Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97

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.

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Can we have a discussion regarding Yahoo blogs? FACs are dependant on this and I thought that it is better to have them here. Some FAC reviewers are of the opinion that Yahoo blogs, being blogs, are not reliable. I oppose the viewpoint because these are not just some random blogspot.com papers. The yahoo blogs and the threads are written by highly respected music editors, journalists, theorists from the music world, including Paul Grein (former Billboard editor), Caryn Ganz (senior Rolling stone editor), Billy Johnson Jr. (music critic), Lyndsey Parker (Billboard) etc. Just because the term blog is associated with them, the editors are rejecting these sources, which present high volume of information. FAC reviewers are also of the opinion that Yahoo! doesnot have any rights over these blogs, which is codswallop imo, because every page is copyrighted to them. I opened this thread to know the opinion of other fellow editors here at

06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blogs which are published by distinguished/reknowned/notable experts in some field can be treated as self published sozrces an expert (see

WP:USERG). In short they may be acceptable in articles as source, whether they are or not depends on the particular usage and context. However FA may formulate additional criteria which rules them out (I don't really bother with FAC), but this is not really a question for this board but the FA process.--Kmhkmh (talk

) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC is not above

reliable. My question for coming here is to look into that consensus, and see, if it is right. If so then I see no reason for FAC to dictate something, I will surely notify them. — Legolas ^(talk2me)

07:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG would seem to apply. Pieces written by a known journalist, signed, and appearing in a reputable website should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk

) 07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying FAC is right. I'm just saying the consensus of the music board is correct and in line with policies/guidelines as far as articles in general are concerned. Whether FAC should/can formulate additional requirements on sources for its articles is a separate topic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: first, does Yahoo exercise editorial control over its blogs, as required by

) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Washington bost blog - for a death claim

Hi, is this WP blog enough to support a death claim - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-mortem/post/snooky-young-92-year-old-jazz-trumpeter-dies/2011/05/13/AFtW7p2G_blog.html - it seems to be looking at the about the poster has been writing obituaries for the post since 2004 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2007/09/matt-schudel.html -

) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

South End Press

I'm wondering what the view is about using sources from a "political" publisher like

) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things. One is that "radical social change" is not exactly the same thing as "extremist". The other is that we separate fact-checking from POV. Writing could be entirely factually correct but still advocate a viewpoint. This publisher seems to have published the work of some quite prominent scholars, although it is not a scholarly press. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest their material be used then? They're quite upfront that they're pushing a particular POV, which when dealing with controversial issues I feel should be noted, but on the other hand pointing out the POV of the publisher along with statements from a book could be considered POV pushing in itself and a violation of

WP:SYNTH couldn't it? --Icerat (talk

) 19:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It very much depends on the book, its author, and what statement it is being used to support. If you can give some details, we can give more useful advice. You are right that it isn't normally appropriate to cast doubt on the veracity of a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith. If you could give an example of its use to support a statement, in relation to a particular work, we could help. Some partisan presses like Homocult have published works which are notable for their POV, such as Andy Anderson's thesis that The enemy is middle class; though, in this case Anderson is an expert in the area. Conversely, many partisan presses (such as AK Press) publish works which are considered the standard scholarly references regardless of their POV or the publisher's status as a politically engaged text. It depends what you cite, for what fact or opinion, in which article. Anderson's Enemy is probably worth citing in Anarchism in the United Kingdom; or, Theories of the middle class; but not worth citing for Middle class itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 1985 book on Amway. It and some Mother Jones articles (also a left-wing publication, albeit clearly RS) were used to support an extensive Politics & Culture section in the Amway article. I've since cleaned it up a bit with some other sources and clarifications so it's no longer quite the "hit piece" it looked, indeed apart from one quote this book could probably be removed as a source completely. Still the combination of self-admitted POV sources in this section is worrying. I think most folk reading an article that said "FoxNews reported" would know they're getting a certain bias, but with less known publications that's not so apparent. Some additional eyes appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

POV and RS are two different concepts. There is no requirement to use NPOV sources, merely to write NPOV articles. TFD (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's kind of the question - how do you right NPOV articles using non-NPOV sources without noting the POV of the source, especially when the sources are limited (ie no "opposing" POV available)? --Icerat (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article involved here seems to be Amway, which uses references from the obviously "biased" Amway itself to support many statements. Icerat, do you think really each of these should note "the POV of the source"? No, as others have pointed out we use the best available, most reliable sources available. In this case, South End Press is a reputable press, and as an indication of the book's reliability and significance. the book itself has been cited over 100 times in other reliable sources including scholarly journals, books and newspapers. Many of the points made in WP's article are echoed in these other secondary sources. --Slp1 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you right NPOV articles using non-NPOV sources? By neutrally presenting all sides of the issue, citing sources with different viewpoints (giving each source its due weight), and attributing in the text so the reader knows who says what. Our WP:NPOV policy explains this well. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And if there are only sources with a certain POV, you need to explain what that POV is (if the authors in that tendency themselves explain it) and simply present that POV. Because when there is only one scholarly or journalistic POV, this means that this is all we can write about. For example, when discussing "Fred Studies" which is dominated by the "Jane School" and the "Jane School" authors identify this as such in their introductions or literature survey, you say as such that "Fred Studies is covered by the Jane School of analysis which describes itself as..." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit confict, and replying to Blueboar's post) Yes, though I'll just emphasize that attributing a viewpoint is not always required or even desirable; it depends, as Blueboar says on giving the various sources due weight, and the statement at hand, but attribution in certain situations can be a means of introducing point of view, by implying doubt. e.g. "According to an Amway press release, the court case was dismissed." In this case I note that many of the critical remarks about Amway are already attributed. --Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Attribution doesn't really help when you say for example "According to Joe Bloggs" when nobody reading the article has a clue who he or his motivations or POV are. In an area of few sources you can't get "balance" by citing opposing POV, and explaining POV as per Fifelfoo's example seems to me to verge on OR/SYNTH. I've had a similar example on another company article where Forbes was used as a source for a quote, essentially denigrating the company, but a moments research discovers that the person Forbes quoted actually owns and runs competitor companies. That's pretty important when assessing POV! But Forbes didn't mention this, and us digging it up and mentioning it would I think be SYNTH. --Icerat (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) If necessary, you can add a brief descriptor to the attribution: "Whatsisface, which also manufactures widgets, said..." or "Joe Bloggs, a self-described radical socialist, said..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But once again, doing so can be an attempt to marginalize, diminish and discredit Joe Bloggs and Whatisface's opinion. I've seen editors do this time and time again in order to push their POV. It's probably worth noting that Icerat edits mainly in the area of

Multi-level Marketing, with a particular perspective that he acknowledges on his userpage. --Slp1 (talk

) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's "worth pointing out", unless you're indulging in a little SYNTH yourself :) In any case it seems we mostly agree - adding descriptors could be SYNTH and considered POV pushing and that opens a whole range of other problems. It doesn't matter what POV we're talking about. If your quoting a company about itself then it's RS, but everyone knows there's a clear COI. If you're citing FoxNews then it's RS, but most readers know there's a certain bias. But there's a legitimate issue here with relatively unknown sources. Elsewhere on this page is a discussion on The Long War Journal, which apparently has a particular POV that is known to those with knowledge in the field. It's a legitimate RS source, but has a POV that ideally needs to be considered by a reader when interpreting information sourced from them. Without that knowledge I'd read an article citing them and just accept what is said. Another example - a companies products have been certified "banned drug free" by an ostensibly independent testing agency. But that agency is actually partly funded by the company. Now, I'm aware this type of POV source problem is an issue not just for wikipedia, but is there perhaps some standard approach we can come up with to help alleviate it? --Icerat (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A publisher/publication's POV has nothing to do with whether it is an RS. We don't disallow the use of the NY Times or Fox News just because of their pro-corporate, capitalist, U.S. nationalist POV. What disqualifies something as an RS is a poor record for fact-checking, lax editorial controls, self-publication, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The issue is how to appropriately deal with such POV sources, in particular ones that have a self-admitted bias (so there's no dispute). I suppose I should have posted this in RS/Talk, I was using a particular example because they'd explicitly called themselves "radical", which might be interpreted as an RS problem according to the guideline. That's already been cleared as OK, and so South End Press today appears to be an RS publisher (no idea at the time of Butterfields book) but it also has a self-admitted POV. Same with, for example Mother Jones, or The Heritage Foundation. The Long War Journal, discussed elsewhere on the noticeboard, is another example with a well understood POV for those who work in the area, but not for most readers. Some editors suggest adding some descriptions about the source is appropriate, others feel this is SYNTH. --Icerat (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask... if all the sources take the same POV, what makes you think there is a different POV to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be Original Research. :) Note that at present, when talking "all the sources", we're talking about the massive number of two. --Icerat (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

@Icerat: If this has nothing to do with WP:RS, then it doesn't belong here. Perhaps take a look at

WP:NPOVN. However, you've really provided nothing other than a quote from their site that says that they publish books on a certain topic (i.e. books about "radical social change"). This does not say that they are "biased" any more than a medical publisher is "biased" for publishing in a single topic area. South End Press is an established publisher whose publications are often cited in scholarly literature. They easily satisfy RS, and unless you can show via other reliable sources that a specific fact cited to a South End Press publication is at odds with the majority of other sources available, then you really have no basis to claim that there is a violation of WP:NPOV either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk

) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there's a violation of NPOV, just how to handle RS sources that are not NPOV. That's not the same thing. But yes, medical publishers tend to have biases as well, for example against CAM.--Icerat (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Most reliable secondary sources, particularly academic papers, are not neutral and it may be that neutrality is unachievable. But we need to distinguish facts and opinions. Does SE Press for example claim that the U.S. is in Africa or that the moon is made of green cheese? Reliable sources present the same facts, regardless of political viewpoint. TFD (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolute neutrality is I think unachievable. Quality academic papers at least try to achieve it, depending on the field of course. If you have quick look at titles out of South End Press it's obvious they have a particular POV, and that POV is not going to treat any multinational company in an unbiased manner, let alone one whose owners are well known Republicans. To their credit they make no pretense of neutrality, but this is not going to be something obvious to a casual reader of a wikipedia article. The vast majority of their books, if published as a newspaper article, you would expect to be labelled "opinion" or "op-ed" and they'd be disqualified from wikipedia as RS for anything but opinion. As a book publisher that label doesn't apply. --Icerat (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic papers are rarely neutral. Most begin, "while scholars normally believe x, in this paper we will argue y." (Why else do scholars write articles, except to present new viewpoints.) The value of these papers is that the facts, including the description of what most scholars believe will be accurate. TFD (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some new edits on

), who happens to have quite the history of POV pushing and, shall we say, less than ideal conduct on Amway-related articles.

Example 1: Quote from -- Maryam Henein. (November 28–December 5, 1997). "The Revenge of the Amdroids". Philadelphia City Paper. Retrieved 2011-05-11. http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/112896/article009.shtml.

Original text reads:

“Philadelphia City Paper correspondent Maryam Henein stated that “The language used in motivational tools for Amway frequently echoes or directly quotes the Bible, with the unstated assumption of a shared Christian perspective.”[Source Henein 1997]

Revised text (by Icerat)[2] reads:

“Philadelphia City Paper correspondent Maryam Henein, referring to motivational materials produced independently by distributors Dexter Yager and William Britt and sold to other distributors in their downline, stated that “The language used ... frequently echoes or directly quotes the Bible, with the unstated assumption of a shared Christian perspective.” [Source Henein 1997] (newly added text is indicated in bold)

Note two things here: Henein’s quote included in the original article’s text was taken -- verbatim -- directly from the beginning of a section of the City Paper article entitled “The Lord’s Way” in which she introduces a new discussion about the promotion of Christianity within the Amway organization and about a book by Steven Butterworth that addresses this theme. First of all, note that the edit replaced a key portion of the quote (“in motivational tools for Amway”) with ellipsis ("...") to make it seem as though the author did not refer to Amway specifically – in other words, purposeful obfuscation. Secondly, the section of Henein’s article that the original quote was taken from, verbatim, mentions absolutely nothing about Yager or Britt, and it is misleading on Icerat’s part to represent that the author was “referring to materials” specifically produced by Yager/Britt. This is

and non-neutral POV -- the apparent aim of the edit was to make it seem, rather deceptively I would have to say, that Henein was not referring to the Amway organization but rather to only two these 2 individuals specifically.

Example 2: Alleged 1982 Dexter Yager interview with CBS.

The second example of contentious editing/improper sourcing by Icerat was the addition of new material to the Amway article that allegedly was based on an alleged 60 Minutes interview in 1982 with Dexter Yager. This material was added immediately following the Henein quote to create the misleading impression that it is Yager alone who is responsible for the promotion of Christianity in the Amway organization. The text added by Icerat[3] was as follows:

“Dexter Yager, interviewed on 60 minutes in 1982, admitted that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group, but stated that this was not the case in other Amway groups.”

Icerat cited the source for this simply as “Soap and Hope. 60 Minutes. CBS. 1982”

No link was provided to any transcript, video, or any official source that confirms that this show even existed let alone that it included comments supportive of the text Icerat added to the Amway article. No air date was included in the citation nor was an access date included to confirm that the source was in fact verified by the editor in question. When challenged on this edit, Icerat replied[4] as follows:

“As for the Yager quote, Wallace, following up on Yager talking about his christianity, says ‘I see overtones of religion in Amway’. Yager replies ‘In my Amway, not everybody's Amway, everybody has their own Amway’. Wallace then goes on to talk about the talk of religious overtones he's encountered talking about Amway in Charlotte (where Yager lives and is being interviewed) and Yager again says ‘well, that's me, I'm a Christian’.

Note two things here. (1) No verifiable source (2) the unverifiable quoted text provided by Icerat doesn’t even remotely support the paraphrased version added to the Amway article. Yager doesn’t admit “that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group”, as indicated in the text Icerat added to the article, nor does he say anything suggesting that “this was not the case in other Amway groups”. It’s yet another example of

Can we please get some reliable eyes on this so that we remove this dross from the article without it precipitating yet another unnecesary debate [7] and edit war[8] with Icerat. Thanks Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Example 1 - the article used as a source repeatedly refers to the fact these materials are produced by Yager and Britt, not Amway. Removing this information makes it appear as if the quote is referring to materials produced by Amway rather than independently produced by Britt/Yager for their Amway groups. Rhode Island Red's claim that it's in a "new section" is specious. Rhode Island Red also claims to have read the Buttefield book, which he himself has used as a reference, so is also aware that Butterfield repeatedly refers in his book to the fact the materials are produced by Yager and Britt, not Amway.

Example 2 - Rhode Island Red claims in his edit summary to have watched the show[9], so his claim of verifiability must therefore be false. Copies of the interview are available on youtube and elsewhere. Yager talks about christianity, Wallace asks about religion in Amway, Yager responds that it's his Amway, not everybodies Amway, and continues to talk about christianity. To claim that it's synth to refer to "christianity" rather than "religion" is also specious, but changing the edit to say "religion" is perfectly acceptable to me.

Either way, the source of the first example is the article Rhode Island Red included, and the source of the second is 60 minutes. Clearly both are RS, so not sure how he can claim "poor sourcing", and the POV pushing through exclusion of sourced information is on Rhode Island Red's part, not mine--Icerat (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for an article on a fictional work? I couldn't find much definitive information on the reputation of any of the associated parties:

• Wendell, Carolyn (1982). Alfred Bester. Starmont Readers' Guide. Mercer Island: Borgo Press.
  ISBN 9780916732080
  .

Any input appreciated, Skomorokh 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Starmont series seems to have been reputable.[10] Amazon lists quite a number of their titles. My impression is that this meets the standard for RS for science fiction criticism. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can this source be used to support the statement that the word "falafel" entered English through Hebrew? The main counter argument seems to be that the Oxford Dictionaries don't mention it when discussing the origins of the word [11]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy is not presenting this correctly, several sources has been brought up at the falafel talkpage saying the word is Arabic origin without mentioning any other language:[12] Malik also brought a good point that the Oxford dictionary word for "paradise" mentions: "that "paradise" entered English from Old French, but that its origins lay in Avestan (an Iranian language). And note that the entry for falafel does not mention Hebrew." [13][14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a case of quote-mining. The source is at most circumstantial evidence that the word might have entered English through Hebrew. However, that is very unlikely given that Hebrew speakers with a Middle Eastern cultural background are a minority among immigrants to English-speaking countries when compared to Arabic speakers (and other Muslims). If the word were known to have entered via Hebrew that would be a remarkable fact that would of course be recorded in etymological dictionaries. But it isn't. They all say it's from Arabic, nothing about Hebrew. Hans Adler 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just a heads-up that MobileReference, a Boston-based e-book publisher of encyclopedias and reference books for Kindle and similar platforms, uses material from Wikipedia. Where this is the case, their works fail

and should not be cited.

We have a few dozen citations to their works at present; they come up in Google Books, and may easily be mistaken for a reliable source. --JN466 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I once saved an article from deletion by citing MobileReference, I feel guilty now.

talk

) 01:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now added

an entry on MobileReference to Wikpedia's list of its mirrors and forks

.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 10:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, shit happens (aka the lord works in mysterious ways)! --JN466 10:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that it appears to me that all MobileReference publications should generally be regarded as not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, even if they are not obvious forks of Wikipedia. Although the licensing information in their Wikipedia forks asserts that their editors have "carefully checked and organized the material", most of the Wikipedia material seems to have been copied verbatim, including misspellings, grammatical errors, unidiomatic phrasing, and outright misrepresentation of cited sources (citations to which are generally not included, however).
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A court judgement is a primary source for itself, ie the judgement and case that it is about. I've encountered a situation where an editor is using statements made by the judge about related, but uninvolved parties, ie they did not participate in the court case or hearings. This would seem to me to be using the judgement either as a secondary source for this information, or perhaps as a primary source for the judges opinion. This situation isn't really covered in WP:RS, but either way it doesn't seem an appropriate use of the source. More details here. Thoughts appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Court judements are tricky... they are reliable primary documents for findings of fact relating to the specific case... but they are secondary documents in regards to how the Law should be interpreted in connection to the case. A side comment about an unrelated third party would a primary source the opinion of the Judge, but not a reliable source for a statement of fact about that third party. Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are primary sources. Note that when errors of fact appear in reliable secondary sources, they may be corrected through newspapers, revised editions of books, or by subsequent scholarship. But the facts in judgments are almost never subject to appeal and harmless errors are not corrected. Also, facts which only appear in court judgments lack notability. TFD (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that decisions of a court pf general jurisdiction, which weigh and evaluate witnesses and documents, should be acceptable as secondary sources for the parties and facts involved in the case, not treated the same way as trial transcripts, docket sheets, etc. However, a judge's passing mention of people or matters not involved in the case is "dicta" and should not receive the same respect. In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Blueboar is technically correct about the classification, but you're asking the wrong question. The policy says, "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." The issue you need to be considering is whether this is an appropriate source for the content in question. A passing comment in a court document will almost never be an appropriate source for information about uninvolved parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, an appellate court's opinion is a secondary source on a lower court's original decision.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Appellate opinions are tricky because they are an amalgam of different things. For example, generally, appellate opinions don't make findings of fact, whereas trial courts do. Another example, appellate opinions evaluating a lower court decision may be secondary, but an appellate opinion can also make law, in which case it is probably primary. I'm not sure how much any of this matters. I'm more of the view that what's important is the particular context in which the opinion is being used as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If an appellate opinion says "the lower court rejected the motion to quash the subpoena", then that's a secondary source. If the opinion says "quashing subpoeanas is appropriate in these circumstances", then that's a primary source.   Will Beback  talk  12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance." In the context of the actual edit/source Icerat / Insider201283 is referring to here, I'm not sure the above statement is relevant to this edit. To clarify, the court document mentions "company A" by name, and company A (network twentyone) and company B (amway) are inextricably linked. The decision is not on A, but it is very much involved.

This is all a bit grey, but isn't a judge's verdict a tertiary source?

Policy states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." which I feel is what was done in this instance, however pro-MLM/Amway editors often edit/re-interpret the court statement, removing phrases such as "pyramid", such interpretation of course is forbidden, or want to have the whole statement removed, which is what Icerat is seeking. Financeguy222 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Network21 was not a party of the case that is beeing cited, but it's buisniss practice was a central part of said suit. So we can assume that the court has made an effort too check the facts of said practice. The sourcing is this case is adequate no matter if we consdider the source as primary or secondary. This because the wording is lifted more or less directly from the finding. Copyright might be an issue, and the statement in it's current form should be treated as a quotation. Meaning that attribution is needed. I would say the problem is more about POV than about Reliable sourcing.

Taemyr (talk

) 12:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the judgement? The judge explicitly stated that the suit wasn't about the businesss practices of companies like Network 21, let alone "a central part" and they were not party to the case. We can safely assume the court has made no effort to check facts about them. Indeed, as I noted in talk, the statement is factually incorrect. --Icerat (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Financeguy222 is continuing to try to include this "quote" in the article. Note again (1)The article in question is about Network 21 (2)Network 21 was not involved in the court case being used as a source (3) The quote he wants to use is of the judges opinion, not a finding of fact. AFAIK, none of this is disputed. --Icerat (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting reliable sources problem: the BBC Domesday Project is now online again (or at least, half of it - the stuff on the Community Disk). It contains a wealth of local information about towns and villages across the United Kingdom. On the one hand, it is a valuable historical record and is online. For non-controversial information like local legends, the history of village churches, when schools were founded and so on, it seems like it might be useful. But, it is contributed by ordinary people with minimal editing (the dodgy spelling and grammar on some of the entries, for example). The BBC did do some minimal editing to the entries but not a great deal (then again, that's probably the same as current day newspaper/news website output!). Regardless, this seems like an extremely valuable resource for building up coverage of UK topics.

Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't count it as anything except a primary source of dubious quality, so not a source of notability either. It is very interesting but much of the stuff was put in by schoolchildren as projects for their local school. There might be some stuff that can be referred to but the main use would |I think be in external links and suchlike where it could provide extra background information. I would be happy for it to be used for that purpose despite it not being much better than many blogs in quality.

Dmcq (talk

) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article uses a single source that maybe user-created. Opinions?

Not much evidence of any real notability, for a start. It could be trimmed to 'Turney Stevens, a former investment banker, is a dean at Lipscomb University'. And yes, it looks like his résumé. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely needs a) a rewrite, b) independent secondary sources. If they don't exist, send to AFD. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A new article

untouched by any fact checker. All three seem to be essentially works of propaganda or argumentation, selecting those aspects of the 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic that would show unfair criticism of Israel. Could those with experience on WP:RS give feedback on whether these 3 sources can be used to make claims about events in 1983, or whether claims about what schoolgirls did, what newspapers reported, what doctors found, etc. be sourced to more reliable authors and publications?

1. A column for the

describing those events. No fact-checker would have permitted this material to be published without serious revision. (What really happened according to RS. Some girls started fainting at one school and were hospitalized, rumors spread that poison had been involved (with Israelis and Palestinians making counter-claims about who did the poisoning), the epidemic spread and was later determined to be psychosomatic and stress-related, with some fakery also starting about four days after the first reported cases. )

2. A book by Raphael Israeli published in 2002 by , Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. The author is a Professor of Chinese History and Islamic Civilization.[16] The book is not, in fact, about the fainting epidemic but about the "blood libel", as the author calls it--that is the false accusation that Israel had poisoned Palestinian schoolgirls. Lexington Books is not a fact-checking academic publisher,[17] and here is what they say about the book:[18]

This is the story of an amazing manifestation of a modern blood libel against the Jews and Israel, involving not only Arabs and Muslims, but also the European media and world organizations. Based on rich documentation from all angles: Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, European, American, and International, Raphael Israeli aims to draw our attention toward another piece in the multi-faceted puzzle of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and of international antisemitism. . By bringing this Middle Eastern version of the perennial theme of blood libel before their readers, the author hopes to instruct people of good will of the dangers inherent in protracted conflicts, such as the one opposing Israelis and Arabs, which can provoke war, misery, destruction, and violence, but also recriminations born out of hallucinations and ill-will. This is a multi-disciplinary book which should interest not only students of antisemitism, Judaism, and Israel, but also psychologists, journalists, political scientists, and scholars of communications, the Middle East, international relations, and the Israeli-Arab dispute.

3. A book review by Manfred Gerstenfeld of the previous book. There is no indication that the author did any fact-checking about the incident beyond reporting incidents and interpretations as described in the book. The main interest for Gerstenfeld, as for Israeli, is using the aftermath of the incident to discredit criticism of Israel. Quoting Gerstenfeld;

In the more than twenty years that have passed since the mass hysteria case, there have been many similar Arab campaigns whose core element was a major lie...To date, the campaign of lies and fabrications has reached its height with the IDF operation Defensive Shield against the terror infrastructure in Jenin in April 2002. ... another type of Palestinian fabrication: after a funeral procession of a supposed victim of the massacre, the "dead person" jumps off the stretcher once he thinks he is out of the camera's range. There is an enduring need for a searching analysis of the fragmented yet total war the Arab world is waging against Israel and the Jewish people, as well as the collaboration of Western media and institutions. ... The Simon Wiesenthal Center has produced a major institutional contribution on the subject of anti-Semitism on the Internet. Israeli's paradigmatic case study is important for several reasons. Beyond his analysis of a particular case, he reveals how the methodology of Arab hate propaganda has been in use for many years.

It is my belief that these are all essentially self-published opinion pieces, but I welcome the opinion of more experienced others. betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me give you the general rule, and leave the specific sources to someone else:

"Source" means three things on Wikipedia: the publication itself, the author, and the publisher. If any of these three are reputable, then the source is probably reliable (for facts or other material in the publication; we leave aside here the fact that even the most awful sources are reliable for something, e.g., any book is a reliable source for the number of pages in it). With the vanity press, the publisher is not reliable, but books from a vanity press may be perfectly fine—so long as the author is generally considered reputable. (See

WP:SPS

for the usual definition.)

Note that we don't need to know anything about the contents of the publication to know whether the source will generally be useful (for more than a trivial purpose). We only need to know the contents once we're ready to move into the discussion of how we're using the source. That process requires you to tell us not just the source, but the specific, word-for-word sentence(s) that the source is supposed to support. Otherwise, we'll be saying "Oh, yes, very reliable" and someone will come back and say, "But the other editor is trying to use this publication about Palestinian girls in

Special theory of relativity to re-define the speed of light!" WhatamIdoing (talk

) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for good advice and also for a good laugh. OK, here are statements the article's creator wants to source to each of these three.

• 1: Sourced to 1, the column by Khaled Abu Toameh "Khaled Abu Toameh wrote that the girls were trying to avoid exams. They claimed Israel had put poison in the tanks that supplied drinking water to their school and began "fainting" in the school yard when photographers and TV crews arrived. When medical tests found there was nothing wrong with them, the girls were released from the hospital. According to Abu Toameh, "the exams were postponed indefinitely and Israeli 'occupation' was once again blamed for perpetrating a 'new crime' against Palestinians."diff

• 2 Sourced to 2, the book by Raphael Israeli: Is it relevant or notable that Raphael Israeli called the aftermath of the incident "a blood libel against Jews"?
• 2 Sourced to 2, "Dan Margalit of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz wrote in March 1983 that the accusations leveled at Israel over the fainting spells "may yet become a modern blood libel against the Jews." Again, is Margalit's opinion relevant or notable if we have only this book's mention of it?
• 2 same source "Baruch Modan, then director general of Israel's health ministry, also concluded that most of the victims of the epidemic suffered from a psychological malady, though he said some who fell ill after April 3, when epidemiologists say the outbreak had subsided, were faking." The source of this statement is a snippet visible on pages 7 and 8 of the Google books version [19]. In this snippet, Modan spends many paragraphs discussing the incident and says "all the girls involved in the first 3 or 4 occurrences were truly sick and not putting on an act. ..We have to remember that from the victim's viewpoint she genuinely feels all the symptoms of true poisoning, and when she reports them to the doctor she is not inventing or feigning them. ...[But after those first 3 or 4 incidents doctors had] "conclusive proof of girls who were hurt neither physically not psychologically but were part of a deliberate hoax." Because the snippet is cut off, there is no way to tell the exact provenance of these words, but the book introduces them as a summary by Modan.

• 3. Manfred Gerstenfeld, Chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, writes that the fainting epidemic was one of "many similar Arab campaigns whose core element was a major lie." Is this self-published opinion relevant or notable? Is this not just using the event as a
  WP:COATRACK for editorialing about Arabs, Israel, Western media, the UN, etc. etc. betsythedevine (talk
  ) 04:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentations galore. Lexington is not a vanity press, and while it may not enjoy the reputation of a Cambridge or Oxford, the search that Betsy pointed to actually shows it has a good reputation. To quote some of the posts there "My general sense is that Lexington is respected as an academic press, but nowhere near competitive with the top university presses. "; "Lexington is a pretty good press in political theory. Not first-rank, but loads better than Mellen." To call this "slef published" is ridicolous. Toameh is a journalist, and a notbale one at that, as is Dan margalit, publishing in a mainstrema Israeli paper. Again, none of these are slef-publsihed. Betsy - please read

) 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I had thought it was a vanity press based on this statement "The Lexington I see when Googling is in Lexington, MA. Looks to be today's equivalent of a vanity press, in part, in that you can order up short runs of your own book. If a candidate for faculty in my department listed a Lexington product on his CV, I'd want to check with the publisher if publication was an editorial decision or a business decision."[20] That quote turns out to be about a different "Lexington Press" that is not the imprint/subsidiary that Rowan and Littlefield acquired in 1998. I would not say that other quotes show it as having a good reputation -- one long thread recounts the dismay of two young academics who had submitted chapters for a book they thought would be published by an academic press when they discovered the publisher would instead be Lexington. "Although they go through many of the standard motions, by way of camouflage, Lexington's editorial guidelines make no mention of peer review (see http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/EditorialGuidelines/Submission.shtml and http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/EditorialGuidelines/index.shtml). The operation sounds quite a bit like our old friends at VDM. Ultimately, I doubt if publishing in this anthology would hurt your friend, but it certainly wouldn't help, by any reasonable T&P standard I know."[21] "I suspect that books that get rejected by university presses end up with Lexington. I know that's true in one case." Also, unlike normal publishers but like vanity presses, Lexington asks authors to pay for typesetting their own books.[22] "I might first shoot for a good univ press, but Rowman/Lexington is a good outlet . . . at least in my field. They've published some very good work. Be prepared to do all your own typesetting."[23]

To quote

WP:RS taking note of Dan Margalit and Raphael Israeli using "blood libel" as if it were a handy piece of mud to throw at any contested accusation anywhere. There was quite a bit of pushback against Sarah Palin misusing the term that way, and my own opinion is exactly that of President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer: "The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing .. [the speaker] of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, .. use of the term is totally out-of-line." [24]betsythedevine (talk

) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Jedlicki

I removed Jedlicki from the article Ostsiedlung [25] and outlined my rationale at talk. This was undone and re-instated [26] calling it a perfectly reliable source and advising me to bring it here. The talk page section is at Talk:Ostsiedlung#Jedlicki.

The cited essay of Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954) is "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order", first published in 1950 in the Cambridge history of Poland I (bib link), a volume containing several essays from exiled/returned Polish scientists written during late and shortly after World War II. Given that WWII was the worst ever period in Polish-German relations, and that historiography on both sides was subordinate to the respective national claims for the respective medieval "cradles of the nation" [27], I object to including material from this source. To these general concerns adds that Jedlicki is the author of "Thousand years of German aggression ", published just before and certifying his bias.

I maintain that Jedlicki is not a reliable source for the actual process of Ostsiedlung, i.e. medieval German settlement in Poland. It should be treated as an old, biased, partisan source. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems a well established, scholarly source used by respectable educational institution like Cambridge.Cherry-picking one statement that you don't agree with, doesn't mean it is not, there doesn't seem to be any argument or reason why it shouldn't be presented, not to mention it isn't even used in the article,but a wholly different publication accepted by a very reliable scholarly publisher. A great deal of research happened after the war, and there is no reason to ban it because Skapperod personally doesn't like it. I will add that to me this whole objection seems even more strange considering Skapperod's use of publication from Nazi Germany and its defense as reliable source for information regarding German settlement in Poland[28][29]. Frankly to consider a publication by Cambridge to be unreliable while defending source published in Nazi Germany as valid source seems to indicate some problems with the editor's views of what is reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this source is clearly reliable, although it is dated and possibly (I haven't researched this) partisan. The claim it makes surprises me a bit, so I think it's reasonable to ask for a more recent corroborating source. If none is found, or if there is an actual dispute about this, then it should be attributed. Hans Adler 13:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From the sound of this no one is denying it is an OR, but it is a question of due weight? It is true that we do not need to use every OR, of course. Due weight discussions are normally best conducted amongst people working on the article or subject area? Having said that cases like this do tend to raise concerns because any well known source, being notable to some extent, should not normally be fully removed from all mention even if it is not the most leading or most up-to-date position in a particular field. Often it becomes a good idea to compromise by attributing a position to a source, naming that source ("according to...") and therefore warning readers that further reading might show up some controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the article had a source published in 1937 Nazi Germany until yesterday[30]...It needs a complete overhaul--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There might be a problem of undue weight in the article, but it goes the other way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's the article on the author, Marian Jedlicki, I stubbed not to long ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a contemporary review of Jedlicki's work in Cambridge History volume by an American scholar (S. Harrison Thomson,Reviewed work(s): The Cambridge History of Poland, Volume I. by R. Dyboski; O. Halecki; J. H. Penson; W. F. Reddaway, American Slavic and East European Review Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec., 1951), pp. 304-306 [31].

Relevant portion: "Chapter VII, "German Settlement and the Rise of the Teutonic Order," by M. Z. Jedlicki, presents a fair summary of the facts, but could have been better if the amazing post-war production of the Baltic Institute at Gdansk on East Prussia and the Teutonic Order (Gorski, Srokowvski, Piwarski et al.) and the not less remarkable work of the Western Institute at Poznan had been available.".

For those unfamiliar with the context, it should be noted that the work of the Baltic and Western Institutes would probably be regarded by SOME editors as "anti-German" (you can look at the Western Institute article to get a flavor of how to POV an issue - that article needs to be fixed). So the reviewer is implicitly saying that, in light of more recent research (by these institutes), Jedlicki's essay is too "pro-German settlement hypothesis" - if there's bias it is in the opposite way that Skapperod is alleging.

Basically, over time historiography moved from "stereotypical" 19th century nationalist notions of German colonists settling developing and civilizing a wild east to more emphasis and acknowledgment of internally driven economic development, home grown technological progress and internal migration as the main driver of urban development (and rural-urban migration was more or less a universal phenomenon across Europe in this period so it's not exactly surprising that it happened in Poland as well). Jedlicki's essay is just a reflection of this shift in historical knowledge (Wikipedia though tends to lag behind).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The 1951 review you cite does not mention any pro- or anti-German bias, it just says Jedlicki is not including "new" (by then) research. That an inclusion of said research would have made the work even more biased is out of question. The point is that wikipedia articles should not rely on the conclusions of an obviously biased source from the WWII era ("Thousand years of German aggression" - come on), when this episode in historiography is [meanwhile itself subject to historiographic analysis with the conclusion that it was designed to prove/disprove WWII-related claims. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-w should not rely on the conclusions of an obviously biased source from the WWII era-that's strange-you argued before that we should rely on Nazi German publication regarding Polish history, A publication which was titled "History of robbed German territories. Poles and Balts in their war against German people" and which had statements that Poles hate Germans because Germans are good workers and disciplined while Poles are culturally inferior and unable to create anything and are barbaric. Or that Nazis want peace with their neighbours. If a Cambridge publication isn't reliable to you, but Nazi German like the above is(as seen by you adding it here[32]...Than I think there is a problem here with what we consider reliable source. Also we are not using "Thousand years of German agression" source(plus this isn't that wrong dating of lenght of German-Polish conflicts)---MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Skapperod, first, the work being discussed is Cambridge History of Poland, not anything called "Thousand years of German aggression". Second, the source you provide above says nothing about Jedlicki nor does it say that it was only Polish historiography which was "designed to prove/disprove WWII-related claims" - the actual text has some critical things to say about both Polish and German historiography.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

I object strongly to Geoff Lord's entry, as I currently have a CCJ against the company he is advertising - French cosmetic surgery ltd. They have given addresses on their website in UK but is a PO Box and the address in France is a private address (flat) not a clinic.

They owe UK citizens tens of thousands of pounds including myself and I object to them continuing to publicise on legitimate companies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.73.148 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011

Are you referring to the Wikipedia article titled Geoff Lord? TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

From a quick scan around the web it looks like French Cosmetic Surgery Ltd. is a company that offers various procedures in France and Belgium to people in the UK via sites like these: [33] [34]. This twitter account links a Geoff Lord (who also has a twitter account [35] and a blog [36]) to the same company, which looks to be pretty dodgy, by all accounts. However, the Wikipedia article

reliable sources. It looks like the person who posted this request has got the wrong end of the stick, since there are two people with the same name (actually I'm sure there are quite a few Geoff Lords in the world). Maccy69 (talk

) 11:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for much for researching this. TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It looks like the internet marketing Geoff Lord (based in Manchester, UK) has an account here and tried to add himself to the Australian businessman's article. His only other contribution has been to add a promotional image of gastric band surgery to the article about a fictional character who had also had the procedure. Both of those changes were quickly reverted and if he carries on he'll eventually get a ban - so I don't think the OP has anything to worry about. Maccy69 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, going by the COI warning on his talk page, it looks like he created his own article sometime on or before 13 May and that it was deleted soon afterwards (so, on May 14, he tried to hijack the legitimate article). The date of the OP suggests that it was the deleted article that was being referred to. I can't find the deletion log because I can't guess what he called it, but User:Geofflord/Gastric band surgery is another attempt to use Wikipedia to promote his own business. So it's most likely that by the time you looked at the OP, the article they had been referring to had already been deleted. Regardless, it should be clear that there's now no issue. Maccy69 (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, very interesting. Amazing what goes on. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Brad [pseud.], Chris Menning [?pseud.], Jamie Dubs [?pseud.], yatta [pseud.] "Playing Dead" Emily Huh (ed.), Brad Kim (ed.) Know your Meme Seattle and New York: Cheezburger Inc., 2010.
• [Procedurally Generated Content] "Playing Dead (Related Submemes)" Emily Huh (ed.), Brad Kim (ed.) Know your Meme Seattle and New York: Cheezburger Inc., last accessed 2011.
• Brad [pseud.], amanda b. [pseud.], yatta [pseud.], Tomberry [pseud.], James [pseud.] "Lying Down Game" Emily Huh (ed.), Brad Kim (ed.) Know your Meme Seattle and New York: Cheezburger Inc., 2011.

Know your Meme is a commercial website with an editorial policy, involving expert oversight of user contributed content "Much like wikis, any registered user can submit a meme or viral phenomena for research at knowyourmeme.com. Other users and staff researchers can contribute to the research of the topic and discussion about a meme. The research staff then confirms the meme or invalidates the meme by putting it in the "Deadpool." The editorial and research staff at KYM also provides interviews or Q&As with the people involved, such as Magibon or Scumbag Steve in addition to the research."

I wish to use the oversighted content and site generated video content from confirmed memes Playing Dead and Lying Down Game and their relational hypertextual indicator page Playing Dead, submemes to expand

) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As a user and contributor to KYM, it is far from the editoral site we would expect. Yes, there are paid moderators that improve entries to valid them as memes, but because 90% of the content is from users (effectively a stricter wiki but a wiki nevertheless), its hard to draw the lne between the editors and the users on that site. It should be avoided as a source if possible. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you address the concern regarding site generated video material, which appears to have a higher standard of editorial control than the text? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Even with their video material, which is made by the actual employees, I would have a hard time comparing their editorial standards to most newspapers and magazines. That is, there's not enough data points that we could assess their fact-checking reliability (even though they don't seem to be wrong in any of their videos). --MASEM (t) 13:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would generally lean toward the view that their videos are reliable, I think they all check out pretty well. I can't cite any real proof here--but I think I've watched almost all of their meme videos and haven't seen any real mistakes and it seems like they are reviewed by staff. I would definitely avoid using them as a source for any BLP or disputed issues, but I wouldn't have a problem citing their videos for basic facts about a meme.

talk

) 04:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The actor Dan Aykroyd is listed in List of people on the autism spectrum based on a radio interview he gave where he repeatedly stated that he suffered from a mild form of Asperger syndrome as a child. Both the list and bio article use the radio interview as a primary source (you can listen to it). There is some dispute at Talk:List of people on the autism spectrum#Why I removed Aykroyd over whether Aykroyd is a reliable source on himself. I think that provided the statement is plausible and no reliable sources can be found to doubt it, then a person can be a reliable source on their own medical history and indeed that biographers routinely use the person and their friends and family as sources for these sort of facts because medical notes are not available for contemporary figures. Thoughts? Colin°^Talk 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: this is not the same as if Aykroyd had said "I think I had mild Asperger Syndrome as a child". A self-diagnosis of a neurological disorder would not be considered reliable. We don't know how Aykroyd came about this diagnosis, and although he mentions getting medical treatment for these problems, the actual term Asperger Syndrome was only formed in the 80s, so there is a retrospective aspect to it. Colin°^Talk 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I proposed using a compromise wording such as "In an NPR interview, Aykroyd claimed to have been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome". If Aykroyd is a reliable source, this type of wording should be equivalent to stating it as fact, right? —Soap— 20:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

An interview is a good source for what the person said. Avoid the word "claimed", say "In an NPR interview, Aykrkoyd said he had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome". I think the syndrome was identified well before the 1980s. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point about claimed vs said, and that wording would an acceptable compromise for his bio. But this isn't a dispute resolution forum: I'd like to know what the policy is. The question here is whether this source is sufficient for him to meet the entry-criteria for a "List of people on the autism spectrum". If we start doubting people's own voice on issues of a personal aspect of their lives, then it would make for a ridiculous article if adopted by biographers: "In the preface to his first book, John Smith stated he was born in Manchester. According to is mother, he was born on 10th January 1970 and had measles as a child. His father said his first job was delivering newspapers at 14. In an interview with the Times, John said he moved to Birminham to university...." So I'd like to know if a person a reliable source for their own medical history. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer to whether it's an RS is simply "no". The question whether it can be used as fact (with a citation to the interview) is a more open question (I'd think "no" also). The question whether his statement can be used in an article can be used is (as above) probably "yes". ^Bongo_matic 08:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on why you think it is "simply no"? Which part of policy forbids us (and by implication our secondary sources) from relying on the person (published) as a reliable source for their own medical history, or indeed any other personal piece of information such as where they were born, what school they went to, etc. If we or our secondary sources cannot use the person, what other source would be considered more reliable? Are their friends and family more reliable? I don't think so. Would they have access to the person's medical records? Not for contemporary figures. Perhaps a biographer would have access to the person's own correspondance, which contained medical letters from their physician, but you only get such letters for very serious issues dealt with by tertiary hospitals. For example, if you were treated by your GP or for a minor accident like a broken toe, there would be no correspondance to cite. [I'm from the UK, in other countries, perhap's you'd get a bill!] I'd really like someone experienced in working on biographical articles and reading biographies to confirm if this is a reasonable restriction. Because to me, it plainly isn't. Colin°^Talk 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that many of the sources for

List of brain tumor patients and other featured lists are based on interviews with the person themselves. The same goes for the medical facts in each person's own bio article. It seems to me that Soap is demanding unreasonable levels of sourcing simply because he doubts Aykroyd's diagnosis. Colin°^Talk

11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My impression has been that a person's statement about himself is usually sufficient as a source for these sorts of Wikipedia lists. (These lists have always seemed to me to be on the margins of policy, anyway, because in a sense they're original research.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the idea that some bits of WP have lower standards than others. There's nothing in those lists that isn't also in the person's bios -- they merely concentrate the example. Nobody's yet suggested what alternative source would be satisfactory or indeed how that alternative source might come about the information without interviewing the person or their friends and family. Colin°^Talk 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is controversial about a notable opinion then does attribution allow for a good compromise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If the fact is controversial in reliable sources then we need to cover this and I agree that we'd drop down to attribution (probably coupled with the opposing views too). But in this and in many cases there is no published controversy. A Wikipedian's own doubts have no weight unless they reach the level that any reasonable person might be expected to have doubts (such as Aykroyd claiming to be pregant). I'm saying that we, as Wikipedian's, can't really go round calling people liars or fools. Colin°^Talk 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with including such stuff provided a reliable source providing a bit of notability has reported him as saying so. If there's some slight doubt you can always say that the person said it.

Dmcq (talk

) 12:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just found this site that discusses television shows. What's the verdict here? Sarujo (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please follow the clear instructions at the top of this page: full citation, article where the work is used / proposed, statement in the article the work is used to / proposed to verify Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is relevant personal document which is obviously showing that his nationality was Serbian and not Croatian.

http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/kultura.71.html:330746-Ivo-Andric-potvrdio-da-je-Srbin

• Please follow the clear instructions at the top of this page: full citation, article where the work is used / proposed, statement in the article the work is used to / proposed to verify Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm on good ground here, but since it's a bit of an odd thing I figured I'd ask to make sure. I'm interested in improving the article on the

) 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, and it would count as a scholarly, academic high quality reliable source. Academics are capable of transforming any source they read, through consideration, application of disciplinary methodologies, writing about what they think, getting it reviewed and published by peers, into authorative scholarly statements which are reliable. Academics are allowed to do original research off wiki, and then by peer reviewed publication (such as by a scholarly university press), this work becomes a reliable secondary source. Good find. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was essentially what I had been thinking, I just figured I'd make sure since it felt a bit odd to be using a work that extensively draws on wikipedia as an RS.

talk

) 05:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. Academics are expected to weigh information, something that we cannot do. TFD (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the finest example of why they cannot be used. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Seems you feel "IDONTLIKETHEARTICLE" makes the facts therein false in some way? Sorry - that is not how Wikipedia works. Are you asserting the quotes are fake? You would need a strong reliable source for that claim, and so far I have seen no refutation of the quotes. So you are stuck - sometimes reliable sources print what you

know is wrong. Survive. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

According to

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a reliable source is a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does this source demonstrate fact-checking or accuracy? Does Fox News have a reputation for either? More importantly, IRS says that "care should be taken" with sources that "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view". For example, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." In the case of Fox News, I think most rational people can agree that the Fox News article, while not a journal article, is not considered reliable by the scientific community, except to show the view of climate change deniers. Therefore, Fox News cannot be considered a reliable source on the subject of climate change. This is only one example. The point is, if Fox News has a history of unreliable reporting, we should consider the possibility that they are not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia that endeavors to uses reliable sources. An easy way to determine if this is true, is to look at their record. Have they won awards for their reporting? That's a good place to start. In other words, have they been recognized for excellence in journalism? Viriditas (talk

) 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I see the old "most rational people" straw argument rear its head? Show me a false statement in the article. Show me a faked quote. Missourians unite! Chris Wallace, to name just one, - many awards, as is true of a number of the Fox News staff. Oops - just disproved your claim on that sort of carping complaint about a source you do not appear to like. The problem is, we all have to accept sources we do not like. That is how this thing is supposed to work. The premise is that using multiple sources ends up with something approaching an encyclopedia article. And that is the way it is. Collect (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, you are kidding. The entire article is false, Collect. There's nothing "reliable" about "reporting" deliberate lies. They might as well have printed "the Moon is made of green cheese". There is no difference between that statement and their article. According to IRS, we don't have to accept sources that have a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This Fox News source is a great example of such a source. No fact-checking, and inaccurate. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no fan of FOX News, in fact I consider them partisan hacks, but I'm not sure that we can say they are always an unreliable news source because of this particular example. Sure, they should not be used for climate science, or any science if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable for all news.Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, and I followed the last discussion along those lines (was it here or another noticeboard?) However, when a news organization goes to such lengths to publish explicit distortions of facts and evidence, one has to wonder about their commitment to fact-checking and accuracy. As far as I can tell, all of the arguments that say "but they are not always unreliable" amount to nothing but "Hitler was kind to animals" arguments. Fox News might publish something accurate once, but that doesn't account for the 99 other stories they distorted. I'm reminded of the "stopped clock" argument as well. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again - what is the explicit distortion you assert is in that article? And source for showing it is a "distortion". As for the

Godwin's Law violation you just made -- it shows the weakness of your argument utterly and completely. We all "know" which sources are wrong - but that is not how RS works, not how WP works, and not how real life works. Collect (talk

) 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If a source like Fox News prints 99 unreliable articles and one that is considered reliable, that doesn't mean it has a "reputation" for fact-checking and accuracy. In order for it to have such a reputation, it must actually write accurate articles and fact-check them. It should also be recognized for its reporting, for example, by awards or recognition by journalists. Is Fox News considered the paragon of fact-checking and accuracy, Collect? If not, why are you saying we should treat it as reliable? Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You made a specific charge. You appear not to have any powder in your gun. So you are left with "well I know they have been wrong somewhere, but I can't show they are wrong here" sort of? I fear the "example" you gave is not one, and you run the risk of crying wolf with such "examples." Collect (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First the Wall Street Journal, now Fox News, what else is next? Do we begin to ban Huffington Post or MSNBC? Nay. Just because editors may disagree with the editorial content of the news sources, or the way that a story is reported, that doesn't mean that all content from the given source is not reliable. Do we as editors, who are suppose to edit in a manor that is consistent with

) 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does a journalist have a responsibility to uphold journalism ethics and standards or to maintain and promote the singular viewpoint of its parent corporation or sponsor? Where do you draw the line between journalism and propaganda, between news and infotainment, between fact and fantasy? Facts may be stupid things to some people, but there is a solid ground, a place where we can all start from, a foundation we can rest our heads on and wake up in the same place the next day. Collect and others believe that Fox News has a right to report only one side of the story, and that's just fine, but reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reporting one side is neither factual nor accurate. Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could accurately state my position, Your assertion about what I "believe" is orthogonal to the truth. My position is that Wikipedia does not require that all sources exactly agree with what you know to be the Truth. Can that be accepted by you without resorting to personal asides? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread is tl;dr, but please do take into consideration that FOX is the only news organization int eh US which has successfully fought a court battle for the right to publish falsehoods without identifying them as false, instead presenting falsehood as news. The court agreed with FOX's argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102." Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102" FOX can (and does) lie in the news at will. "The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."[37] -- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's right, I forgot about that. According to some scientists, the coverage of climate science by outlets like Fox resulted in sustained attacks and threats on climate scientists. Isn't this a potential violation of the fighting words doctrine? Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidcen please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• The fact is, we have a strong consensus that Foxnews should be deemed a reliable source. In the last month we have had no less than three (more?) threads on this topic at various policy pages... and all of them have resulted in the same consensus: Individual Fox News reports can be challenged, but Fox News itself is a reliable source. The continued POV pushing on this is becoming disruptive. Please stop. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That must mean that Fox News has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm curious, how do we measure a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• BlueBoar, if FOX was deemed a RS, but has had no fewer than three threads questioning that view, perhaps the
  consensus is changing. I suggest at the very least that it be recognized that FOX is not universally accepted as an RS; that FOX has demonstrably not only lied in the news but fought and won court battles to protect their right to lie in the news; and cease accusing those who question FOX's status as an RS as "POV pushers" or "disruptive". One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice
  14:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Begins to look like forum shopping to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask, what forum am I supposed to be shopping this from? Do you know what forum shopping means, Slatersteven? Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant this as a general observtion n the fact that this has be raised a nd rejected repeatedly and different users then decide they are not happy with that so raise it again. Perhpas Forum shopping is not the right phrase to use (which is why I say its begining to look like it, its treading into "we will continue to ask the same quesation untill we get the answer we want").Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I essentially agree Griswaldo and I consider Fox for the most part as partisan hacks with little journalistic integrity. Personally I wouldn't use them to source anything, however I see no reason to ban Fox as a source in general, since there are many scenarios where Fox might largely unproblematic (consider topics which are not particularly politicized or partisan such as sports for instance). Moreover this subject has been discussed over and over (see archives) and the result was more or less always: yes Fox is often crappy, but banning fix in genereal is not possible. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So the bottom line is, you are encouraged to avoid Fox personally and you are welcome to kick out particular low quality fox articles being used for POV pushing and to relativize proper peer reviewed and/or academic sources. But this has to be judged on an individual basis and does not mean Fox cannot be used at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, considering Fox News as a reliable source always seemed to be a US insider joke to me. "Sure they are reliable *wink* *wink*....". Fox, like all large media companies, also reprints or rebroadcasts standard wire service messages, but nothing they report is reliable because it comes via Fox. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

They are no more (and no less) reliable than many other news outlets that have a biase (and no one disagrees they are biasee but are we saying that if biase can be demonstrated that renders a source non-RS?)Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias and reliability are logically independent (although in practice correlated). In a proper news medium, reporting and editorial opinion are clearly separated. Bias is restricted to opinion pieces and possibly also shows itself in the selection of what is reported. Fox, however, hopelessly muddles news and opinion. That's what makes it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So do any number of other media outlets (many of which are RS). Moreover we have asked for evidacen that FOX has actualy published lies, none have been presented.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. Wildly mixing facts and opinions in an non-transparent way is the hallmark of unreliable reporting. If there are other media outlets that do it, they are not reliable, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As discussed below, Fox news in this instance was openly basing a story on fringe blogs. Not reliable as a science report, but possible as a primary source of fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So excaclty what is ths being used as a source for? This is not about the mis-use of one story its about an attmept to remove sources whoes POV users do not agree with.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Narrow focus

I'm looking and I'm just not seeing anything unreliable about this article. Just disagreeing with the claims made in the article doesn't make it an unreliable source. Is anyone misquoted in the article? Some editors may disagree with the article's conclusions, but are there incorrect facts at all?

) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears Viriditas is using the article to support a view that FOX should not be used as a reliable source, but it is unclear whether he is making the case for Climate articles, in general, or on this specific subject. I suggest either the scope be narrowed or the subject be tabled at this time. Is the article linked to used as a source for any Wikipedia article? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the specific article is not stated false facts, it does however misrepresent topic due to false characterizations and omissions and it is definitely a no-go as a source for contested climate science or politics articles. However I agree that does not mean Fox cannot be used as a source in general nor can a specific article be used to judge a media outlet in general (all outlets produce crap once in a while anyhow. The question how much and with what prevalence and how grave the errors or mischaracterizations are).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Viriditas alleged it was somehow false - but has so far failed to provide any proof that it is false. I am sure almost every news organization has printed falsehoods, but alleging that Fox specifically deliberately does so requires some evidence. BTW, the case about the FCC was not asserting a licence to deliberately tell falsehoods, but was rather broader - does any governmnet have the right to assert that only pravda can be published? In fact, many countries have such "laws" and (for some odd reason) are not considered to have a "free press" as required by the US Constitution here. From my position, requiring "truth" (as defined by the government) would violate the Constitution - and it appears the US legal system agrees. Collect (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed, its just being ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, it are discussions similar to this one that brings the critics of Wikipedia in general, claiming that it

one of the core principles of our community. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 15:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Conveniently, Myths and falsehoods from the assault on global warming science | Media Matters for America provides an analysis of the claims in the Fox news article. While that appears to be a politically partisan source, in much the same way as Fox news is, it provides links to sources supporting its analysis which are open to careful consideration. Fox also provides links, largely to the
  Pajamas Media blog which appears to be the basis of its article. That would only appear to be a reliable souce as a selfpublished primary source of libertanian thought. . . dave souza, talk
  15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that it also mentions The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Washington Times. Are these also unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ has a fairly questionable opinion page, but is reasonably RS for facts from its proper news reporting. I don't know the NYP. The WaTimes was the

Moonie rag. It's reliability is extremely questionable indeed.--Stephan Schulz (talk

) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<ec> Depends on the context. The Wall Street Journal has a track record of promoting misinformation about climate science but is likely to be as reliable as other business papers for business matters, The Washington Times apparently has a reputation for promoting themes congenial to its Unification Church ownership, no comment on the New York Post. However, in this case the focus is on Fox news spreading blog misinformation, as with its promotion of the flawed Anthony Watts (blogger)#SurfaceStations.org claims which went all quiet when a peer reviewed study showed that the supposedly badly placed thermometers recorded less warming than other thermometer stations. . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but its a question about the general rule of RS. If Fox is not RS then any other source that demonstrates the saem tendancies must also be non-RS. The question is is this driven by a desire to make wikipedia more accurae or just an attpemt to make iot present a POV as the truth and reject any dissenting POV ?15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Agreed, we should be very careful about any source that has a reputation for promoting misinformation and basing stories on fringe blogs. In the same way, we should avoid using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP or science issues. Always best to find a more reliable source. Of course I assume that everyone here is driven by a desire to make wikipedia more accurate, and trust that you'll agree that fringe "dissenting POV" should be shown as such in accordance with weight policy. . . dave souza, talk 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on what its being used as a source for. What is this artciel being used as a source for? This begins to look more like a weight issue then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters has stated specifically that they are out to discredit Fox News. New York Times News Max. It makes sense then that there is an effort here to discredit reliable source news organizations that have an american conservative editorial lean. That doesn't mean though that it should continue. Nor should reliable source news organizations that have an american liberal editorial lean should not be considered reliable sources. Views should be given due weight, but articles should be edited from a NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires giving due weight to majority expert views, and Fox news clearly lacks scientific expertise which is better represented by reputable scientific organisations such as NASA, and by peer reviewed publications. You'll note I was careful to draw attention to the open agenda of Media Matters, and recommend examining their claims with the same care that is needed for Fox news. Your comments on politics are interesting, but when dealing with the validity of science are irrelevant. Of course I appreciate that

reality has a well known liberal bias. . . . dave souza, talk

16:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Narrowed the focus

As the OP is not going to I will. Is Fox news RS for climate science?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The content that is supported by Fox News, or other reliable sources, that is skeptical of Man caused global warming should be included; but content supported by it should be given no less, or no more weight, then other content supported by Fox News, or other reliable sources, that support content that supports man caused global warming. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously in error both about reliable sources for science and about our weight policy. You also appear to be misusing the term "skeptical", but that's a common political ploy so understandable. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Can you specify any specific false statements in the example given at the start of this? Any false quotes? WP does not (repeat - does not) give special weight to "correct science" per ArbCom. The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion. shows the current ArbCom position clearly. Curiously enough,

WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 17:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Collect, please read carefully. My assumption is that, in all good faith, an editor has been misled by a common political ploy which uses "skeptic" to mean "credulous". You request an example of a false statement: the opening line "By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data" is a falsehood. The emails they cite, and link to via download from Pajamas Media, show two responses to Today clarifying that each data set has advantages for specific purposes, NCDC being best for reporting US means, and HadCRUT for global means. As Hansen states, the GISS series uses different methods such as extrapolating polar temperatures which is appropriate for evaluating modelling and showing Arctic anomolies which check out well against other methods. NASA clearly did not admit its records are in "worse shape", they explained to a reporter that the different datasets use different methods for different purposes, and cooperate to understand the implications of differences in the results. All that is available from the Fox web page, but contradicts the Fox spin. Oddly enough, a lot of the "besmirching" of CRU was because they used additional met office records which may well have improved their accuracy, but were not available for republication and hence not included in the other more "open" datasets. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You assert its falsity. Thanks. Now show a source which shows that the statement is false. That was the important half. Frankly if two or more sets of data are used for different purposes, it is reasonable to assert that the data sets do not furnish congruent results. Is there a reason why you would dispute that? I recall in Physics lab courses that we had to play the cards we were dealt - that choosing different data sets was not proper in scientific research. Is that no longer true? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source linked from the Fox article shows that their statement "by its own admission" is false. To add to the fun, Fox use

quote mining when they write "He said 'the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,' admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings." The email states "to get the US means,the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate. If that were our goal, we would proceed in the same way." More accurate for US means is not the same as an unqualified "more accurate". Which is why care has to be taken when using a source like Fox with a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk

21:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is still too broad. We can not determine whether Fox is RS for climate science, because we need to know a0 which Fox report are we talking about, and b) exactly what statement are we using the Fox report to support. Reliability always comes down to examining the specific statement that we make in our articles, and never can be assessed for entire topic areas. A Fox report (or any other media source) is unlikely to be reliable for a broad assertion that some bit of climate data is flawed... but it would be highly likely to be an excellent source for a statement that some individual has said the data is flawed. Again, this isn't just Fox... Media sources in general are terrible sources when it comes to supporting specific science facts. However media sources in general are excellent sources when it comes to supporting reaction to and opinion concerning those science facts. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Fox, but Fox is particularly bad :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but Fox News is a news agency that does not conduct independent research in the climate science area (as well as in any other). The only thing it can do is to transmit the opinion of some climatologist, or similar expert. Therefore, the Fox is a reliable source for such statement as "An expert X believes that ...", or "Study performed by YYY demonstrate that...". However, in that case why cannot we simply quote the opinion of X, or present the results of the studies made by YYY directly? Obviously, the fact that all of that has been transmitted by Fox does not give more or less weight to these studies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor do ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Reuters, AP, UPI, NYT etc. They report as journalists and not as researchers. The interview people. Scientists do not interview people about such issues as Climate Change. Your point is identically valid for every news organization in the universe. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Therefore, I do not know what is the need to use the journalist report about some research if the result of this research can be taken directly from the research articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but news agencies and in particular Fox open a way for non peer reviewed publications/opinions of "experts". An old trick to circumvent "academic quality control" (similarly like think tanks, vanity publications, industry sponsored journals), that's why the "reliability" of such publication is of interest of anybody who primarily wants to push POv rather than writing a quality article. In addition publication in news outlets are often easier to read/understand for lay people than the original scientific publications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

However, just because Fox News has a certain editorial bias, doesn't meant that it is any less reliable than other sources that have different editorial bias. Also as stated above, if a news story, is sourcing from a particular expert or a particular study, then it should be as Paul Siebert has stated, it shouldn't be said that MSNBC, or Fox News, or any other news organization X says this. Rather, it should be expert X says, the result of study Y concluded Z. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not its editorial bias that determines if it is unreliable, it is its reputation for fact checking and accuracy which is poor. So, basically it boils down to "Blake Snow, a freelance journalist, media consultant, and iPod user, passed on gossip from Pajamas Media and allegations made by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute." These aren't good sources for science, but do form one extreme of the political debate. . . dave souza, talk 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there seems to be a common confusion between bias and reliability. It's about accuracy not bias and the reliability judges the accuracy and not the (ideological) bias. The issue with fox is not its ideological (conservative) bias, but that it often produces shoddy inaccurate pieces from grossly misleading (mis)representations to factually incorrect statements.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And when there is evidence that a specific news report (from any news outlet) is inaccurate, it is fine to challenge whether that specific report is reliable for a specific statement made in a Wikipedia article. But the determination needs to be made on a case by case basis, and not in a blanket "X news outlet is bad" basis (because that news outlet may be absolutely reliable in a different context). Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh,

WP:SOURCES – "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" where "sources" means the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work – "All three can affect reliability." All news reports should be used with care, but some publishers have a better reputation than others. In my view none are absolutely reliable, but as you say, much depends on context and field of use. . . dave souza, talk

04:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a signed article which mixes the author's opinion with facts and also contains statements attributed to other people. Good editors should be able to separate out the three. This btw is typical of signed articles in any publication. Can anyone state any "fact" in the article which is false? TFD (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, "by its own admission" is false, and Fox's quote mining misrepresents a statement by another person which is clearly qualified to refer only to US mean temperatures: the Fox article calls their cropped version "an unequivocal no". You seem to be suggesting that such misrepresentation of facts is to be separated out as "the author's opinion", but that evidently casts doubts on the author's interpretation or selective use of the other facts stated in the article which I've not checked in detail. There's a danger of requiring original research to get anything factual out of the Fox article. . . dave souza, talk 06:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you see the Fox author's statement "Still, "confidence" is not the same as scientific law, something the public obviously recognizes." as a statement of fact or opinion? This reference to scientific law makes no sense in the context, but is reminiscent of a common creationist misunderstanding. . . dave souza, talk 06:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As we are talking about mis-representing what a source says. Fox does not say that Nasa data "by its own admision" is "false" it says "By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar fail: I was summarising my statement above, "By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data" is a falsehood. NASA admitted no such thing, it stated that each dataset served a different function, and the HadCRUT dataset ("besmirched Climate-gate data" is of course Fox spin and not admitted by NASA) was better for world mean temps, while the NASA records were better for modelling purposes. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/#ixzz1MKZ94BsC Some Fox to enjoy: [38] :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Those editors who disagree with the editorial bias of the Fox News will never be convinced that Fox News is a reliable source; so far that is what I have taken away from this discussion. This discussion does not further the goals of our community, rather it continues to provide weight to those who may criticize our efforts by claiming it has an overall

) 14:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree that Fox news can be used as a reference for content in some circumstances, but has not got a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy so any use will have to be discussed on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of accuracy, it is not far from the AP, CNN, etc. If we wish to single out one, let us list all. Your main complaint appears to be that its opinion articles are full of ... opinions. Funny thing - this is true of all opinion articles whatever the source! If you are upset that their opinion articles do not back the

WP:TRUTH, then this is the wrong place for you to be arguing. For standard news articles - it appears on a par with their competition. Collect (talk

) 20:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox appear to present this as a news article, but, as you suggest, it's only really useful as a source of opinion. Some news organisations have a better reputation for fact checking and accuracy than others, but of course every source should be reviewed to ensure accuracy. Unfortunately some editors seem to think

WP:TRUTH requires us to give equal validity to fringe views in scientific subjects, but I'm sure you'll agree that's not in accordance with policy. . . dave souza, talk

20:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we all gather your opinion about the opinions expressed in the article. That does not, however, have a scintilla of effect on what

WP:RS is about. All it shows it that yu are angered that the "truth" is not presented by someone. I hate to tell you this, but that is why the Climate Change case went to ArbCom. And referring to "fringe opinions" is rather silly. As long as the opinion is sourced to an RS and is cited as opinion, we are stuck with it. And so far you have not shown a fact to be incorrect in the article - only that you dislike its opinions. Heck, I disagree with most news organizations most of the time it seems <g>. And I survive without trying to call them names. Collect (talk

) 20:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that Dave souza is "angered" about anything. Collect, I would like to ask you to please abide by Wikipedia:Etiquette, as your continuing speculation about the emotions of other editors is neither reflected in the discussion nor is it relevant. Furthermore, Dave souza has directly showed you how the source is both inaccurate and incorrect.[39] For you to turn around after he has explained this and claim that he has not, shows a problem with your reading comprehension skills. We are not calling news organizations "names", so your entire response misses the mark. We are saying that Fox News is not a reliable source for climate change articles, and by extension, Fox News is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, because they do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To reiterate what other editors have already said: this has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with having a reputation for checking facts and writing accurate articles. I say that based on the sources we've seen, Fox News does not have this reputation, and I challenge other editors to show me that it does, with regards to recognition, awards, etc. If this isn't making sense to you, let me know and I'll rephrase it another way to accommodate your unique communication style. The burden of proof is on those who claim Fox News is a reliable source. I'm asking to see that proof. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave did not see any attack, and I intended no attack, so your ability to see one is quite remarkable indeed. Fox News, in fact, does have a good record on accuracy about facts - the main issues come with people who feel they have some consistent biases in opinions which they publish or air. And again - Fox News has award-winning journalists, which makes the claim that they have no awards a bit ludicrous. And per

WP:RS. Cheers. Meanwhile, be advised that asides about "reading comprehension skills" and the like do run afoul of civility, as you have been told before by others. I trust you have not forgotten the warnings given you thereon. Collect (talk

) 00:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are what are applicable. Anything else is what journalists report. I do have to say that any news source that is as polemicist-laden as Fox and advertises itself as "Fair & Balanced" usually isn't. "V Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully agreed. In addition, since the majority of this noticeboard's audience hardly speak Russian (and hardly know Soviet time jokes), the latter Peters' quote needs some explanation. This is a Soviet time joke that refers to two major soviet newspapers: "Pravda" (literally "truth") and "Isvestiya" (short for "Isvestiya Verkhovnogo Soveta Narodnykh Deputatov", "Proceedings of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR"; "Izvestiya" can also be translated as "News"). Therefore, this joke, which literally means "There is no "Isvestiya" in "Pravda", and there is no "Pravda" in "Isvestiya"", can also be understood as "There id no news in "Pravda" and there is no truth in "Isvastiya"". I believe, by quoting this joke Peters implied some analogy between the Fox News and major Soviet Communist newspapers, which, I concede, is partially correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Having kept some of the climate change articles on my watch list and dealing with the latest silliness every so often I can say I have no problems with Fox News afficianados coming along with their latest shock revelations. Trying to ban them in this way is no way to deal with the stuff, it needs calm discussion not trying to gag their favourite rag. Can we be rid of this stuff here please and not raise it yet again, It has gone nowhere and quite rightly so too I think. The original article for instance that started all this can be summarized as 'NASA thinks East Anglia's historical data is better than their own'. Hardly earth shattering and not exactly anything that says much about climate change.

Dmcq (talk

) 09:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is such an effort to remove conservative reliable sources from wikipedia, it just furthers the bias that is alleged of our community. Imagine if someone were to propose that MSNBC and the New York Times be banned as reliable sources, the outcry that would arise. So is it any wonder the outcry that has occured here? Fox News is a Reliable Source; MSNBC is a Reliable Source ... lets move on and close this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading the "outcry" here, there's a reason to wonder indeed. As it seems some authors worry more about the alleged or real ideological bias of source than its accuracy. And frankly if that's the case they are ill equipped to be WP authors in the first place. Basing reliability on (preferred) ideological bias rather than the accuracy of a source might be acceptable WP alternatives like Conservapedia & co, but here it is not.

The reason why MSNBC and the NYT might fare slightly better than Fox is, that they seem to provide on average a better accuracy. But so do other "conservative" media outlets like the Wall Street Journal or Germany's FAZ for instance, hence you hardly hear complaints about them. To emphasize this again the issue is about accuracy and not ideological bias. It is not about conservative versus liberal (nvm that this is a rather US centric framing which doesn't make much sense in WP anyway) or left versus right, but about accurate versus inaccurate. That's btw why we prefer academic peer reviewed publications (if available) or other expert publication over any mainstream news media outlet (be it Fox or MSNBC or whatever).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But no one has demonstrated that Fox has in fact inaccurately reported what has been said. In fact the only inaccuracy appears to be what has been claimed Fox said. The objection is that Fox has reported what some bloger has said, that is not an RS issue unless tnhey have reported what he said inacuratly is tht hte case?Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My reflection on this point here is that what is claimed Fox said, is inaccurate, fits the opinion that Fox is indeed inaccurate of those editors who already believe it, therefore for those who already have the opinion/believe that it is inaccurate, then those reports that validate those beliefs are seen as entirely true and valid to them, as it conforms with their opinion/belief. It's circular logic, but this maybe what is occurring here. Therefore let us close this topic, that Fox News is in fact a reliable source, that how that source is to be used, or whether opinion is being stated as fact, be dealt with on a case by case basis, as would any other bias news outlet (such as the american opposite, MSNBC), and we can be done with this exercise in futility. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave souza stated above explicitly what was inaccurate and why (posting "grammar fail"). This isn't really a question of belief or ideological conviction. But I must say, that you don't even see the inaccuracies even when they are explicitly spelled out to you and instead keep reframing it as an ideological "left versus right"-issue is quite telling. Having said that I agree that "reliability" of Fox depends on the context/individual case and hence a general ban makes no sense nor would there be a consent for that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No he has said what he thinks is inacurate, but no one has provided any evidance that this is the case. What did NASA say to USA today? Hpw does this differ from what Fox has said? Did NASA say tht thier data is not as good as the CRU? OK this may help to clear things up http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf. These seem to be the e-mails in question. They seem to say that NASA does not consider its data as good as that of the NCDC, and that they do not attempt to compete with either it or the Hadley centre (or Dr Phil Jones). So it would appear that whilst Fox has spun the story (putting to much empahsis on CRU which is not specificaly mentioned in the e-mails) they do not appear to have mislead as NASA do say that their data is not as good as other climate change data.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've carefully discussed above how the Fox account misrepresents the emails you link to on the Pajamas Media website, you appear to fail to understand that "to get the US means, NCDC's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate" is not the same as your paraphrase "NASA does not consider its data as good as that of the NCDC". It may help if you can realise that these are different analyses of the same shared data, with different selection procedures. As NASA's Hansen explains in the email he sent, "I would not claim that one is superior to the other, but the different results provide one conservative measure of uncertainty. In general it has proven very useful to have more than one group do the analysis. ... And in general it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority. Science doesn't usually work best that way." NASA's analysis of the data is better for evaluating their modelling, the NCDC analysis is better if you want to report U.S. mean temperatures. Your failure to follow this looks increasingly tendentious, please accept that Fox news has a poor reputation for science reporting. . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see

is. Data is factual, interpretation of data can at worse be opinion, at best be consensus by a community of learned logical non-emotionally involved individuals.

There are some reputable sources that have said that climate change and/or environmentalism can be considered a religion. 123456 This may play a factor here, but assuming good faith, we are all editors who are suppose to be logical non-emotionally involved individuals who are not suppose to be pushing any POVs, and are only giving our personal opinions on whether a given source can be considered a reliable source based on the criteria set forth in the relevant page. It appears there that some editors see the source, at large, as reliable, while other editors have a different opinion that, at large, it is not. Therefore, there does not appear to be a consensus, and articles are therefore reviewed on a case by case basis.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there does appear to be consensus in this discussion that Fox News has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and your claim that "climate change and/or environmentalism can be considered a religion" is a nice distraction from this discussion, but has zero to do with Dave's comment and less than zero to do with the discussion about Fox News as an unreliable source. Fox News misrepresents the state of climate science on a daily basis for ideological reasons, and consistently makes inaccurate claims abut climate science and errors, to the point where their coverage appears to be a deliberate distortion of the data, not an innocent mistake. In other words Fox News is not a reliable source for any article about climate science, and I suggest by extension, that Fox News cannot be considered a reliable source for any encyclopedic topic on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could set me straight by providing a single source from Fox News about climate science that is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because a user believes that there is consensus, doesn't make it so. There is more than one user, not including myself, who does not believe that Fox News is not a reliable source, but in fact is a reliable source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Iterating a claim of "cnsensus" does not make it "consensus" and looking at the verbiage on this page leads me to iterate [40]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is somewhat of consensus that fox (nor any other "mainstream media outlet") is not a good source on (climate) science, but the appropriate sources for science topics are academic (peer reviewed) publications (Yes, there 2 users insisting on a different take, but they are the only ones and hardly in line with best practices in WP (peer reviewed acsademic publications).

Also RightCowLeftCoast has again attempted to frame it as an issue of ideology or ideological bias rather than an issue of accuracy. So to emphasize this again the problem is not the ideological bias of Fox, but the low quality of its reporting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this review which gives 5/5 to

) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Websites are so difficult to evaluate. The author of this review does seem to be an experienced music critic.[41]. And this is clearly more than a personal website, being part of a larger network. Maybe contact Rick and ask him if the reviews on the site are simply marketing vehicles. Or maybe look to see if there are any negative reviews on the site. Sometimes there are wikiprojects that give guidance, but I couldn't find one in this instance. My feeling is that if there's some sense that the reviews are objective, then this could be used as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

• Super Injunction

A discussion is going on over at

09:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sina.con source http://news.sina.com.hk/news/12/1/1/2332415/1.html%20sina.com.hk -
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This source is in Chinese, a Google Translate version is at [42]. This does not add greatly to what is already known, and risks creating a

WP:BLPGOSSIP feedback loop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The source appears to be reliable to me. But, if others are uncertain, then you can just include a statement in the article akin to "In May of 2011 it was reported that Ryan Giggs obtained a super-injunction to keep information regarding an affair with Imogen Thomas from being reported by the English media." and then cite to the sina article. CavalierLion (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That is almost exactly what I added. VERTott 07:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved in a discussion at

which states that we can take PhD level dissertations but not Masters theses. Can anyone give any indication about which a 'D level paper' is, or does he just mean that he got a distinction?

In either case his work (Wallin H; An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction)) does not appear to have been cited by anybody (as far as my limited resources can make out), should it be used as a source? Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Masters Theses can in some cases be acceptable when they're widely cited, or subject to serious interrogation prior to the thesis being accepted, and in all cases only where the claim being attached to the thesis is a central (not a peripheral) claim of the thesis. I suspect we need an Engineering RS expert to adjudicate the relevance of this particular text to the claim it supports. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well I don't hold out much hope of such an expert showing up at the article talk. As neither myself not the author has been able to provide any citations and he doesn't really seem to understand what is meant by peer reviewed, I'm inclined to consider this resolved. As to what claim was supported by the thesis - it's difficult to say as it was essentially just thrown into the references section after rewriting the article. Theres been a few suggestions on the talk page that virtually the whole article is sourced from either the thesis or subject expertise. Anyones welcome to step in here since frankly I've had enough with all the allegations of bullying, harrassment etc. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless he provides the relevant referencing information to verify the thesis was passed at doctoral level i.e institition, examiner, date it was passed, then we operate on the basic assumption it is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A "D level" thesis is usually either a master's thesis or an advanced bachelor's thesis. The "D" indicates the level within the study programme, not a grade or distinction. (There is more to it than this, but it doesn't really matter here.) The quality can vary from quite excellent to pretty crappy. The better stuff sometimes gets published in slightly revised form or gets incorporated in a later doctoral thesis.

People Who Know What They Are Doing might cite such studies (I have seen it and can offer an example, but I don't think anyone cares enough), but when they do they can be trusted to, well, know what they are doing and take responsibility for it. In Wikipedia, where anyone can write anything, I think it is mostly unwise to do so. I'd suggest to the user that he submits his paper for publication somewhere. --Hegvald (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is allhiphop.com a reliable source for the arrest etc info in this section of the article Juelz_Santana#Legal_Issues? there doesnt seem to be anything about it in the mainstream news [43] Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Could you supply which bit of allhiphop.com is used or proposed for use to verify Juelz Santana's life? (In passing I'd note that allhiphop.com has an editor, and a list of retained content producers, satisfying the requirement for an editorial policy). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The stories are [44] and [45] (one of which is using as its source the New York Post which particularly doesnt sit well with me for this type of claim) Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is

, a source from a news blog was removed, with the edit summary stating:

remove poor quality reference'

— John Nevard (talk · contribs)

I am inviting JN to this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a self published source. Perfectly fine for background information about the blog itself, very questionable for articles on things it opposes, like the

history of rejection of the site as a source. Nevard (talk

) 08:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly fails

WP:RS. It's a personal web project and would be unusable even if it didn't have such a poor reputation. Zero^talk

09:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What News Blogs would then be considered a reliable source? At what point does a Citizen Journalist news source considered reliable, and when is it not, regardless of any bias (left, center, or right)? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look for things like editorial oversight, a reputable publisher, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, a professional background in the subject under discussion by the author, and a recognition for excellence in journalism, investigative reporting and news coverage by independent organizations. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is a reliable source in this instance because it's quoting an AP article and the AP part is clearly delineated by the gray background. A better reason for removing it, though, is because it repeats facts (again via AP) in the Fox News reference that precedes it. (But, I don't know of a rule outlawing redundant references; sometimes it's the more the merrier.) Kenatipo ^speak! 00:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability isn't inherited from the content. It depends on a reputation for fact-checking best evaluated by an editorial board, a reputable publisher, the authority of the author, and a reputation for accuracy as reflected by independent assessments of the source. It doesn't matter what a source quotes; what matters is whether we can trust it. As a self-published blog, it fails the reliability test. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And if an unreliable source quotes a reliable source then why does anyone need to use the unreliable one in the first place? That's a rather strange argument Kenatipo.Griswaldo (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, the reliable source evaporates. The littlegreenfootballs article may be an example: it is linked to the original AP story but when you click the link you get "This article is no longer available". Kenatipo ^speak! 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works, Kenatipo. We have guidelines explaining how to deal with dead links, including archived URL's. A reliable source does not "evaporate", only the link may expire. When that happens, it requires good research skills to find the source. That's why we always want to document the full citation. What we don't do, is cite unreliable sources in order to quote the reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same wise, a video on Youtube is not automatically dismissed because it's hosted on Youtube: it depends on who produced the video. If it was ABC Evening News, or C-SPAN, e.g., then it's a reliable source. Kenatipo ^speak! 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same at all. There is a difference between citing a copyright violating link and citing a news program. Again, this is why it is important to fully cite a source, including the name, date, and title as documentation. The link itself is helpful, but not required. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer the Original Poster's question: Is

news blog, a reliable source? Generally speaking, no, for all the reasons given above. In this case, however, it probably is because it is clearly quoting an article by AP, which it was even linked to. Kenatipo ^speak!

03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, in this case it is not. We don't cite unreliable sources to quote a reliable source it may cite. We also go to the original, and in this case, we don't need LGF to do that. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, if a source is unreliable then we cannot trust it to accurately report what another reliable source said. So no, in this case it still isn't a reliable source. Find the original reliable source and use it, not LGF.Griswaldo (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. There are a thousand ways to find the original AP article if you want to, and a link isn't required merely to cite the article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is urbancinefile.com.au reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=25&s=About_Us it syndicates its content to other reliable sources, which probably makes a compelling case that it is a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that upcomingcons.com has aparently been approved [46] as a reliable source by the Anime project from the about us

"We want to be the most complete fan resource for conventions, hosting pictures, convention listings, and a diverse user community.

What makes you different? We have the technology to be the most up-to-date and complete fan resource so far created. All our data is unique and updated by hand, and we are updating it regularly. Other websites might have a nice design, or might have been around forever, we have the advantage in technology. We are using the latest technology to have more features, more up-to-date listings, and a bigger community than anyone.

Who's running the place?

Ryan Kopf (at ryankopf.com). He started UpcomingCons.com because he loves making websites, and he loves conventions. Why not mix the two

Nothing in there about fact checking etc. In this particular instance the content appears innocuous enough, but it is used in a number of other articles. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This book, edited and written in part by Antero Leitzinger, is also published by Leitzinger. Should this have any bearing concerning this book as a

) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Amazon says "Leitanger Books," not "Leitzinger Books." But I think that's a typo, since most sources say Leitzinger. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this publisher on the Internet other than in connection with books by Leitzinger. Which does strongly suggest it's self published and would be constrained by

WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So specifically, the parts written by him could be used since he is a published political scientist, whereas other parts written by non-specialized individuals could not be used? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to bring up the matter of the supposed image of

.

The image has kept me wondering because to my knowledge none of the recognized primary sources for 16th Century Philippines has a description of a supposed flag of Lakandula, much less an image. If such a description exists, then this image would only be a speculative reconstruction. Until someone shows me the text, however, I believe this image is totally unsupported by historical sources.

My initial queries at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Precolonial_Kingdoms_of_the_Pasig_Delta suggest that the uploader, probably in good faith, may have based the image on http://www.watawat.net/early_flags_and_symbols_-_2.html -- a site which explains the image simply by saying

"The red flag or red banner was the typical symbol of the Kingdom of Rajah Lakandula (Lacandola for the spaniards), this color follows the traditional colors adopted by the ancient rulers of the islamic kingdoms of the Filipino area."

If we examine that statement (itself unsourced), I think it's clear that the shape, at least, of the flag as portrayed there is speculative.

The next paragraph, sourced from "Historia General de Filipinas" describes another flag, the white one portrayed on the site. The source describes it merely as a white banner (and not a personal heraldic or regimental symbol), without describing the shape. So again, the image is speculative. I mention that because I think it brings the reliability of this specific page into question.

As it stands, I do not believe the image should remain on the pages its on, and in fact, I believe it ought to be deleted as a speculative image of a historical item (the speculative part including the question of whether that historical item exists AT ALL.)

I am not certain how to proceed, I've never had to question the sourcing of an image before. Any advice? -- Alternativity (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there's not a reliable source for this and that it may also violate

WP:NOR. Seems like it could be removed. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready to take it off the pages, but what and how do I tag the image itself so it doesn't get put in any other pages, or continue to mislead people? - Alternativity (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You could put it through

WP:G3 at a stretch, although this could get you in trouble if the reviewing admin isn't sympathetic. There appears to be little point in keeping the image around if it's only going to mislead or spread OR, even if it is good faith. Bob House 884 (talk

) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is nxtnews.com/ a reliable source

Looks like it has some copyvio. It is being used for the article above. What do others think?

talk

) 18:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

After reading the about us section, I would think it is not an inherently reliable source, there's no information on who they are or what editorial oversight they provide. Seems like to me it's a site of SPS. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a group blog to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that they have editor Muhammad Shoaib (Admin & Editor-in-chief)[47] Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2010 considered a reliable source for biographical information on persons elected to Parliament at the 2010 UK general election?

) 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete misrepresentation of the issue with the source in order to get an answer that suits you. The source claims that Gerry Adams was a founding member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, a claim which does not appear in a single book of the many that have been written about the IRA and is in fact directly contradicted by at least two of them. O Fenian (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim that I am engaged in "misrepresentaion" is uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. I suggest you strike it through. In fact, I have been using The Times Guide... as a source across a number of articles for several months, Gerry Adams being only the most recent. I'm seeking guidance as to the reliability of the source in general. We can then discuss further this particular case. Now, I have asked you a question about your sources on both the article talk page and on your user talk. It would be helpful if you could answer it.

talk

) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement to assume good faith with sockpuppets of banned editors, Irvine22. O Fenian (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have previously made that bad faith allegation in a sockpuppet report, which was found to be groundless. At this point, I suggest you either engage civilly with the matter to hand, or disengage.

talk

) 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it did not. You are obviously unaware that checkuser cannot prove innocence, Irvine22. O Fenian (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to explore that matter further in another forum. I'm here to seek guidance as to whether The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2010 is considered a reliable source of biographical information for persons elected to Parliament at the 2010 UK general election.

talk

) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for answering general questions about reliability. Read the five points at the top of the page and be specific. Maccy69 (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the precise edit[[48]] I made at

talk

) 23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that there are other more detailed sources on this question, I don't see what adding a brief mention from a general guidebook adds to the article. Also since the guidebook is itself making an unsourced statement about something that is not an acknowledged fact (Adams disputes that he was a member at all, other sources don't claim he was a founding member) then I don't think it's sufficiently reliable to be included in this case. General guides and general journalistic portraits work well as sources for information that is not contested but they don't have sufficient expertise to be used when things are more complex. Maybe it's more a case of not giving

WP:NPOVN. Still, if the question was that the Times Guide is a reliable source for some general, uncontested information about and MP, I'd say yes; but it's not so authoritative or notable that its position on Adam's IRA membership deserves its own mention. Maccy69 (talk

) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks!

talk

) 16:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science

We have an editor unfamiliar with our policies on original resource and sources editing this rather poor article. With this edit [49] he's moved on from just using primary sources, but I'm not sure that this sources are appropriate (and he's introduced a new problem, he doesn't know how to cite}. In the first paragraph he adds a source which appears to be just a blog [50] (as well as a source for the Qur'an translation which I don't think should be used). The paragraph on Black Holes uses a Wiki arguing against the idea that the Qur'an predicts black holes. I've also just noticed that there are other problematic sources added by other editors.

) 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In its current few imho it be even an case for AfD. The title alone seems already problematic and somewhat unencyclopedic to me and prone to fringe/Original reasearch. The article might be acceptable, if it is written as an (historic) outside view of the interaction islam and science based on highly reputable (academic publication as sources only), but currently that doesn't seem to be the case. --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some of the non-compliant material. The print sources need verification. The same editor is going around adding similar things (scientific predictions in the Quran), using OR or non-RSs, to other articles. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That user might be in urgent assistance for guidance/a mentor and if that doesn't help at all administrative sanctions. --Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone new has come along, claimed consensus on the talk page, and readded it. How is [51] a reliable source? "Allvoices is a global, open-media news site where anyone can report from anywhere". I don't want to edit war however.

talk

) 18:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks like it was filed by a reporter rather than their blog section so I'd say it was okay. It is a report of some professor writing a book about the stuff. I think the article would be of interest to

Dmcq (talk

) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to accept the reliability of a source that contains sentences like "Expert on earth sciences (geology) is the peel variety of scientific discoveries about the universe the essence of truth that agrees Koran."???? Paul B (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not! Half of the sourcing looks like a joke and is not acceptable in particular since a contested topic to begin with causing problems/complaints since the creation of the article. However imho it will require some real experts with a lot of of support from other editors and admins to clean that mess. On such a difficult subject in doubt any source that's not from notable expert published in an academic publication needs to go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure dmcq is incorrect - that report looks like it was contributed by a random allvoices user without editorial oversight etc, and is not a reliable source.

talk

) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, anyway the guideline about coping with this sort of stuff is

Dmcq (talk

) 19:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

S**t, you're right. Why have I not been told? And I have wont even have time to finish repainting the bedroom. Paul B (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the about Allvoices page, it's pretty clear that all their reports are user-generated and fall under

undue woeight. A self-published article about a book is not a reliable source. Maccy69 (talk

) 19:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all references from nxtnews.com and provided sources . My re-edited verion can be read at {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qur%27an_and_science#Movement_of_mountains movement of mountains} Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Links #4 and #7-12 still look rather questionable to me. Moreover #12 is still nxtnews article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is http://thehothits.com reliable for facts about music videos, such as where they were shot? There's a DYK nomination using this source: "Stan Walker back with brand new video 'Loud'". --Lexein (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Can I get an assessment of this source? --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is a blog site. relating information from this site I think would be malicious. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To me it appears that this website can be used to support opinions or findings described by the people interviewed, people such as Taner Edis, Luke Galen, DJ Grothe, Eddie Tabash and Paul Kurtz. Opinions put forward by the interviewers should not be used. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Blogs should not in general be assumed to be reliable reports of interviews. Zero^talk 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a report of an interview, it's a podcast, which I think is a different beast.

talk

) 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP here is removing it on the basis of this discussion, by the way. And he removed another source because it didn't link to Google books (although I agree it wasn't cited properly at all, it linked to Amazon and needed work).

talk

) 12:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that podcasts can be used with a bit of caution as reliable sources of the interviewees views and also reliable sources about the topics they speak on if the interviewees are recognized authorities. As said above the interviewer should not be counted as reliable in any way. 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The instructions at the top say it is often helpful to include "The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting", and I think this is one of those times. Any source is reliable for something (even an obviously useless blog post is perfectly reliable for the fact that the blog post existed, or was posted with a given timestamp), but we need to know what, exactly, you're trying to support with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the Federation of American Scientists' Intelligence Resource Program (specifically this) a reliable source. mauchoeagle _(c) 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Steven Aftergood approved the content of that page, and Aftergood is the FAS Director of Government Secrecy. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As part of an on-going dispute regarding Karen Armstrong here and here, do the works from any of these sources qualify as reliable sources: Hudson Institute, Media Matters, The Hill and Manuscript Library, Middle East Forum.Sleetman (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, with attribution. But we'd need to decide on a case-by-case basis. Please provide a link to the specific source and the text of the exact statement that the source is being used to support (as the guidelines at the top of this page specify). TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the sources currently in dispute:

Quote - Regarding Armstrong's writing on the Crusades, a lecture by the late professor James M. Powell of Syracuse University called Armstrong's The New York Times Magazine article The Crusades Even Now as following "more in the tradition of a moral sermon than an effort to understand the past"

Source - James M. Powell, the late Professor Emeritus of Medieval History ^[1] whose quote was published by The Hill and Manuscript Library.^[2]

Quote - Thomas Madden criticized her book Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World as "largely an exercise in modern left-wing rhetoric about sensitivity, tolerance, and the evils of Western civilization."

Source - Thomas Madden, director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.^[3] and "considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States"^[4][5][6][7] whose quote appeared in a paper published by the Hudson institute.^[8]Sleetman

Quote - Daniel Pipes criticized her book, Islam: A Short History, as "foully dishonest," containing "factual inaccuracies" and engaging in "moral relativism."

Source - Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum^[9]Sleetman (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hudson Institute and Media Matters are both somewhat partisan groups (not sure about the others), so that should typically be noted if they're used to make a claim about a politician.

talk

) 18:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here...despite their partisanship, you're saying that works by the Hudson institute and Media Matters making claims about other people can still be published?Sleetman (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no: I think it's an editorial decision which sources to include in the article. For example, our article on the

talk

) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• First source: it's the a speech posted on the website of a manuscript library. No evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking, so it's about the same as a blog post by Powell. Possibly a RS, but not for criticism in a BLP. (The way it was used is also problematic, since the quotes seem a bit cherry-picked). Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• So you're suggesting that the library which republished the transcript of the lecture has no editorial oversight or fact-checking capabilities? [52] Are you also suggesting the potentially libelous suggestion that James M. Powell who was a Professor Emeritus of Medieval History at a prestigious university publishes works that lack academic rigour? Also, I would urge contributors to this section to take Guettarda's comments about reliable sources with a mouthful of salt as the user seems to have no problem regarding self-published web-blogs as reliable sources. Sleetman (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm saying that there's no evidence that they engaged in any fact-checking. As for Powell - it's not a matter of whether his speech had or didn't have academic rigour. My opinion is irrelevant here - policy does not permit the use of self-published (or similar) sources in BLPs - no matter how prominent the source. As for your accusations of libel, bear in mind that you cannot libel the dead (at least not in FL, which is what matters here). Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• So the library is engaged in fact-checking. Brilliant, thanks for proving my point. As for Powell, it's not a self-published source his speech was published by the Hill and Manuscript library. Sleetman (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• So the library is engaged in fact-checking - fascinating. You got that from my comment? I said there's no evidence that it did anything of the sort. His speech was published by the Hill and Manuscript library - that's not good enough for a BLP. Blogs are published too. My comment here is published by the Wikimedia Foundation. But that doesn't mean we can use my "published" comments on Wikipedia as a source for anything. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, yes it is good enough for a BLP, I've already provided the link that shows the Hill and Manuscript library's fact-checking capabilities by virtue of having an editorial board and the fact that Powell was a prolific author. I inferred from your comments that the library was engaged in fact-checking because I take your omission of that point to mean an implicit acknowledgment of the fact that the library is engaged in fact-checking of its works. I'd also point out that while you're making a hullabaloo about the unreliability of sources, you haven no problem putting in a quote praising Armstrong in a book review published by a journal without having first demonstrated the reliability of that journal source. Sleetman (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Sleetman isn't telling the truth about the dispute relative to these sources. There's already

) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments on other editors do not advance the discussion of the reliability of these sources. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're even talking about. The dispute was never about whether the criticisms are picked up by third-party sources (that point isn't even raised by the your

original discussion at BLPN and Karen Armstrong's talk page, but to reiterate: the Media Matters point is to expose the user's hypocrisy in giving the green light to works by think-tanks that criticize people who she dislikes, but then making a big-fuss about the reliability of using think-tanks as sources that publish works critical of people she likes. As for the point about Powell, it isn't misrepresenting anything his criticism is pertinent to the lecture he gives.Sleetman (talk

) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's begin with Powell. According to the guidelines, if he's a previously published expert on the topic, then the lecture posted online would, I think, be useable. It's not clear that this lecture is self-published. But even if it were, it's not so much about her but a critical appraisal of her work. It's not clear that the quote accurately represents what Powell says, since it disregards his more positive point that her article successfully sums up the tensions, prejudices, and emotional baggage that surround the idea of crusade. And the involved editors would need to decide the issue of weight. It's always problematic, in my mind, whether it's necessary for a criticism section to catalog every critical opinion. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

[53] and the link associated.

An editor has used livestrong.com as a source. Is this reliable and why? It seems anyone who has signed up can create whatever information they want about a food.Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that anyone can create whatever information they want? I must be missing something. FWIW, I think that you may be wasting your time here because the discussed point which you are trying to negate has other supporting citations also. You may obtain a consensus that supports your almost battleground position regarding the statement in the diff which you have provided, but the article had moved on even before you posted here. Your beef throughout appears to have really been with the statement, not the citations for it. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This has wider implications: Is livestrong.com a reliable source because if it is, this will establish a precedent as permission on other articles. How exactly could this article on dosa appear on livestrong.com and how do I see who authored it? How do I write and publish other articles on other foods regarding their nutritional value on livestrong.com? How do I search for the nutritional value of other foods on livestrong.com?Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, if the source is useless, then it should be removed.Curb Chain (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what the 'verified by livestrong.com' on that page means. I didn't see something saying straightforwardly what that meant. If it is just a blog entry why would they have such a marker?

Dmcq (talk

) 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Curb Chain. I didn't say that it was useless. I said that the article where you picked up this and began querying has moved on, and that your position on that article was trenchant throughout the sourcing process and beyond. You appeared simply not to want any statement about the nutritional nature of the dosa to exist, first deleting on the grounds that it was uncited, then that it was OR and finally arguing that it was not RS.

FWIW, although asking the question here is of course perfectly valid, you have now had three people all bring up the same point, ie: the "verified by livestrong.com" banner. The other citations in the dosa article support the general statements at livestrong but do not appear to be circular, and there are a further 1.9 million GHits which you could choose from, a random 100 of so of which I have looked at and also support the statement.

There are many articles in Encyclopedia Britannica which have no named author; similarly many articles in newspapers/magazines etc. You have not yet answered my query regarding where it says that it seems anyone can add any content to livestrong, although you make that assertion. You would think that would be plastered all over the site if it were the case. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If I chose to make an account so I could login, would that make me able to write an article on the nutrional value of noodles? Who are the editors that "verify" these nutrition profiles of foods?Curb Chain (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Since context matters—since a source need only be strong enough to support the weight of the claim—I looked at the sentences it supports. The claims are things like "dish made from beans contains protein".

The word "duh" comes to mind. Frankly, I expect a pretty average teenager to be able to look at a basic recipe for dosas (a pancake made of rice and black lentils) and say, "Oh, look: rice and beans do not contain gluten! Oh, look: Beans contain protein!" These are incredibly small claims, and even a very weak source is sufficient to support them.

IMO livestrong.com is a weak source, but it is strong enough to support these claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This was the line of thought in the talk page discussion. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See

) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot locate it either, not in WorldCat nor in Ulrich's , I therefore assume its PR of some sort--it can presumably be used for routine bio details, though I am not entirely sure if all of the material it supports is routine but the sort of self-advertisement that would need 3rd party sources. --but not if nobody can identify it. If the COI is real, the editor might be able to assist. I notice the other references need verifying. Ref. 4, for example, leads to the LA Times, not the Washington Post. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

On the article Lil B (a bio of a rapper), there is currently no birthday listed, because we don't have a reliable source for one. An editor (I think one, editing under both a AdamWehib916 and an IP) wants to add a specific date. First, the editor wanted to use the artist's songs as a reference, but, of course, song lyrics aren't a reliable source. Recently, the editor pointed out a blog post by the article subject which may or may not help. In the post, the rapper points out that it is his birthday, so we can pin down the date, as an SPS should be considered reliable for things like the subject's on birthday. The question is the year. In the blog post (definitely NSFW!!!!), there is a picture of a mostly naked woman ("naughty bits" mostly, though not entirely covered), who has drawn on her body something like "Happy 21st birthday!". I don't remember the exact message, but cannot check the picture as I'm currently at work. Now, if we trust the reliability of the fan (based on the fact that the rapper did not chose to post the picture without correction), then we could do the math and determine the year of birth. But is that really reliable enough? My feeling is no, but I told the other editor that I'd ask for input here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

conceivably he may have liked the picture so much he left it without regard to its accuracy. I would advise the editor to continue looking for a place where the artist or his agent or a reporter gives it explicitly. This sort of extrapolation is , as you thought, better seen as Original research than arithmetic. DGG ( talk ) 05

03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if this has come up a thousand times before, but is Google maps considered a reliable source? Looking at my own neighborhood I can find half a dozen errors within a mile of where I live.

) 06:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source for what?

The satellite images themselves are pretty reliable images (assuming not much has changed in the period since the photo was taken).

However, the overlay of placenames and roads &c will come from separate databases which are probably reliable, depending on exactly where you are. In some cases that database is drawn from official sources (ie. government) which means it's very accurate in one sense but might not always reflect common usage &c (there may be places where officialdom has slightly quirky ideas about districts or names). There used to be cases where a map overlay was generated automatically (ie. "roads" are created where the satellite image actually shows some other long straight manmade feature) but I haven't seen many of those recently. Some of the sources for these overlays have been abused a bit; for instance, "train station" icons on Google Maps in South Africa are taken from a Transnet database which includes sidings on freight railways, and even features on railways which closed many years ago.

So, really, it depends on where you are and what you're using it for. bobrayner (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless and until someone can show where Google Maps get their data from, and what the editorial policies are of Google and their contributors, then the answer has to be no. In the meanwhile, look at the Argleton story. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at that story you will see where Google got their data from for that area. Reliable is not the same as never make mistakes or never sticks in copyright traps. I don't think this was a copyright trap but Google certainly have recently shown Microsoft's Bing up with a trap. I cna't think of anything much more reliable than something that's looked at millions of times every day by people who might know better, if anything the Argleton story shows how errors are corrected, and the fact that this story made the news is if anything evidence of reliability.

Dmcq (talk

) 11:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Being looked at by a lot of people does not imply reliability -- for example, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are those

"with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is there any evidence that Google Maps and its data suppliers satisfy that condition? Sergeant Cribb (talk

) 11:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well when I registered a place with them they sent a postcard with a code to the place to check that I was really entitled to say things about it. That certainly looks like fact checking to me. At the bottom of their maps there is a 'report a problem' box where you can notify them about problems you notice and they will pass that to their data suppliers for the area to check. What on earth gives the impression that they are not providing accurate checked data?

Dmcq (talk

) 11:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way if you feel happier with a source like Wikipedia rather than an encyclopaedia from a reliable source you could try

Dmcq (talk

) 12:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need more than a single postcard to establish a reputation ... Sergeant Cribb (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was illustrating their fact checking from personal experience. I am not the only person they have done this with, it is their standard practice.

Dmcq (talk

) 13:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please show us where their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is documented. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that the correct hurdle? I don't think we usually ask for reliable independent sources documenting that other sources are reliable and independent. I think we approach the matter case-by-case, using common sense and discussion to form a consensus that seems to be in keeping with the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (yet) asking for reliable independent sources, I'm asking for someone to tell us where Google Maps get their data from, what the editorial policies are of Google and their contributors, and what, if any, reputation they have for fact-checking and accuracy. So far I have seen approximately zero information, let alone, sources for that information. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but it also sounds like you're arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that unless you get satisfactory answers, your position is that Google maps should not be considered a reliable source. That may be a reasonable position. But I think it's even more probably a minority position; it's not one I would agree with except possibly case-by-case. Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed more-or-less my position. Are you suggesting that you would accept a source as reliable while knowing nothing about these matters? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They are pretty open about it all on their blog at [54] but there's a huge amount and it changes daily. Basically they started off with buying data from established map makers and they have always relied on data from governments but recently they have been using more of their own resources and community help. For instance they correct maps themselves using streetview and the roads in India were mapped to a large extent using community help. They are a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you don't trust them when planning a journey because you don't know exactly how they set up the maps then that's your choice.

Dmcq (talk

) 22:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, we do it all the time; it's what we're asked to do. From

published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Msnicki (talk

) 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If I was looking at a specific instance where I believed Google (or any other generally well-regarded source) was unreliable, I think I would try to show that and gain consensus by pointing out what was wrong in that specific case. For example, I might cite other maps that disagree or cite articles that point out the error not just in other maps from Google but in that specific map. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I understand your position, thanks: that you consider Google Maps reliable until proved otherwise. I just don't agree with it. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is aparently pretty common practice for mapmakers to purposefully place errors in their maps to be able to identify when their particular maps have been illegally copied. It apparently even has a name "copyright trap" Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

All you have is either an image or a map what we need to known is why you would use google maps as a reference and for what so we can make some judgement and form an opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC

Read the

Dmcq (talk

) 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne has a good question. I don't mind discussing the question philosophically, but I also was idly wondering why anyone would use Google maps in a citation. But there is an answer, sort of, at Argleton, the article Sergeant Cribb cited. Msnicki (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason one wouldn't cite it is because it is a primary source so it should only be used where something else brings something up. This sort of think keeps on coming up on the OR noticeboard where someone tries to say something because of a map. One needs a secondary source saying something is worth noticing in the first place rather than mining maps or births and deaths or suchlike databases.

Dmcq (talk

) 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up because there was a problem wherein an article on a street did not meet

talk

) 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you can see the OR policy is the right one rather than this by considering that even if Google maps were always accurate to a millimeter and were updated in realtime the exact second someone snipped the ribbon on a new road then using it to say something was notable would still be silly, it is a primary source. And even if it does back up something up it should only be used where somebody else has noticed the act and written about it, anything more is original research.

Dmcq (talk

) 20:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposing that it matters, I don't see how Google maps could be a primary source. A primary source isn't one that contains original research, it's one that was created by someone with a close connection to the subject. How would Google maps have a close connection to anything (except maybe the location of the Googleplex?) Msnicki (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Maps are databases, they aren't normally an evaluation though some might have some limited evaluation included like 'places of interest' marked on them. Secondary sources evaluate and note things. And by the way doing original research does not automatically confer notability, it is that secondary sources notice it that confers notability.

Dmcq (talk

) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification of why

) 01:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This could be just me, but I'd accept it for that purpose. Msnicki (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems a straightforward use. It is not a source of notability for the street though.

Dmcq (talk

) 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

MediaBlvd Magazine

• mediablvd.com

Came across this site when a likely COI editor was refspamming it. It is already used several times, seemingly in good faith. But is it a reliable source? The details on the site suggest some independent oversight. Anyone able to provide some input? Rehevkor ✉ 10:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It does appear to have a professional staff, suggesting editorial oversight. Websites are hard to judge, but by this criterion it does seems like it could be used. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the motion picture review site worldsgreatestcritic.com a reliable source for film reviews--it has been used by more than one editor. ? according to websiteoutlook it gets 324 hits a day [57] Is that utterly trivial? See in this connection the article J.C. Maçek III‎ which I have proposed for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

While its a bit of "judging the book by its cover]], just going to the website and looking at the format and layout makes me pretty sure it's not a reliable source. 320 some hits per day is pretty small for a blog (and this appears to be just a glorified blog, as its entirely self-published, not associated with any other content provider). I would say that his page should be deleted and any references/quotes from him should be removed per

WP:UNDUE, as they are just one random blogger's opinion. Qwyrxian (talk

) 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a personal website and falls under the constraint of

WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

European Mythology by Leeming, David Adams (2003), Oxford University Press.

Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies". European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.

)

states among other things

by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.

The source is used in the article about

) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• OUP is an academic publisher. Leeming is, "Emeritus Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Connecticut at Storrs" and is an academic expert in a relevant field to mythology; a field which inherently involves the making of ethno-cultural judgements. This source is not FRINGE, and, as citation to this text is verifiable, making a claim from this source is not OR. However, I would advise supplementing this source with cultural archaeological sources whose specific topic is Finno-urgic historical ethnic demography—seeking such additional sources from Leeming's footnotes would be advisable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fifelfoo, there are plenty of other sources included in related articles, I just picked the one that seemed the most prominent to make sure its not me who's missing something.--Termer (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That may not be the issue on the talk page. Termer states there, "...both Finnic mythology... and []Finno-Ugric Mythology are valid subjects...." But the source Termer presents says, "Of [Ugric] mythology little is known...." So Finnic-Ugric Mythology may not be a meaningful topic. It would be helpful to provide the specific edit that this source is supposed to support. TFD (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The fact that Finns and Ugres (and Hungarians) have the same roots is well known, and this reliable source confirms that. The only question is if the time since the split of the ancient Finno-Ugric nation onto these two branches was short enough for their mythologies to preserve common roots. I cannot tell for sure, however, I know that academiciam Rybakov in his book about mythology of ancient Slavs traced the roots of folk tails back to the Ice Age, i.e. to at least 10000 BC. Therefore, it is highly likely that the sources exist that demonstrate the common roots of Finnish and Ugric mythology.
After a brief search I found several mentions of the mythology of "Finno-Ugric" peoples:

1. "The Milky Way is represented in old Indic legends as the way of souls. In some cases a cow leads the souls to heaven. The way of the souls is also reported in German star lore as Strasse der Seelen. An old legend represents the souls as children who have died. Woden is depicted as the wild hunter who leads these souls in his entourage. The theme is repeated among the Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, and finally the Finno-Ugric peoples.
   "Bear and hunter stories among the Algonquian and adjacent Iroquois parallel the Finno-Ugric legends in such great detail as to leave little doubt about a connection between the two groups."(Asiatic Parallels in North American Star Lore: Milky Way, Pleiades, Orion. Author(s): William B. GibbonSource: The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jul. - Sep., 1972), pp. 236-247)
2. "To Western and Christian imagery, Roerich joined his studies of Finno-Ugric and Uralo-Altaic shamanism..." (Passageways to Wisdom: Nicholas Roerich, the Dramas of Maurice Maeterlinck, and Symbols of Spiritual Enlightenment. Author(s): John McCannon Source: Russian Review, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 449-478)

In addition, google scholar gives 58 results for the phrase "finno-ugric mythology", which implies the subject in not a fiction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:

dab [58] some time ago.--Termer (talk

) 04:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well OUP s clearly a reputable academic publisher and the author David Adams Leeming seems to be a well qualified academic (Professor of English and Comparative Literature (Emeritus) at the University of Connecticut, Storrs [59]), who has written many books on mythology also with other reputable publisher (for instance ABC CLIO). So by any means this book is a reliable source, unless there are even more reliable sources explicitly stating otherwise (i.e. the rare case that academic review of this book are overwhelmingly negative and pointing out its unreliability).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The source meets every criterion for being a "reliable source" and, as such, its precise wording is thus usable in any WP article relating to its topic. It is not up to any editor to "know" that the source is wrong, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

At least to do so, he would need tp provide a couple of "more reliable" sources like peer reviewed academic journals explicitly stating that the infotmation in the book is incorrect. If he can provide that, he may have grounds to remove the book as source otherwise he has not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this is the fallacious reasoning so common in this field. Historical linguists propose some language family, and immediately archeologists, mythologists, and historians invent peoples to go along with them. The problem is that those peoples either vanish when the linguists realize that their proposal was wrong, or continue on without any basis in reality, since they were never anything but a linguistic construct. This is something linguists complain about all the time. For example, in this case the Finno-Ugric family would appear to be spurious; attempts to reconstruct proto-Finno-Ugric are indistinguishable from reconstructions of proto-Uralic. "Finnic" (= Finno-Permic) may be just as bad, and Volga Finnic, which was also cited above, is even worse: that's not just doubted, but now known to be the result of a sprachbund. Yet texts continue to cite the Finno-Ugric language family (and Finno-Permic, and Volga Finnic), as if that conferred some legitimacy to their constructs. And the dates! Where do the dates come from? Often they're from glottochronology, which has been largely discredited, yet is still used to assign peoples, sometimes imaginary peoples, to archeological finds. So, in Leeming's quote above, is he basing this solely on the say-so of linguists, many of whom have since retracted such claims? Or is he basing the peoples and dates on independent comparative-cultural and archeological scholarship?

There are two rational ways to go about this: One, the linguists reconstruct the culture of the people who spoke the protolanguage, and two, the mythologies are coherent in their own right, and the linguistics merely confirms what the mythologists already know. But reified linguistic hypotheses, especially obsolete hypotheses, should be clearly noted as such. — kwami (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be asserting what you "

WP:TRUTH. That is not how Wikipedia uses reliable sources. If you wish a contrasting claim in the article, the onus is on you to cite a reliable source making the explicit claim you wish to ascribe to it. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 16:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to make claims about historical linguistics, our sources should be RSs for historical linguistics, not mythology. Similarly, if some linguist tried tying their reconstruction to an archeological proposal, we would be wise to reference the validity of that proposal with archeological sources. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems there may be a scholarly dispute between historical linguists and mythologists. If so we can only report that on Wikipedia. We can't take sides. This source is so clearly reliable and on-topic for Finnish mythologies it would be wrong not to draw from it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it even qualifies as a dispute. Anthropologists (by which I include archeologists and mythologists) often 'borrow' historical-linguistic reconstructions, without evaluating how well supported they are, and continue to use them long after the historical linguists have abandoned them. A dispute would be if the two fields came to different conclusions and thought the other was wrong; what we have is the opposite, blind acceptance. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your concern of possible issues between linguistics and mythology is noted. However personal concerns of a WP author as such are usually not enough, i.e. you need to provide rather reliable linguistic sources contradicting the information in Lemming's book. If you or somebody else cannot provide such sources, we need to go by the information in Leeming's book (see also my posting above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Re: we would be wise to reference the validity of that proposal with archeological sources, here you go, it's called
  Pit–Comb Ware culture
  that covers the territory of and is linked to Finno Permic speaking peoples from around 4200 BC to around 2000 BC.

Lavery, Jason Edward. The history of Finland. p. 20. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Most scholars believe that by the middle phase of the Combed Ceramic Culture the population was speaking very remote versions of the Finnish language (often called proto-Finnic)This conclusion is drawn from the correspondence of the Combed Ceramic Culture's area to the maximum geographical spread of Finno-Ugric languages.

Additionally to archeology, there are recent genetic studies on

available:

A counter-clockwise northern route of theY-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 204–211,

N2, forms two distinctive subclusters of STR haplotypes, Asian (N2-A) and European (N2-E), the latter now mostly distributed in Finno-Ugric and related populations.

Y-Chromosomal Diversity suggests that Baltic Males Share Common Finno-Ugric Forefaterers.pdf Department of Genetics, University of Turku, University of Helsinki.

So, I'm not sure what is this "archeologists and mythologists often 'borrow' historical-linguistic reconstructions, without evaluating how well supported they are" all about? --Termer (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that both participants of the dispute mix three different things: common linguistic, ethnic and genetic (biological) roots. In connection to that, I am not sure what concrete point Termer and Kwami want to demonstrate. The Termer's point that Finnish and Ugric peoples have common biological roots is quite valid, and, taking into account the constant rate of mutations (which serve as an internal clock) it is possible even to calculate a time when these two ethnic entities had separated from each other. However, all of that has no direct relation to the ethnicity, because ethnic entities are genetically inhomogeneous, and common biological roots do not necessarily imply common linguistic or ethnic roots. An example of that can be found in one of the sources provided by Termer: the SNP analysis demonstrated that Estonians are quite close to Russians (which is not unusual, taking into account strong Ugric component in Eastern Slavs' blood), however, whereas Russians are Indo-Europeans, Estonians are Finno-Ugres.

@ Kwami. Although your arguments deserve a serious consideration, you seem to underestimate the recent achievements of human population genetics. Analysis of the SNP in Y-chromosomes (or of mitochondrial genome fop females) is rather reliable source for conclusions about common genetic roots of different peoples, and, taking into account more or less constant mutation rate, it provide a reliable quantitative tool for the date of separation of different ethnic groups.

In any event, you both have to specify which of three questions are you discussing:

1. Do the Finns and Ugres have common biological roots?
2. Do they have common linguistic/cultural roots?
3. Do they have common ethnic roots?

The connection between these three is much more complex than you seem to think.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please lets not get carried away with this completely. The question was very simple and has been mostly answered already. Is the subject

WP:FRINGE

?

As far as I understand it, problems started when an editor seemed to think @

WP:RS

's.

I think this thread has confirmed, the article is based on

WP:RS and therefore we can close this discussion.--Termer (talk

) 02:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Italian Journalist

Hi, I am asking for advice regarding a specific source, since I want to add some content to the article Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The credibility of this organization has been criticized by an Italian debunking group. The journalist representing this organization, Paolo Attivissimo, is active – among other things - in the debunking field, and interviewed actual structural engineers and explosives experts, noticing that the claims done by some members are unrelated to their field of study (such as Ted Muga’s claim that no airplane hit the Pentagon, Paul Kenyon’s claim of the towers being destroyed by laser beams and Charles Pegelow’s theory that atomic bombs caused the collapse.)

Attivissimo writes on several magazines, but his main mean vehicle for debunking investigations is his blog and the blog “undicisettembre” where he collaborates.

According to the guidelines, “Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable”.

So here’s what I have regarding this specific journalist:

He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688

The Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:

http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168

He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html

(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )

He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:

http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1

And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1

He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)

He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo

He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/

The articles published for the Italian Version of “Scientific American” usually deal with hoaxes and debunking, when it’s not about the space race and space exploration.

So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. I had already presented the case to an administrator, but his discussion page says he’s quite busy at the moment, so let me know if there could be any possibility of reaching a consensus on the reliability of this journalist’s blog as a source. Thanks in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Sorry, the “scientifica american” link was to a specific issue, here’s the issues where he published something:

http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/risultati?lr=&q=paolo%2520attivissimo&search=sito

He has a column called “povera scienza” (poor science), where he debunks bad science and pseudoscientific claims. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the generally controversial nature of the topic, I would expect strong sources to be required for all viewpoints. A journalist when published in a journal has more credibility than on his personal blog, and I would therefore recommend citing only material appearing in non SPS locations. (I would parallel this with James Randi, whose books and TV programmes we would be much more likely to cite than his blog)Martinlc (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This here. I cannot decide if it is reliable or not. I understand that they call it a blog, but AOL calls their music site a "radio blog" and they are certainly not unreliable. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Context matters: It's a great (primary) source for saying "There's this blog called 'the Docking Station'." It's a poor source for saying that the speed of light can be calculated using tin cans and bubble gum. Presumably you want to use it to support a sentence somewhere between these two extremes. If you'll tell us what you'd like to say, we might be able to help you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry. Would it be right to take that Kylie Minogue covered two songs that Kish Mauve wrote and produced, including "Lose Control?" --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be (just barely) adequate for that, assuming that it is non-controversial/no (even barely) reliable sources disagreed with this claim.

The other issue that you have to consider is the article that you want to put this sentence in. If the article is about the song itself, then it's okay: we put a fairly high premium on identifying the author of a song in the article about the song. If you're looking at an article on the duo, then maybe... it would depend on

how important the relationship with Kylie Minogue is to the group. For the article on Kylie Minogue (whom I understand to be a more or less major pop singer), it's probably unimportant. For an article on the album in which she covered the songs, it's probably okay. You'll want to think about how well it fits into the article, and whether it's important enough to mention. (For a lot of things, if it's only written about in such a weak source, then it's probably not.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Decius

Simple question. Is this page (Decius) reliable source for article Decius? :) Also, can someone give me good source for roman emperor's. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, most likely not. Although the content on the site itself looks good, there is no information on who creates and supervizes the site's content. More importantly a Roman emperor in general and Decius in particular is such a well known topic that there are ample scholarly sources available and hence there should be no need to rely on that website for any content. Many of those scholarly sources should also be available online (Google books, university pages).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is very likely to be either a copy or a synthesis of material published elsewhere. The site does have some information on attribution, [61] that lists in a general way the sources, which for matters not purely numismatic, seem to be mainly Wikipedia and answera.com, which in turn often uses wikipedia for this sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar and Google Books should offer lots of sources on Roman emperors in general, and Decius in particular. (If an interesting-looking paper is hidden behind a paywall, ask, and I might be able to help). If you want to add some colourful prose, the text of Gibbon's Decline and Fall is freely available online (but if it disagrees with modern historical research, you know what to do). bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been a significant amount of contention after

, we couldn't allow any info about the .ch fork into the article at all (we're not allowed to link to it directly due to copyright information anyways, but this section is for discussion of the existence of .ch in the article at all, which wouldn't involve a direct link).

Finally, someone has stepped forward and provided some sort of source, found here. It is a paper from MIT about 4chan and on pages 10-11, it discusses the change of ED into Oh Internet and also discusses forked websites and mirrors that have resulted from it. However, it doesn't specifically name the .ch fork, it just has it listed in the Works Cited page. Since it only has .ch listed on Works Cited, is this really reliable for the information, enough to mention the .ch fork? As far as I can tell, the writer of the paper seems to be making the conclusions about mirrors and such themselves, as none of the other works cited are about ED, other than the direct link to the .ch fork. Silverseren^C 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Jon Saklofske "Inb4 404: Using 4chan.org to Challenge the Stasis Quo Illusion of Media Stability" MiT7 unstable platforms: the promise and peril of transition, 2011 was peer reviewed; the paper says it is a work in progress. The source lacks reliability because it isn't published in the mode expected for academic papers in the humanities (book, chapter, peer reviewed journal article or peer reviewed conference paper). Not an RS, can't be Reliable for claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we won't use it for claims, but can we use it as an acknowledgement of encyclopediadramatica.ch's existence? We're not discussing a fringe scientific theory or discussing whether to include the opinion of an obscure political commentator. Shouldn't the article say that "A fork exists at encyclopediadramatica.ch"? A fork does exist at that domain. That's an observation, not a claim. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Being observed in footnote in a non-Reliable Source doesn't go far towards notability. (Interesting paper btw, I printed it for reading). The relevant quote and citation are "and a cloned (and still active) version of ED still exists." "girlvinyl and ghettofinger. _Encyclopedia Dramatica._ 10 December 2004. 10 May 2011. <http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch>" For the purposes of RS/N and wikipedia, claiming ed.ch exists and is notable is a claim. This isn't enough to go on, even for an aside in an article. Wait until Saklofske actually gets this published. I'd suggest writing to him personally and asking him to notify you when it is published properly. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not boolean. Merely announcing that the fork exists is a minimal claim, and I'm qute happy to use that source to support the claim - we're not claiming a cure for cancer. A policy may prevent us linking directly to ed.ch but that doesn't mean the website has ceased to exist. I would completely agree that it doesn't establish

notability, but that's pretty irrelevant unless we're here to write a new article on ed.ch. bobrayner (talk

) 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the point the other two are making is that it can't be considered a reliable source for any information anywhere, regardless of what that information is or even how basic it is. Silverseren^C 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The suggested text change would probably be on the last sentence of the URL change section, "Fan-made torrents and mirror sites are have been launched in the aftermath of the shutdown.", adding onto the end of it, "one such mirror being encyclopediadramatica.ch." Silverseren^C 20:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No simply citing it with no direct mention it fail outside what we already say. also as working paper they are not

WP:RS for anything at all. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

) 20:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

the author of that paper is an Associate Professor who works in the general area. I therefore consider it usable as a RS, for any purpose except negative BLP. :"Working Paper" is a variable term, and a great many of them are as reliable as anything else, and in many subjects treated as if published: they depend, of course, on the authority of the author. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Expert does not apply to academics publishing in non-academic modes, such as non-peer reviewed working papers in humanities delivered at a conference. Working papers may be common in economics and engineering where they are part of a publication cycle. They are abnormal and speculative in the humanities and discursive social sciences. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please can I have opinions on whether the following websites are reliable sources for information about the upcoming Harry Potter film:

1. MuggleNet at http://www.mugglenet.com
2. The Leaky Cauldron (website) at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org
3. Comic Book Resources at http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com

I had removed the content added through these sources here on the basis they did not appear to be reliable sources. An editor has challenged that though, so I'd like an impartial opinion. Obviously I don't want to remove validly sourced content, but I still have my doubts.

The first two are self described as "fansites", and Comic book resources while having a little more credibility still appears to be privately owned and self-published.

) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your removal looks ok to me at first glance. Generally fansites can not be used for sourcing, however it depends a bit on the material that is actually sourced. If a fansite is just used as "convenience source" for simple plot description (which are uncontroversial and you can get from reading the book/seeing the film anyway), that might be acceptable in individual cases.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comic Book Resources is high quality RS for Comic Books, Sci-fi and fantasy, They have a professional staff and editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the update, so they are explicitly excluded from comment above then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This question is hypothetical because I have not been able to determine the real identity of the source. However, I wanted to raise the question anyway as I think it is interesting and could apply in other cases. Consider this blog. For almost three years, Felix Culpa (a pseudonym) wrote a blog on Orthodox Christianity. While he provides some clues as to his identity, the blog seems to make a point of not revealing his identity, even to the point of calling this his website. He claims to have taught at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY. In January of this year, he shut down his blog, stating that he had accepted a position as one of the editors of Orthodox Life, the English-language publication of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville.

Now, IMO, the blog cannot possibly be considered reliable so long as the real identity of Felix Culpa is unknown because none of the above claims can be verified. However, I find it interesting to ask this question: if it became known who Felix Culpa was and he openly acknowledged that the "Ora Labora" blog was his, would the postings to that blog then be considered reliable?

The essence of the question is: if the author has some notability (as a seminary professor and a magazine editor), does that make him a reliable source? Is it his notability that makes his writings reliable? Or is it the editorial review process that makes them reliable? The problem here is that "Ora Labora" blog was a self-published source. There was no editorial review process overseeing Felix Culpa's postings to the blog.

It seems straightforward to assert that Felix Culpa's writings as an editor of Orthodox Life would be considered reliable sources. Does the same determination apply to his blog postings written as an independent blog prior to becoming an editor at Orthodox Life?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Theology, like any academic discipline (it is the "queen" of the academic disciplines if your University is connected to medieval ones...) has a peer reviewed publishing process. Academics seeking to avoid academic publication are inherently suspect. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is very different from an online-only newspaper blog.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking in generalisations, I'd argue that it is possible to establish reliability without necessarily knowing the real name of the author. Pseudonymy does not preclude "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Maybe not in this case, but hey... bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The

) 08:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is up to Guinness World Records to say if something is a Guinness World Record or not. They do this in their books, web site and programmes and it is one of those that should be cited if saying something is such a record. All you can say for these is that the site GateWorld says the current Guinness record is broken and this is a new world record, however the new figure is not a Guinness World Record until that organization says so. This is completely apart from whether they are a reliable source which I won't comment on.

Dmcq (talk

) 10:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the article Stargate SG-1 doesn't say anything about the 2011 Guinness World Record, it's only talking about the longest running show, which can be done by simple math. If we are going to be pedantic about it, then yes, we need official information from the Guinness folks. Until then, it's best to leave out the Guinness info from the articles or write something like "Smallville is expected to beat the Guinness World Record currently held by SG-1 since 2007 [insert gateworld source]." I don't mind either way. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just bypass Gateworld and cite Guinness World Records? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to get the book, because their website doesn't list any of it. At least, when I searched for "Stargate" or even "Doctor Who" nothing popped up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It has recently been pointed out that a number of pages on the

) 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with that organization but it depends - at least partially - whether that's an open Wiki or a closed Wiki. As you point out, you cannot edit the page without a password and I don't see a way to create an account, so maybe it's a closed Wiki? According to the About page, it appears to be run by academics (or at least people with degrees in appropriate fields)[67] so it may be reliable to some extent. I would think that it would be be citable, but in-text attribution ("According to the British Centre for Science Education,...") would be appropriate. However, articles should be primarily sourced to secondary sources which are independent of the subject area. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The website states no editorial policy, and describes its wiki's content as member-created -- so I would assume that all you would have to do to edit would be to join the BCSE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would treat them as an advocacy group such as

Anti-defamation League

. Their viewpoints may be notable.

I took a closer look at the article and the sentence in question and there are two problems with it.

“

According to some sources, including the political advocacy organization, British Centre for Science Education WEST is "a leading centre of creationism amongst theological training seminaries."

”

First, it says, "According to some sources". This seems to be OR as the cited source doesn't appear to say this.

Second, the source actually states, "The evidence seems to be emerging...". This qualifier isn't mentioned in our article and should be accounted for.

If these two issues are fixed, verifiability has been met: our article is using BCSE as a primary source and this is acceptable.

Now whether BCSE's opinions are important enough (i.e.

WP:WEIGHT) to be mentioned in our article, that's an issue beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Ideally, a secondary reliable source would have covered BCSE's POV. Maybe they have, I didn't look. Personally, given the article is only a half-page long, I would leave this content in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would distinguish the ADL from the BCSE on (i) the fact that it is far older and larger (and therefore more likely to have editorial oversight in place) & (ii) the fact that it does not rely on a member-generated wiki (whether closed or open) for the bulk of its content. That they are both "advocacy groups" does not mean that they are of equal reliability. The reliability of an advocacy group is generally proportional to its reputation -- which is what it has to lose if caught making false or inaccurate claims. HrafnTalk_Stalk^(P) 17:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer as to whether this sentence (even if fixed) belongs in the article. I've seen plenty of editors cite primary sources and our current policies certainly allow it. I've seen other editors argue that you need secondary sources to establish weight. Doing a Google News Archive search turns up nothing connecting the two organizations.[68]

But looking at the talk page, it looks like you're concerned about notability of

Wales Evangelical School of Theology. I did some searching for secondary sources which mention the Wales Evangelical School of Theology and I only found a handful.[69][70][71][72] You can always nominate it for AfD and let the AfD process unfold. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A topic like WEST will always generate sufficient knee-jerk 'keeps' to survive AfD, irrespective of the quality of the sources -- therefore improvement or merging are really the only two practical alternatives. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case (although I'm concerned about the sourcing of

Wales Evangelical School of Theology generally) my main reason for this thread was BCSE, which has been used in a number of articles (even by myself on occasion), so is deserving of attention in its own right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 05:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

According to BCSE, anyone can become a member and any member can edit. This means that the page is not reliable even for the organization's views (ie.

) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Know Your Meme

Would Know Your Meme be considered a reliable source? This might be crucial to a article on a cult following that I am developing.

16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We discussed it April of last year and consensus of that discussion was not reliable with the possible exception of the various webisodes they do on select memes, since this is the "expert" staff reporting.[73] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)