonic text of Josephus' book The Jewish War be considered a reliable source for the subjects related to early Christianity which it discusses or not? John Carter (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate point: what the Slavonic version says may well be notable in its own terms, and deserving of a separate paragraph or section of The Jewish War with direct quotation or summary.

On your specific question: since the origin of the additional Slavonic material has been disputed among scholars, the only safe way to handle it as a source on early Christianity would be to cite recent scholars on this issue. Andrew Dalby 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Josephus was a witness, participant, not distanced from the facts, and not working to the standards of post 18th century disciplinary history or theology. Josephus ought to be treated as a primary source for subjects related to early Christianity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: that applies, without doubt, to the received text of Josephus as known in Greek and available in English translation. The question we were asked is more complicated because it has been disputed whether this extra material in the Slavonic text really goes back to Josephus, or, if not, when it originated. Therefore, whether it's a primary source on early Christianity is not known; if it isn't, then it was probably inserted to push an early medieval POV. In either case, and especially in view of its debated origin, it should be handled by way of citing recent scholarship (I think). Andrew Dalby 14:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of texts of disputed transmission and veracity; the highest reliability they can attain for the "subject" of the text is the reliability the main work would possess if transmitted correctly. At best they would be a primary source for early Christianity. At worst they would be a primary source for early Medieval slavonic Christian propagandism. Approaching primary historical texts directly is the task of specialist professionals, not encyclopaedists. As Andrew says: use secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of Intelius before an editor used it to replace my citation for Rosalind Chao's birthdate here. I'm previously using Yahoo! Movies and The New York Times as reliable sources to cite a YOB of 1959, while it appears that the Intelius website only claims to have an age of 53 without any further corroboration. Thoughts or suggestions? — Fourthords | =/\= | 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as particularly reliable, especially considering the article on the site listed accusations of bad data. DreamGuy (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. — Fourthords | =/\= | 15:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan state media is confirmed to be part of the government's propaganda machine. Should their claims of civilian casualties from the ongoing no-fly zone still be included in articles, or omitted as probable propaganda? Swarm ^X 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If other sources exist, I would present both. For example, "While Lybia's state media claimed that 5,000 people had died of the cruise missiles attacks, Agence France-Presse and Reuters had far lower estimates of 50 and 65 respectively". I would definitely not include Lybian state media by itself. NW (Talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Even obvious propaganda can be reliable in limited ways... for statements about that propaganda. NW is correct... The Libyan state media's statements can be included, but they should be attributed and balanced by other sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The figures provided by the state media are useful and belong in the article even if they are not correct, to show what the government's saying. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If any doubt exists, simply make the attribution clear in the claim in the article. Collect (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Swarm ^X 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't we use Clapperboards as a source of information. I used information in a clapperboard to edit Season 3 of White Collar. The picture of the clapperboard was provided by the official Twitter account of Jeff Eastin (http://www.twitter.com/JeffEastin), the creator of White Collar.

An image of the clipperboard can be found here: (http://twitpic.com/49g78n/full).

As I have ample experience in the film industry, I inferred that the first episode of Season 3 of White Collar is being directed by Russell Lee Fine and written by Jeff Eastin, while the particular shot is being shot on March 14, 2011.

Users Xeworlebi and Dr. Margi brushed off my information saying they were an unreliable source.

Before asking them to nullify their mistakes, I just want to confirm whether Clapperboards are a reliable and verifiable source of information.

DailyEditor

DailyEditor (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Garnering information from images is not listed as a normal reliable source. At best the image is a "primary source". Collect (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But we only need to use the image as a source for a month, after that, USA Network will release all data pertaining to Season 3 of White Collar. And it is a fact that a picture becomes official when it is listed by the creator of the series and also on the official USA Network authorized fan site of the series (http://www.facebook.com/whitecollar), does'nt it. It is also stated that "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." The picture being listed by the USA Network authorized fansite makes it reliable and the information on the picture makes it verifiable. Ipso facto, we can use the image as a source of information.

DailyEditor (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. There is no reason to then give all of your own opinions why you do not like the outside opinion. :( Collect (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect is correct. Professional inferences drawn from the analysis of pictures is Original Research from Primary Sources. No encyclopaedist as an encyclopaedist can possess the professional knowledge required to assess the veracity, validity and transmission without corruption of photos placed on the internet and their technical film content. Wait three months or publish this information outside of wikipedia reliably. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor recently enquired as to why I pulled a name from the List of vegetarians which was sourced through this: http://www.search.com/reference/Krist_Novoselic#_note-2. The article itself seems to be transcluded from Wikipedia itself from about three years ago: [14]. I pulled it on the basis of it being a circular reference. The editor contested my view since the vegetarian fact was clearly attributable to another source within the article. However, my rationale is that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be sourced anyway, so whether the fact is attributable to a reliable source shouldn't have any bearing on the matter because the policy/guideline should have been created with this in mind; so I would like to clarify my action in regards to this matter.

However it set me thinking about the possibilities of simply copying over the reference. Obviously this shouldn't be done in the case of older versions of an article because the fact may have been pulled on the basis that it wasn't corroborated by the source. But in the cases of current sourced claims, would it be legitimate to copy over a source? This is normally frowned upon as a reference practice i.e. if you reference something, you are expected to corroborate the source. However, it is a Wikipedia policy to WP:Assume good faith; essentially that means if an editor hasn't behaved in an underhand way we should should trust his interpretation of a source unless we have seen it and can directly challenge it. That is, if an editor sources a claim that someone is vegetarian through a reliable source, then AGF compels us to accept the claim until we have reason not to. In such cases, it seems to me AGF implicitly suggests that it is acceptable to duplicate claims along with the references, because by not doing we would be doubting the authenticity of the claim and the corroborating source. In view of that, I was wondering what the general view on intra-Wikipedia source copying is. Do we permit, ban it, frown upon it and look the other way...? Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" means we assume other editors intend to improve the encyclopedia, not damage it. I don't think it means we assume they are doing it right, that they are interpreting all the guidelines correctly, or that their interpretations of sources are valid. That doesn't have to do with "good faith". On those matters, we all have to question one another. It's unwise to duplicate a reference without verifying it. Andrew Dalby 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you make an assertion supported by a citation then, no matter where the citation comes from originally, you are taking responsibility for the accuracy of the assertion and it being supported by the reference you cite. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Two editors with short edit histories are tag-teaming inserting a reference to a blog (see here) into

Does not seem RS to me.Richard Poynder does appear to be an information and internet joouno. He has writen two books and for a number of publications. As such his views and blog may well be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps Poynder is notable, but does that mean that his blog is an RS? After all, it remains an unreviewed thing, basically just the opinion of one single person. --Crusio (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See

living persons limitation. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for that SPS link. One more question, though: in the current case, the blog is not used to source anything, it is given as an "external link". Is that acceptable? --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:SPS I quoted above. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I read that, this seems to mean that the external link in the
  PLoS ONE article is inappropriate (not neutral; self-published, but not by the subject of the article), am I correct? --Crusio (talk
  ) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, the relevant section would be "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Since Poynder is probably notable by our standards, and has been published by independent third party sources, he may squeak by--but I say that very tentatively because I haven't been much involved in external links issues and haven't made a close analysis either of the PLoS ONE article or Poynder's article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments. Given the "tentatively", I'd appreciate one or two more opinions from experienced editors here. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn't appear to me that the blog meets the requirements of a
    WP:EL either. Jayjg ^(talk)
    03:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's likely they should all be removed, but each one must be looked at in context. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was editor in chief, for nearly a quarter century, of a peer-reviewed journal --
  open access (publishing) in Wikipedia today if one systematically excludes references to the work of Richard Poynder on the grounds that its more recent publication has been via his blogs rather than via traditional magazines or books. On the contrary, his blog publications and interviews are publishable in traditional venues too, and will no doubt eventually appear as one or several collections under the imprimatur of a traditional publisher. I urge the reinstatement of all references to Richard Poynder's work. Stevan Harnad
  11:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the info I removed here, which has been reinstated, and is now up for discussion on the talk page here.

I don't want to edit-war over it, so we really do need more, independent input into the discussion, if at all possible.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(also asking on WikiProject Business  Chzz  ►  04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

The first source may not be acceptable per

WP:WEIGHT. Mainstream media haven't reported this, even though it's been widely covered in liberal blogs. I see that you also argued SELFREF but I don't see how that applies. Personally, I'd not put this in Wikipedia at this time per weight, and per the source being a liberal blog, but it's not crystal clear that policy supports my opinion. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned

WP:SELFREF because the edit concerns an internal Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation, which seems only reported on blog-like sources. And, as I mentioned, the article referenced is purely factually wrong, e.g. administrators flagged the MBMAdmirer account as a “sock puppet” - see ANI - the user is not blocked.  Chzz  ► 

17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: TimidGuy, would you mind if we copied this over to the article talk page thread, to avoid this discussion being split? (If so, feel free to do so and note it here, or I can do it) - thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to copy my comment to the relevant Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And given the factual inaccuracy, I'd say that this particular post not be used as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have copied these comments to Talk:New Media Strategies [16].

Please could any further discussion be on Talk:New Media Strategies. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This one I know nothing about. But using it to cite claims or using their interview in fictional character articles. Is this a reliable source? I want everyone to look into this one, lots of opinions please.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you gave specific examples of usage which concerns you, for this one and lastbroadcast above. Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

www.kokomagazine.com Any given soap opera character..RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See my reply above. We typically just respond to specific instances (as the instructions at the top of this page advise). Like Lastbroadcast, it's hard to find information about this site. Jonathanwallace, could you look at the specific example in the thread above and see what you think? TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The World's Oldest People WikiProject has been advised to seek the guidance of RS-savvy editors on this noticeboard. I've put a "more citations needed" template on the List of the verified oldest people article. I've put my rationale on the article talk page, here. Would some editors who've wrestled with this sort of thing please look at the page and the talk page thread and then venture some guidance, please? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will reply here first... because I want a sense of consensus here before I reply at the article page. There are several issues to be addressed... 1) the article seems to over rely on one single source (which may or may not be reliable). 2) given issue one... if we assume that the source is reliable, do we need to repeat the same citation over and over for every entry, or can we do a "group reference" along the lines of "<ref>Unless otherwise noted, all entries are cited to Source X</ref>" (and if so, where should we put it... on the first entry? In the section header? On one of the column headers in the chart? Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree on over-reliance on one source. The current info acknowledges two sources (Guinness being the second) but Guinness seems to be mostly used for the few cases where minor disputes between Guinness and GRG exist. Still, if one starts from the assumptions that GRG tables are

reliable sources

--- an assumption I concede only for the purposes of this hypothetical --- and that in most cases, GWR is in agreement or has nothing to say about an entry, then I think a group reference: "<ref>Unless otherwise noted, all entries are supported by reference to GRG, GWR, or both</ref>" before any of the lists, maybe both paraphrased explicity in the narrative definition of the lists that precedes them and as a footnote at the end of the narrative.

If you can come to consensus on something like this here, and then bring it as advice to the list's talk page, it might also help set a new pattern in the project for the normal methods of collaboration here on wikipedia. So I commend your idea of trying to reach consensus here first, among the RS-savvy, experienced editors, eager to advise the WOP wikiproject, that ArbCom imagines to exist. Bringing that consensus of advice to the list's page would help test a premise of the ArbCom decision.

So, I will now STFU on this thread. My failure to respond to future comments on this thread should not be taken as silent assent. OTOH, if consensus appears here, among RS-savvy editors, and it's counter to my own view, I will need to re-assess my own view, and let it be genuinely re-formed. Maybe even reformed. I can hardly appeal for guidance here and then, if it comes and contradicts my own view, dismiss the guidance. At least not without being a total

arsehole. David in DC (talk

) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar: We discussed the reliability of the Gerontology Research Group here.[17] The main argument for reliability was that it was frequently cited by other third-party reliable sources.[18] The general consensus seemed to be heading towards it being reliable but those who disagreed dropped out of the discussion. I'm not sure if silence meant agreement (or boredom). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I would guess they dropped out due to a mix of boredom and getting discouraged by POV pushing by gerontology fans... but let's assume that a consensus exists that the GRG is reliable. We still have the problem of over-reliance on that one source, and the question of how and where to cite it. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a further issue that apparently Editions of the Guinness World Records through the year 2008 indicate that the Gerontology Research Group is used as its authority for its "World's Oldest Living People" category. This suggests that there is in effect only one source not two. 92.233.45.125 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, at the risk of having your perception of "POV pushing by geronotology fans" to be possibly true with my comment here, grins, but I actually appreciate David in DC bringing this attention again to RSN. I would like RSN to come to a consensus on GRG being a reliable source first (the over-reliance of one source is understandable, but let's hold on that referencing/formatting thing for the time being).

• First, in the previous RSN, David in DC conceded that GRG by itself is notable, but he contends this: "But just because the group is notable, the next link in the chain of logic --- that of declaring GRG tables, published by GRG and hosted on its own website (i.e. self-published) to be
  reliable sources
  --- does not follow. In my view, until such time as the tables themselves are published in a secondary source, they are primary sources."
• I understood his view, and I did not have any rebuttal to continue justifying my assertions at that time. Recently, there was this discussion here in where SiameseTurtle stated, in part, this: "Data from the GRG is published in the peer-reviewed journal Rejuvenation Research on a regular basis. Here is a recent publication from a few weeks ago [19]."
• In light of that evidence, can RSN come to a consensus on GRG (and all their data therein) as a reliable source? Cheers, CalvinTy 15:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of GRG being a

reliable source or not, I actually agree with Blueboar about questioning the need to repeat same citation over and over for every entry. That is not needed, and since this "list of verified oldest people ever" mirrors the list of living supercentenarians, then perhaps a similar statement from the living supercentenarians page would suffice: "A supercentenarian is considered verified if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group {{and Guinness World Records}}."? Either that and/or like Blueboar recommended, "<ref>Unless otherwise noted, all entries are supported by reference to GRG, GWR, or both</ref>". That would be a fair course of action. Cheers, CalvinTy

16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipping in very reluctantly because I hate it when the parties to a dispute push out the uninvolved people. Could the board give an opinion on whether all documents hosted by GRG on their website are reliable (i.e. are they all actually published by GRG). Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

All text originating from sources in the Polish language has been removed from

All text, referenced to

Likewise, all text originating from an interview with Andrzej Chwalba, Professor of history at the Jagiellonian University (and its prorector), conducted in Kraków by journalist Rita Pagacz-Moczarska has been removed by Fifelfoo with the summary: Unreliable source: interview in non-peer reviewed magazine.[21] Again, if Chwalba is declared unreliable, many Wikipedia articles on Polish history are at stake.

I do not with to engage in a POV edit war. Please clarify if so much text can be blanked with the claim of unreliable sources in this instance.[22] Thanks. —

• None of the sources were peer reviewed scholarly material published by historians. Chwalba, when interviewed, is not publishing in the scholarly mode. These sources are grossly inadequate for the claims about an "unprecedented" systematic rape. The issue isn't that they're Polish language; put that furfy to bed. The issue is that they are not able to bear the weight of writing an encyclopaedia article on the subject of a bitterly contested eastern european historical topic—as they are popular press items. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The stature of the sources and of the newspaper seem to be notable. Perhaps a solution would be to just state that "According to so-and-so (Polish historian at Jagiellonian University]] interviewed in Polytika..." followed by the historian's claims. Should we exclude for example Stephen Hawking's claims about astronomy if they are taken from an interview rather than a peer-reviewed journal?

See

WP:NEWSORG

: "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. 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. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting...For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context. The nature of the article is of particular importance. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name...When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact."

I don't know much about the topic and haven't heard of the historians being quoted. Assuming the historians are legitimate and without a controversial reputation, I don't see why removing their information (rather than perhaps qualifying it by stating "according to...") is necessary.Faustian (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because [[23]] demonstrates no fact checking; because Chwalba isn't being interviewed about history (dodgy enough in itself Hawkings popularises and condescends—not useful for a disciplinary encyclopaedia article)—Chwalba is being interviewed about his own experiences, "What mood prevailed in Krakow just before the entrance to the city of the first German troops 6 September 1939? … But I came back after a few days, after a few weeks ... If you survived the German bombing raids, because as we all know Germans bombed the refugees, and if they did not get captured by the Soviets. You must remember that it was difficult to get back to Krakow. Not yet the trains ran, and the roads were very dangerous. But in fact the end of October, many people came back to Krakow. Most dishes on the spot looted apartment." This is oral history. Chwalba is not scholarly regarding his own life; oral history interviews are PRIMARY sources; and, the interviewer isn't an oral historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at the site in question - just like to point out to those involed - that since this is old as in historical and should be well documented by now. If "reliable published sources" do not include the information that has been found in only "ONE" location - that information is—by definition—

not reliable enough to include - as per (undue weight).Moxy (talk

) 03:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Polish so can't evaluate the sources in detail but am concerned by the edit summary referring to a newspaper as "non-peer reviewed". Our standard for material published in newspapers is not that they are peer-reviewed but that they have a reputation for independent reporting and fact-checking, which is somewhat different. Also, newspaper or magazine essays by people with recognized expertise in the field may be reliable sources by analogy to

WP:SPS. On the whole, it sounds like the material could be included, perhaps in some cases prefaced with an "according to" or similar formulation. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 09:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stawiski (talk
  ) 09:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• You really want to open the gate to newspapers in history articles? Because newspapers are not competent to produce disciplinary history—and, I am sure you know, that many central and eastern European newspapers publish many things. Feel free to cite Chwalba's [Kraków in the years 1939-1945] directly. The fact that Other Stuff exists doesn't mean that this article ought to use the Bulletin of a politicised organisation in a history article. None of the Polish sources previously used were adequately scholarly to sustain a history article. But please do cite Chwalba when he is publishing in the scholarly mode. Given that Wydawnictwo Literackie's core publishing business is poetry and literature, and secondarily "textbooks for humanities, lexicons and dictionaries" someone would have to determine if the standard of [Kraków in the years 1939-1945] was that of a post-graduate textbook or monograph scholarly work—undergraduate textbooks are not reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I can't stress enough how important it is to make a distinction between the reputed author of the words, and the medium. Yes, we know that the "newspapers are not competent to produce disciplinary history," but seasoned professionals are. In case you don't know it, Marcin Zaremba from Warsaw University Department of History – Institute of 20th Century History – who published his article in Polityka, is a fixture among the Polish professional historians (cited 196 times in Google scholar). Zaremba published a number of scholarly monographs, among them: Komunizm, legitymizacja, nacjonalizm (426 pages),[24] Marzec 1968 (274 pages), Dzień po dniu w raportach SB (274 pages), Immobilienwirtschaft (German, 359 pages), please see inauthor:"Marcin Zaremba" in Google Books. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that Polish historians with recognized expertise in the field, constitute a reliable source in an article about Poland? Perhaps in some cases the scrutiny exercized by leading magazine such as Polityka can be greater than the peer reviewed entry written by a colleague. There's no justification for such over-reactive behaviour. We can also use an "according to" or similar formulation suggested by
  Stawiski (talk
  ) 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Historians publishing in newspapers ought to be accorded the same respect to physicist cosmologists narrating popular television shows: very little. The article does not cite Zaremba in peer reviewed fora (journals, conference proceedings), not does it cite Zaremba in the scholarly press (monographs, works in collection). I do not accord historians of any ethnicity any reliability in newspapers—even when historiographical debate was carried into the popular press, as in "Black Armband" debate, this resulted in peer reviewed or academic press scholarly outputs, most notably History Wars. It is easy to accept that Historians of Poland are going to be publishing about rape in Poland during the close of the second world war. I am unwilling to accept a popular magazine as a source of history. Write from the appropriate sources: scholarly press monographs and works in collection, peer reviewed journal articles and conference papers. If an academic is going to exercise professional opinion, there is a clear outlet for that professional opinion—the scholarly and peer reviewed presses. If an academic hasn't published in the scholarly mode on a topic; then their capacity to make expert comment is extremely limited. And of course, it is unnecessary to refer to these materials because scholarly publication is adequate. Goldyn, Bartholomew, "Disenchanted Voices: Public Opinion in Cracow, 1945-1946", East European Quarterly, 32:2 (1998:Summer) for example is contained in a peer reviewed journal according to Ulrich's; predates the material used; and specifically discusses public opinion reactions in the context of Soviet army actions including rape. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the sensitive topic of this article, I think that only high-quality sources should be used. Articles by academic historians in professional magazines are probably OK (as the historians are putting their reputation on the line in writing the article and the magazine can be assumed to have not mangled the article in the editing process), but it would be better again to stick to articles in journals and professionally published books. Newspaper interviews with historians are not, in my view, a good source as they're often riddled with mistakes from the journalist and/or their editor mis-understanding the responses they received and may not cover topics the historian wished to cover to provide a rounded view due to the relevant questions not being asked or the material being excluded by the journalist for reasons of space/interest, etc. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse we use "historians in newspapers" and sometimes even just "journalists in newspapers" across a number of potentially controversial historical articles on Wikipedia. I think that if you want to get rid of those you'd have to change en-Wikipedia policy on reliable sources (and I might support that) - for example it is my understanding that de-Wiki has a lot tougher standards when it comes to this sort of thing. Anyway, I could throw you a whole bunch of examples which are much worse than this.

Otherwise, in the context of this specific example, I agree with the comment above that the statement should probably be attributed properly. Furthermore, if there are in fact academic, peer review sources out there which appear to contradict the statements made in these kinds of sources then these sources *could* be removed, as long as consensus to do so is obtained on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The general

WikiProject History's source guidelines are more stringent, and make it clear that works by academic historians are the standard to expect. Itsmejudith (talk

) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The above request by User:Fifelfoo I think went way beyond the realm of reasonable inquiry. This is the first time that magazine
  Stawiski (talk
  ) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's principles on history sources are pretty strictly stated, and he tends to be a little stricter than average on this I think, but if you read his opening post he presumably also sees this as a case needing a relatively strict approach because what is being claimed is out of the ordinary. Consider

WP:REDFLAG. I am not saying that I definitely agree with him, because I have not looked closely enough to make a call. Generally speaking I think the idea of using only peer reviewed history writing is unrealistic. A lot of history is published in books for example, and many respected non peer review journals have a reputation for fact checking at least as good as academic book publishers. And I also tend to agree that usually if there is some sensitivity or controversy, that attribution of the citation as coming from an article in journal X, should help?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If the article were social history of canned fish consumption in Poland in the 1960s, I would be a lot more relaxed about national non-peer reviewed magazines being used. But the article is about a live and lively historiographical debate. The magazines quoted didn't enter into the "Frontovik" debate about the nature and causes of Soviet mass rape of civilians, nor did they reference major works in the field. (I'm sure that the historians of Poland when writing their scholarly works did do so, and did discuss the literary context of mass rape in Poland in the second world war). Some of the claims being made ("unprecedented" mass rapes) are truly exceptional and require sources such as comparative and transnational long run histories of mass rape—even these would be dodgy to source from a single country scholarly history unless the historian were an acknowledged field specialist on rape in general. Andrew's suggestions are probably apt. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK if you don't mind, I will re-write the article from scratch, taking into account comments from everyone who gave them. Please give me a couple of days. I will try to remain as objective as I can. You're welcome to check the progress of the rebuilding process anytime. Thanks. —
  Stawiski (talk
  ) 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Content includes exclusive interviews, tv spoilers, TV reviews, DVD reviews. Own domain name, linked with Amazon shop. It's useage on WP seems to be as as a reference for fictional characters. Includes anything an actor says about a character etc. Reception/critical analysis from reviews they do. Sources such as reliable digitalspy use their content.. Does it meet the standard.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you referring to Lastbroadcast.com? If so, this doesn't appear to be a website but rather a placeholder until someone purchases the domain name. TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

www.lastbroadcast.co.uk <-- this one.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Right lets say there is an interview with an actor. This interview here is used in the article Asher Levi. So you have some context now. The main thing I want everyone to assess is if the website is a reliable source, suitable for use anywhere on wikipedia.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's jump right to your general question. The answer is that we generally don't give the sort of blanket approval that you're asking for. As always, reliability depends on context, such as what the source says, how it's being used, and how authoritative it is. Regarding the specific example you give, I'm a bit at a loss. I can't find any information about the website. On the face of it, the information in the Levi article sourced to Lastbroadcast seems not to be an extraordinary claim and could conceivably be used, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting this website as the source if I knew more about it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just though because .. Well a while ago now, when we checked the reliable nature of Digitalspy, quite a few poeple got involved and discussed the source. About section, who publishes it, it's ranking, any exclusive content, its partners, checked to see if it is used by other reliable sources etc.. Digitalspy have quoted lastbroadcast in their reports in the past, DS have the common practise of verifing stories. I'm just happy you are giving your time to check this out, so it really is nice of you, and if things changed which they always do that is fine. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This material seems acceptable by analogy to

Very helpful, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe, a project about an action figure line, and I noted that a lot of our articles on G.I. Joe characters rely heavily on three particular websites. Could you guys look at the websites and see if they are okay to use?

1. YoJoe.com
2. Halfbattle.com
3. JMM's G.I. Joe Comics Home Page

A sample article where these websites are used is Red Star (G.I. Joe). In this article, the following pages are referenced: [25], [26], [27], and [28].

In your opinion, are these websites acceptable sources for the statements which they are used to support? Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your questions
  1. Red Star's file card, scan facsimile at Yo Joe is a copyright violation. this and the pictures of the toys entact appear to be not violations, but are unreliable. Yo Joe displays no editorial control or responsibility for its content (no "About" page). It neither transmits invariant primary works, nor produces edited secondary works. It is unreliable for both primary and secondary material.
  2. Half the battle is unreliable. No indication of editorial control.
  3. JMM's also has no indication of editorial control and is unreliable.
• Sorry, doesn't look great. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As Fifelfoo points out, none of them give any indication of editorial oversight or meeting

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with linking to YOJOE.com's file card archive? Even if it is a copyright violation, that's their violation, not ours - as long as we don't import the image into Wikipedia, n'est-ce pas? --

talk

) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an additional point. The main reason is that it shows no signs of being reliable - They have no editorial information and so forth.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying re: the writeups posted by yojoe, but editorial control's not really an issue with the file cards and blueprints as those are straight scans, unless we believe that someone is photoshopping them (which IMO is a risk with any image that might be used). --

talk

) 02:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite the scans original publication on whatever the medium, where they are from originally. It would act as a primary source only.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the card scans are reproduced intact, complete and invariant. The website hosting them shows no capacity for curatorial or archival ability. You can't use them because we don't know if they accurately represent the original object because the site doesn't indicate its editorial control, policy or composition. There's a big difference between a web curated museum, and this. There's no collection numbers, object histories, etc etc etc. Look at Powerhouse museum Sydney for an example of acceptably curated original objects. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia shouldn't support copyright violation by linking to sites that violate copyright. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

over at Wikisource, I've been discussing with a few other people the proper page to link to as a reference for verification and there does not seem to be a consensus at this time. The two methods are to link to the page in which the text is transcluded from the set of pages (and referenced in the left column numerically): see here for an example; or to link to actual page with the scanned copy of the work (original copy appears on the right, arrows to return to the transluded work in the mainspace): see here for an example. Which is preferred to link to in a reference? I would like to get as much feedback as possible, thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that you'll get much of a response here. It doesn't appear to be related to the purpose of this noticeboard. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I felt that it was somewhat related, mainly because of the verifiability of s scanned document hosted in wikisource as opposed to the plain text associated with that scan; at this point, I'm looking for opinions... - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a very specific question related to Wikipedia:Image use policy Legal issues: Personality rights. When a photo is under copyright, and the copyright holder has personality rights, according to Florida statute [29] #3, the photo can be used under

My question is, where does the photo need to be published to meet the legal requirement of

This topic is part of a heated discussion, anyone with expertise in the statute, please advise. Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking how Florida personality rights affect our non-free image use, you should start with 504.08(1) and see that it prohibits the use of such images for "purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose", which we don't, making the remainder of the section moot for our purposes. What part of

WP:NFCC#4? VernoWhitney (talk

) 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at

WP:IUP 11.2 Legal issues: Personality rights. Thank you for your input. USchick (talk

) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking at it you should know that the section doesn't mention publishing at all. Soundvisions1's explanation below covers personality rights pretty broadly, and as they say, "RS applies to an image in what is depicted, not so much where it was obtained" - does that answer the question you were asking? If not, can you rephrase it so we can better understand? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The concept applies across the U.S - not just Florida. The very basic issue is this: Go to a concert, snap a photo and sell it. No issues at all if the image is of the public performer on stage. If it is of the private people in the crowd issues may arise. In either case if someone takes the image and uses it with a caption that says "heroin user" it is, to put it mildly, bad. Unless there is some sort of verifiable facts to back up that the person shown *is* a heroin user you can't say that. It gets a bit more complicated the more you go into it all, but that is why it is also thought of as "Right of Publicity." In my line of work (in the real world) obtaining a release form is a requirement. That release will define what rights I have, and what rights the subject has. But in a public setting it may not be feasible to have every single person sign a release form - that is where the "pubic" vs "private" element comes in, and also where the context of what is seen and its use comes in. A news crew shooting a public event in the park is most often considered fine. The same news crew cannot walk into your home and shoot unless they obtain your permission - and you sign release forms. At Wikipedia we used to have a personality rights tag for images, however it was deleted. Wikimedia Commons still has the tag: Template:Personality rights.

I feel it is also very important to note that there are many editors who do not understand that while material licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license is free to use for "any" purpose, commercial or not, the terms of the license explicitly state You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties. It also goes on to state that, unless obtained in writing, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. So if material is so licensed it really doesn't matter what any one States laws might be as the license (contract) is explicit in its "Personality rights" - in a sense this is the release form that Wikipedia "signs" when accepting such material.

On the issue of "fair use" - U.S law governs that in the real world. How that ties into each state may vary slightly in the same way Wikipedia's policy on Non-Free content is far more restrictive than real world law is. Copyright comes into play and I.P law is complicated. For Wikipedia an RS applies to an image in what is depicted, not so much where it was obtained - however if it depicts something that is claimed as a fact and it is questioned, than the true source certainly would need to be looked at. For example a deletion discussion here was about a non-free frame grab of an airline crash - it was cited as being from IBN/CNN and it listed it as a crash in one location, when it really wasn't as it showed a crash from another location. It was being used here under a FUR someone felt was valid, however it wasn't. Here is the correct story with the image: Poland mourns; PM calls extraordinary meet, here is another correct story as well - but with the wrong image: There could be more survivors, hopes Air India. Sometimes even the RS's get it wrong. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think I quite understand how all these parts are supposed to work together. WP:Image use policy#privacy rights is relatively clear about the subject. WP:Reliable sources is about the source of the image. These two don't have any necessary relationship to each other, although they might, I suppose, in some situations. Similarly, "fair use" (part of copyright law) and Florida's "right of publicity" and its attendant "publication" exception don't have any necessary relationship to one another, although certainly one imagine uses that would be safe under both, or violative of both, or, for that matter, okay under one and not the other.

Is the original poster pondering whether Wikipedia policy, in compliance with the Florida right of publicity statute, requires some specific kind of "reliable source" in order to be okay under the privacy rights of the image use policy? If so, I don't see that connection. A photo taken by an individual, never previously published, could certainly be legal for Wikipedia to use under Florida's right of publicity statute, but not appropriate under WP:RS. Conversely, a photo taken and published by some reliable source could conceivably be deemed inappropriate under WP's image use policy / privacy rights (unlikely, but theoretically possible). They are separate determinations, as far as I can tell.

Note: I was asked on my talk page by User:USchick to look at this issue; I have no prior knowledge of the user or issue. I'm a lawyer and knowledgeable with information laws but not particularly knowledgeable about Florida law. --Lquilter (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The photo was taken by an individual and remains under copyright protection. The original source is a Facebook page. Does the photo qualify under Fair Use to be used on Wikipedia as Non-free content? (Legal opinion only please, everyone else please listen.) USchick (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFCR#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. USchick has been cautioned about this by multiple individuals at multiple fora, but seems to be attempting to dig a hole here. See also MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get a legal opinion that was missing. It can be an independent legal opinion if the other discussions are not dragged into this. Or it can be an official legal opinion if all the discussions are included. Uninformed consensus is not acceptable, which is what we have now. What am I being warned about, exactly? If you'd like to threaten me, please do that on my talk page. This is a serious discussion. Thank you for understanding. USchick (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What you are being warned about is

Wikipedia:Forum shopping. Has that not been linked often enough? Contributors here need to know that you are seeking opinions on a matter that is not only already under discussion, but which has already been closed by an administrator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, if you remember, before that discussion was even opened, I requested a legal opinion, which you did not allow. Now we have consensus of the uninformed, in complete violation of policy. Where do you recommend we take this discussion for a legal review? I'll be happy to go there, please lead the way. USchick (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't disallow a legal opinion; I declined to contact the WMF counsel myself. I work copyright problems every day on Wikipedia and contact WMF counsel once every other month or so when I encounter a situation with which I need assistance. This wasn't one of those, as I did not and do not share your opinion that

right of publicity limits our ability to claim fair use. But I don't control access to them; you can write yourself. There are addresses and phone numbers available here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! USchick (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, can we please get an answer from a person with legal expertise? The photo was taken by an individual and remains under copyright protection. The original source is a Facebook page. Does the photo qualify under Fair Use to be used on Wikipedia as Non-free content? USchick (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

consensus). Which are you asking about? VernoWhitney (talk

) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking if the photo qualifies under

Wikipedia:Fair use which redirects to Wikipedia:Non-free content

.

The question is if Facebook is a

reliable source per Wiki policy. USchick (talk

) 18:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course not! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. USchick (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It actually depends on what for and it what situation. For example, if I wanted to cite

WP:SPS. In any case, this isn't the right forum for questions about copyright issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to get kicked out a lot lately. :) Please advise the right place to have this discussion, or if it's worth having. USchick (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but probably

WP:IMAGEHELP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Facebook may be the origin of the photo but it's not the source, the photo has appeared in mulitple media sources, including the New York Times and ABC news, according to

WP:RS (which, it seems, they do) and leave the discussion of the legality of the photo to the relevant page. Maccy69 (talk

) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The other sources talked about the photo, none of them ran the photo itself. The source is a Facebook page. USchick (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the photograph is clearly visible in this Associated Press image, which shows the picture being used exactly as the article says it was. Reliability is not in question. Regardless, this is still

lengthy community discussion at the appropriate image copyright noticeboard.You're asking about it here, there, there and there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

USchick is right that the photo was only discussed by most of the hundreds of RS that mentioned it. Few newspapers ever publish photos that are this graphic. However, the confusion here is about whether the image needs to be reliably sourced--to the page it came from, and to the original photographer--or whether the site the image is taken from needs to be

WP:NFCR multiple times. Ocaasi ^c

19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source - www.twinstuff.com? Every entry in List of oldest twins is sourced to that website (some also have an additional source but some don't). Any thoughts would be helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey,” January 2006

The PDF of publication says

"Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice."

I see no sign of peer review. Reliable source?

Zimbazumba (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, hmmm. Reliability depends to some extent on the author as well as the publisher - her credentials, reputation, and evidence (or lack thereof) of fair-mindedness.

The report is by Pat Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes. It says here that Pat Tjaden is a Ph.D. and (former) professor. This says that Thoennes is also a Ph.D., but a think-tank person rather than an academic. And it makes sense that the DoJ would engage people with substantial credentials.

If it's true that no one checked their facts or work that's not good. But it doesn't invalidate the source as necessarily unreliable if there's no claim and no evidence of incompetence or bias by the authors. This is my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there are similar Government publications from the UK and Canada that on occasion most would consider unreliable. I was not sure what the case in US is. 'Think Tank' bothers me, I'll check her out further.

Zimbazumba (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment What exactly is this source being used to support, knowing that would help alot in deciding whether its "reliable enough." I think that this is probably reliable for almost anything. DOJ drug policy article would be dubious but Rape statistics are probably reliable in my book. Google Scholar shows based on its limited search is been pretty well cite thus indicating it is considered reliable by alot people. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In the August 30, 2010 issue of