Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115

Causes (company)

Facebook app. Can this be used, along with other charity performance monitors, for information on the Facebook fundraising performance of a particular charity in determining notability for Wikipedia? Rumiton (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be a primary source for its own activities. Can you give a specific example?   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is quite the case. I am suggesting it may be considered a secondary source for the performance of the charities and non-profits under its umbrella. Its function is to invite charities and other not-for-profit groups to use Facebook to increase their membership and raise funds. Causes verifies that they have non-profit status before it accepts them, then it displays their mission statement and links to their homepage. Then it monitors their success and grades their performance against that of other groups. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to a specific page or pages which you'd like to use as a source, and to the pages which describe the process you've outlined?   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Here is a rundown of the way Causes operates on Facebook, acting as a “platform” for non-profit groups to feature their work, and to invite people to join and contribute.[1]. Here is a page of 12 of the highest-performing non-profits that Causes is featuring this week. [2]. Nearly all of them already have a Wikipedia article, but some do not. Perhaps they should, and their Causes listing should help them achieve this? Rumiton (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
What I see is that the site says it has "500,000 member-created causes". If so, I don't see how inclusion confers notability. If there's no specific page which is going to be referenced, and no specific assertion for which the website is being proposed as a source, then it's impossible to make a determination.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Not mere inclusion, but the statistical information they gather. The number of people who join the particular cause on Facebook, the amount of money they raise, the comparisons they make with similar organisations. That stuff. Rumiton (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I am loking at the TPRF Cause, which is the only one of the 12 featured causes which does not have its own Wikipedia article. It seems to be in good company. Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like most, if not all, of the content is added by users. If so, that information would not be from an independent, 3rd party source, any more than a Facebook page would be.
As for TPRF, it was merged into the Prem Rawat article.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The Mission Statements are provided by the users, but the number of users and amount of contributions are compiled by the app. This is clearly third party, to me. I know info on TPRF is in the Prem Rawat article. Pehaps it's time for TPRF to have its own article. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
So it's kind of like saying "Save the Penguins" has 308,567 "friends", using their Facebook page as a source. I'm not sure if the project has gotten around to dealing with those sorts of claims. If folks think that these kinds of primary sourced assertions are worthwhile then we could say that TPRF is a "featured cause" on Causes, with XXXX number of followers and $XX raised.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was suggesting. I am not sure why you are describing Causes as a "primary source." They are not echoing the Non-profit's data; they monitor the membership and donation figures themselves, like any other third party. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia, grants, and movies

I'm trying to write an article on documentary filmmaker Ucu Agustin in my userspace, and I was wondering if Wikimedia could be used to reference her next endeavor. She received 700 million rupiah in a grant for the film from the Ford Foundation in collaboration with other groups, including Wikimedia, so this may pass WP:SPS. The information referenced would only be A) that she received a grant to produce the film, B) The total amount granted, and C) The title of the film Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not for notability. Treat like a press release. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Documentaries

Without getting into specifics for now, is there a substantial difference between citing a documentary and citing a book as a RS? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's only a question that can be answered very vaguely without knowing what the comparison being asked about is. In principle, the media of a source makes no difference to its use on WP. But, in practice, there can be all kinds of disadvantages to using a documentary, without getting into specifics for now. --FormerIP (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
this is a citation formatting question? We don't do non-specific reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. In principle, a documentary is not more or less reliable than a book. However, in practice, the format might mean that they approach things in different ways, and some documentaries are more reliable than others (the same applies to books, of course). There are specific fields where I'd be very wary of documentaries, by default - for instance in some areas of pseudoscience and alt-med, the minority view isn't accepted by "the authorities" and can't get published through the usual channels, so documentaries are much more likely to be used to spread the message - so when somebody arrives wanting to put The Truth in an article and they're citing a documentary, that's an instant red flag.
Can't give a specific answer; it depends on exactly what the source is and what content it's being used to support.
Of course, we can fill in citation templates a bit differently... bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliability check for monograph

I propose that the following monograph be allowed as a reliable source for the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) articles. The monograph is called: The School of Advanced Military Studies in the 21st Century Some dissertations/theses/academic works are not considered reliable on Wikipedia; but, I believe this work should be allowed:

1. It is published by the School of Advanced Military Studies as part of the US Army's Command and General Staff College.
2. Two SAMS faculty members with PhDs provided oversight on the monograph.
3. It is a useful collection of information on the school—some of which is not easily found elsewhere—that will improve the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It would probably be useful to outline what information you want to take from it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This looks like it is a reliable publication internally published for the purposes of wikipedia. The system of professional and academic military science fact checking means that it is not "primary." However, like Former IP, I would like to see what you want to use from it before signing off on your uses as reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I haven't sorted through it yet to compile a list of material; I didn't want to waste my time on a work that wouldn't be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. An example might be information from an author interview of one of the early SAMS faculty members to help tell the story of the school's history. I really don't think there is any controversial information in it, but if there is a concern that there might be, I can look more carefully for specifics. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Extensively quoting from primary sources contained within secondary sources is a bad idea, unless the secondary source has a sufficient "authority" to, and in the text actually does, authorise the primary source as an accurate account. Try to stick to the secondary source's own narrative when using it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org

Is this site a reliable source about Kim Jong-il? See footnote 127 in the article. I can't see much about the site on the site, because the huge amount of spam it includes crashes my old-fashioned browser. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have to say that it is not suitable source for stating as fact "Many of the stories about Kim Jong Il's eccentricities and decadent life-style are exaggerated, possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime."
Especially since it does not point to any examples of such exaggeration that would give context to the claim.
this is their 'about us' page which does not seem to have advertising, you may be able to use that for more general insight.
They do seem to have received a bit of praise and are referenced by news media.
In short, I don't think that we can discount them out of hand, but I do think that it is not used correctly in this particular case. un☯mi 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
RS/N does not deal in "hypotheticals"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't disagree with your general position that globalsecurity.org is probably not a reliable source for this information, but I don't follow your logic at all. If they can't be discounted as unreliable, based on the fact that they received praise and/or are quoted on news media and/or whatever other reason - why would the fact that they gave no specific examples be a factor in considering their reliability for the statement that some stories about Kim Jong Il are exaggerated? How is saying "Many of the stories about Kim Jong Il's eccentricities and decadent life-style are exaggerated, possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime." not reliable, while hypothetically saying "Many of the stories about Kim Jong Il's eccentricities and decadent life-style are exaggerated, for example the story about him claiming a 38-under par score in a golf round, possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime." be more reliable ? Jeff Song (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Globalsecurity.org has been used extensively as a reliable source on Wikipedia. As always, though, we weigh the individual facts in our sources and if there is no example given, the fact is not as strong. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
RS/N does not deal in "hypotheticals"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please elaborate on the reasoning, rather than restating the premise I am challenging. Hopefully, using the hypothetical example I gave. Jeff Song (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Because that would let us use them in a contextualized fashion where we could present information from them to our readers. The point here is that we generally don't make blanket statements about whether a source is an RS or not, instead we consider if a source is a RS in the context of a specific use. Personally, I find that the way the source is used in the current article is too vague and with too little context given by the source, it leaves the user in doubt of whether he did in fact kidnap movie stars or wore thick soled shoes and so on ( I am not well-versed in the subject matter, but I am assuming here that this is in fact not disinformation ). If the source used the example of golf scores then I would suggest including that, as it contextualizes it.
However, even if it is not considered an RS for statements of fact in wikipedias voice, it could still be used in the manner of "GlobalSecurity.org wrote ..." - that is an editorial decision that is pretty much outside the realm of this board. un☯mi 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've already made the change to the article to reflect that fact that this is a claim, by an unnamed author, from an article on Globalsecurity.org - that's not the question. I still don't see how the addition of an example helps us judge the reliability. Take a look at my hypothetical example above. Why is the first statement considered by you to be unreliable, yet the second one more so? How does adding an unsupported/unverified example, by the same anonymous author, in the same source of questionable reliability, add or detract to its reliability? It's simply not a factor. Golbalsecurity may be a considered a reliable source for certain topics on Wikipedia as Binkrsternet claims, based on its reputation. The author of that particular piece (if we knew who he was) might be an authority on the topic, etc.. But how does the use of an example make a difference? I just don't see it. Jeff Song (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not the inclusion of an example that makes it an RS, it is the use of an example that gives us something that it can be used as an RS for.
The broad statement in the source: "Many of the stories about Kim Jong Il's eccentricities and decadent life-style are exaggerated, possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to disredit the Northern regime." would need to meet a very high bar - not because it is "an exceptional claim" but because it is a fairly inscrutable one without context, whereas the next section: "In 1978, in order to advance the North Korean film industry, he ordered North Korean agents to abduct the famous South Korean movie director Shin Sang Ok and his ex-wife, actress Che Eun Hui, and kept them for eight years while making them produce propaganda films." even though it sounds like an exceptional claim ( to me ) is one that it would be much more likely to be considered an RS for.
I don't know if this helps or if you agree with it, but that is what is informing my opinion in this discussion. un☯mi 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm completely confused. The broad statement is, according to you, not a particularly exceptional claim - yet you find it unreliable, apparently because you can't make the connection between the reference to general "eccentricities" and the specific examples of such eccentricities mentioned just couple of paragraphs above. But once a one of those specific examples - which you find to be exceptional (!!) - is added to the sentence - it becomes more reliable? How does that magic happen? Jeff Song (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Because of the nature of vague claims vs specific. Specific claims would be fairly easy to find contrasting opinions on from other RS ( should they exist ) - vague claims would be much less likely to be able to be invalidated, hence they need more to meet a higher bar for sourcing to be deemed acceptable for inclusion.
We generally don't use the word "many", see WP:WEASEL, precisely because of this lack of transparency and accountability - for us to use that language based on a source, or consider a source which uses that language to support edits here that source would need to be exceptionally well-respected. un☯mi 19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. You seem to be objecting to the use of the word "many" - not to the lack of a specific example, saying that in order to use "many", which is hard to invalidate - we'd have to have a better more reputable source than gloablsecurity?. Is that correct? Jeff Song (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
In a word, yes.
I am objecting to using GS.org as an RS in this specific context - if GS.org included examples then we could conceivably have used them as an RS for those. Personally, I think that the bar should be very high for stating vague or broad claims as fact, no matter what the context - and in such a situation I would prefer footnotes that collate multiple sources or examples to support such wording ( and only then because A,B,C, ..,Q state that... is unwieldy in article text ). In general I do prefer specific attribution in most matters. I should say though that I tend to edit articles on controversial subjects so perhaps my level of care in this matter is not always employed or widely applicable. I am just a guy giving my opinion :) un☯mi 20:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the Globalsecurity-cited text because 1) it was a copyright violation, not quoted and 2) because it misrepresented the source. Most of the article confirmed eccentricities rather than denied them. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
@ Binksternet: Thanks for doing that, I agree that that was the right move for this particular article and this particular statement.
@ un☯mi: ok, at least this is something I understand, and might possibly even agree with. If you don’t mind, I’d like to delve into this a bit further, though. Not for the particular issue at hand, but for a better understanding of Wikipedia policy on Reliable sources. I consider myself fairly new here, and have recently made a similar enquiry on this board and I’m also following some of the debates here as a result. If this is not the right place for this, we can take it elsewhere.
Using this incident just to illustrate the concepts involved then, let’s take a specific case of an eccentric and decadent life-style story, say "In 1978, in order to advance the North Korean film industry, he ordered North Korean agents to abduct the famous South Korean movie director Shin Sang Ok and his ex-wife, actress Che Eun Hui, and kept them for eight years while making them produce propaganda films.", and call it, for brevity "exceptional story X". There are three hypothetical statements that a source with questionable reliability can make:
  • A. "exceptional story X is an example of an exaggerated story about KJI, possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime"
  • B. "Many stories about KJI, including exceptional story X as an example, are exaggerated and possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime"
  • C. "Many stories about KJI are exaggerated and possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime"
We all agree that C can’t be used in the article – GS.org is simply not a reliable source for that. I initially thought you said B would be ok, but I know understand you would object to it as well, on the grounds of its use of "many". But you seem to be saying that A, based on an anonymous article in GS.org would be ok? Why would it be ok? We don’t know who wrote that article, it seems like a very exceptional claim, and the source GS.org, is to me at least, just a notch above a self-published source: The site is maintained by its founder and owner, Pikes, it has no editorial board listed, no indication of a fact-checking or error correction policy - why would it be a reliable source for such an exceptional claim? Jeff Song (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
In truth, I probably would not personally endorse A without it being attributed to GS.org directly, and I share your concerns about GS.org. The "problem" is that sites such as GS.org that have received endorsements and can be demonstrated as serving for sources for media outlets etc., are not infrequently given credit as RS on this board, see for example the section on religioustolerance.org 2 sections up. My initial comment was meant to reflect what I understand to be the common practice here.
In the case of A it should be easy to find either corroborating or contrasting sources to flesh out our coverage. "BBC reported that .., GS.org stated that this was disinformation.".
If multiple credible sources reported the same thing with no indication of contradiction from other sources then the case for unattributed statements of fact becomes stronger. un☯mi 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
got it, thanks. One final follow-up, regarding the use of "many". Suppose that instead of GS.org, we were dealing with an ideal, impeccable reliable source: the hypothetical "Journal of South Korean Intelligence Studies', an academic, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, published by Oxford Press, and an article within it, written by prof. John Duncan, an expert on South Korea and current director of the Center for Korean Studies at UCLA, titled "South Korean Intelligence efforts to the North Korean Regime" in which he wrote "Many stories about KJI are exaggerated and possibly circulated by South Korean intelligence to discredit the Northern regime" - woudl it be then ok to use the word 'many'? as a statement of fact, unattributed? Jeff Song (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it like this: I think that the chances are good that it would be accepted as an RS for that by consensus of RSN.
I think that there is often an unfounded belief that statements of fact in the voice of anonymous wikipedians will be more convincing than " John Duncan writing in Journal of South Korean Intelligence Studies stated that ...". There are cases when the number of corroborating sources are so numerous that it becomes unmanageable, where it makes good sense to protect readability, but they are much rarer than the form of much of our current article text would suggest. un☯mi 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 1580

Resolved

Creation and evolution in public education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

  • Is www.breakingchristiannews.com a reliable source for commentary on this resolution?
  • Is this article from the Evangelical Church in Germany's website a secondary source on an Evangelical Church in Germany conference? (It seems unlikely)
  • Is having two full sections ('Drafting and adoption' & 'Content') based purely on primary sources appropriate per WP:PSTS ("Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.")? For myself, I don't see how having this much detail on the drafting, adoption and contents of a resolution by an organisation, that is in any case purely advisory, rather than having any actual authority, is needed.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    • Some comments on that article (the discussion is actually between User:Hrafn and me):
    • Not perfect (it's not a major news agency), but it is a secondary source without specific reasons to suspect. I don't insist on that particular source.
    • While speaking German, I don't see in the article that the conference was held by the Evangelical Church in Germany.
    • First, those are not based purely on primary sources (not only the breakingchristiannews.com, but also IHEU is not a primary source). Second, use of primary sources is not forbidden and in this specific case they are the best - giving precise data on the full texts of documents involved, on the minutae of the PACE sitting, on the division of votes at the adoption of the resolution.Fuseau (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not your article's talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • P.S. Resolutions of UN General Assembly are, as a rule, also not binding, but WP has lots of detailed articles on them (and also on some PACE resolutions: 1481 (2006); 1416(2005)). It's not a coincidence - those assemblies represent a lot of countries (PACE - 47).Fuseau (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • P.P.S. A fuller reference to WP:PSTS would also include that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care". --Fuseau (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


  1. "Specific reasons to suspect": (i) it appears to be self-published. (ii) It appears to be actively promoting a WP:FRINGE agenda. (iii) It contains a disclaimer at the bottom of the page disavowing substantive editorial oversight of the contents.
  2. I clearly misread the ECG piece -- easy enough to do when you're being bombarded with foreign-langauge sources. I'm striking that query.
  3. The IHEU was only cited for the results of a single vote, not for any analytic or evaluative claims.
  4. The UN General Assembly has far, far, far more prominence than the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. And in any case its deliberations are generally not reported in such vote-by-vote, clause-by-clause obsessive detail. I would further point out that the Parliamentary Assembly (unlike the UN General Assembly) would appear to have been largely superseded by EU institutions that have similar geographic coverage but do actually have teeth.
  5. I would question whether two whole sections (almost) entirely primary sourced (with the only exceptions being a single unreliable source and the results of a single vote) amounts to "only with care".

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

    • It appears to be actively promoting a WP:FRINGE agenda - may be. But the article refers to breakingchristiannews.com not for evaluations or analysis, but just in order to show a certain reaction to the referral of Lengagne's report back to committee. The IHEU was only cited for the results of a single vote, not for any analytic or evaluative claims You rightly caught, whatfor secondary issues would be necessary - for analytic or evaluative claims. And my use of primary sources, which you object to, is just for affirming facts, not for analysis or evaluation. P.S. I've added now one more secondary source to "Content" section: Deutsche Welle in English.Fuseau (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It is a self-published and questionable source so NO, per WP:ABOUTSELF, it may not be used "to show a certain reaction to the referral of Lengagne's report back to committee" or for any other "claims about third parties". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I have no information on links between ACLJ and breakingchristiannnews.com, so I have no reason to consider the source self-published. Do you? If yes, I agree that source would be inappropriate. Fuseau (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I never said that breakingchristiannnews.com was self-published by ACLJ, merely that it appears self-published (by whoever) -- as well as being a WP:QS (actively promoting a WP:FRINGE agenda) and not being a WP:RS (disclaimer at the bottom of the page disavowing substantive editorial oversight of the contents). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
            • WP:SPS: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets". Somehow the source discussed here doesn't look to be anything from the examples given for what are self-published sources. Lack of editorial oversight is truly bad - and, as I wrote earlier, I don't insist on that particular source, and invite you to propose better sources. For now, I'll rephrase the text so that it will be confirmed by Reuters. Fuseau (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fuseau for that flimsy and tendentious piece of WP:WIKILAWYERing.

  1. What part of "such as" did you fail to comprehend? The list was meant to be representative not exhaustive.
  2. breakingchristiannnews.com "looks like" ... "newsletters, ... group blogs" -- and appears to be somewhere between those two categories.
  3. You have failed to address my two other concerns:
    1. "It appears to be actively promoting a WP:FRINGE agenda." (Thus a WP:QS)
    2. "It contains a disclaimer at the bottom of the page disavowing substantive editorial oversight of the contents." (Thus explicitly not a WP:RS)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've specifically agreed that Lack of editorial oversight is truly bad, so claiming I've failed to address that concern is at least strange, like is the ongoing discussion on that particular source 3 hours after it was removed from the article, which I also thank you for.Fuseau (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the admission of non-reliability among all the strenuous protestation of non-self-publishedness. And I must admit that doing the latter while admitting the former makes little sense -- as either way you're admitting that the source should not be used. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the use of primary sources: no, it is not legitimate to structure, weight or cite out of primary sources in the manner indicated above. Regarding BCN, they lie in the credibility category of wsws.org: don't use. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • 1. Could you motivate? And which is the manner indicated above? If you mean Hrafn's claim that two sections were based purely on primary sources, I agree that would be inappropriate - but I've shown it wasn't so even at the time of Hrafn's statement, and I've added new secondary sources since. 2. BCN link was removed from the article hours before your comment. Fuseau (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I couldn't motivate as that's incomprehensible in standard English, and doesn't appear to make sense in any other dialect of English I know. "In the manner indicated above" was in the introduction to this RS/N section. If the matter's reliability issues are resolved, please stop talking about it here. For advice on what this page is used for, please see the top of the page. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not your article's talk page—if you've resolved the reliability issues (as you seem to have), discuss the content on your article's talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • I had since modified my claim (as a result of your nit-picking) to "two whole sections (almost) entirely primary sourced (with the only exceptions being a single unreliable source and the results of a single vote)". Does this minor alteration make the usage of primary sources substantively less inappropriate? No. The material you have added since involves a wildly inaccurate claim made by "east European deputies" about communist support for Darwinian evolution -- not really much of an improvement, and a lengthy and unattributed quote (is it from the PA, or from DW, and you need to give the non-translated original in the footnote -- per WP:NONENG). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
        • No. The material you have added since involves a wildly inaccurate claim made by "east European deputies" about communist support for Darwinian evolution -- not really much of an improvement As I know, the European communist states did not deny evolution, so the claim isn't wrong. It's a bit strange (because support for evolution isn't specifically communist), but that's what certains PACE delegates claimed (note: WP article doesn't claim them to be right - the article just reflects their stated motivation for voting to send the report for revision) and what a reliable source (Reuters) has considered relevant. P.S. I specify: Lysenkoism did indeed deny Darwinian evolution, but it lost influence much earlier than the demise of "real socialism" has happened, so the claim isn't wrong, as far as concerning time between approximately 1956 and 1991, which was the time the delegates, probably, recalled (not the 30ies-50-ies in USSR and 1945-1956 in other countries). Fuseau (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
        • a lengthy and unattributed quote (is it from the PA, or from DW, and you need to give the non-translated original in the footnote -- per WP:NONENG)) Which one do you mean? In your last edit you've tagged one (aforementioned) quote, but it's in English, attributed and from Reuters, not PA or DW. Besides, both Parliamentary Assembly and Deutsche Welle sources I've used are in English. And I don't know which of the quotes I've added you consider unattributed.Fuseau (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. If you will point to a specific non-English quote where you doubt information, I might provide the original text.Fuseau (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hooded Utilitarian

Are the reviews on this website reliable/notable enough to be added to articles on artistic works like Habibi? Of the 17 contributors listed under "Contributors" on that site, two have their own Wikipedia articles, Marguerite Van Cook and James Romberger. But Nadim Damluji, the author of the review of Habibi that one editor added to the Habibi article, is not. Is it acceptable? Nightscream (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Noah Berlatsky, the editor of the Hooded Utilitarian. I thought I would try to provide some more info about the site in hopes that it would be helpful.

I personally have written for the Atlantic, the Chicago Reader, the Washington Times, Reason, and a number of other established outlets. The site itself was hosted on The Comics Journal website for about a year. We have been linked by established comics sites, such as the Comics Journal, the Comics Reporter, and the Beat. We have also been linked by mainstream sites such as boing boing and io9. A post about the Wire by Sean Michael Robinson and Joy DeLyria was extremely popular and was linked by everyone from Harper's to the Boston Globe. The post has been expanded into a book and will be released in a couple of months.

As you mentioned, James Romberger and Marguerite Van Cook both write for the site. We have also had guest posts over the years by creators and critics such as Ariel Schrag, Shaenon Garrity, Jason Thompson, Steven Grant. A number of academics have also written for us, including Craig Fischer, Peter Sattler, Qiana Whitted, Charles Hatfield, and Andrei Molotiu.

I believe you can confirm all that through google fairly easily.

Incidentally, the post by Nadim was widely linked and discussed through the comics community, including by the Comics Journal and by Eddie Campbell through his own blog.

Thanks for you interest in the site. I hope this was helpful. NoahB (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For convenience, here is the link on Eddie Campbell's blog: http://eddiecampbell.blogspot.com/2011/10/h-abibi-by-craig-thompson.html
Horologium (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Hooded Utilitarian's coverage of Habibi was just linked on NPR's site. a [[3]]

NoahB (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The Habibi review is reliable for the graphic novel Habibi and the author of Habibi, and would be reliable. It is reliable as it is published in an edited outlet, and demonstrates the standard form of medium to higher criticism of comics. We don't do general reliability. The Hooded Utilitarian could make it easier for RS/N editors by publishing their editorial policy under their About tab. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.religioustolerance.org

Looking at listed credentials I am not convinced that it is suitable as a source for philosophy articles - though it may well serve as a jump-off point for relevant sources of higher quality. Thoughts? un☯mi 01:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Suitable sources for philosophy articles would be philosophy articles, chapters, books and conference papers published in the scholarly presses. I'd suggest working from the footnotes of these first. Many search engines, such as JSTOR or google scholar provide direct access to scholarly works. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This web site has been discussed previously, and quite extensively. The conclusion was "It is an RS because Robinson [the site's editor] is a notable and acknowledged expert who has been published previously in reliable third-party sources and religioustolerance.org is used as a source for fact by reliable sources. However, it is still a self-published source and BLP restrictions for self-published sources apply. Care should also be taken not to add the site indiscriminately as as an external link; this has led to problems in the past." I see no reason to believe anything has changed since then. If anything, the site is even more well-respected as additional reliable sources have endorsed it in the period since that was written. As long as it is not being used for a biography of a living person there should be no problems. Of course if it's being used to cite fact it is citing to some other source, then that source should be tracked down and used instead, just like with any other source making reference to another. DreamGuy (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree - I think that we could conceivably use it as a 'source of last resort' on fringe / low-source-availability subjects - such as where it seems to have been used by the references in question. Namely Satanism, online cults, 'new religions' etc. which may not have a healthy body of extant scholarship. However, for 'mainstream' topics in philosophy, such as atheism, agnosticism, theism, epistemology etc. I really can't see it being able to offer anything different from what scholarly works can, and to the degree that it does - I see no reason why it should be trusted. un☯mi 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I can see using it for religion. I don't see why one would use it for philosophy. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am following a discussion at DRN which mentions this section. It is not possible to say whether a source is "reliable"–the question is always "is source X reliable to verify statement Y?". For example, a source may be reliable for a statement about poetry, but not reliable for a statement about biology (see "The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting" in the headers of this page). I have pointed out at DRN that religioustolerance.org is not a suitable source for a definition of "atheism" because the site has a (probably noble) agenda: they are promoting religious tolerance and are not claiming to be conducting scholarly research into the encyclopedic meaning of "atheism". Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Johnuniq and Unomi. Not any use for philosophy or theology where scholarly sources are available. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this viewpoint -- to the extent that it can be considered reliable (which is questionable), it is on the topic of new religious movements, not atheism. There are surely far, far better sources on the latter than this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree as well - a source of last resort, where there is a lack of more reliable ones to draw upon. Can be used, cautiously, but only when other sources are not avaiable. If Robinson is an acknowledged expert we should cite his writings in books, articles and the like when available, rather than his website. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is JesusFreakHideout reliable?

An editor has questioned the reliability of the website Jesus Freak Hideout as a source for band genres. The discussion can be found here. I have asked about this site once before, and that time it was found to be reliable. Also, it is listed as a reliable source on the Wikiproject for Christian music. The editor opposing says that this consensus does not overcome it being self-published, and that the mentions in third-party sources are merely trivial.--¿3family6 contribs 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes JFH is a RS. They have some sort of editorial board and a staff. In the realm of music, especially underground music, trying to claim that all RSes should be written by full time professional journalists is crazy. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that answer is going to satisfy this particular editor. I think he would appreciate a more in depth examination of the issue.--¿3family6 contribs 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I am the particular editor in question. Finding legitimate reliable sources for underground music is not all that hard; there are professional, print magazines dedicated to the subject (and websites that otherwise pass the necessary checks). If a band is sufficiently underground to not be featured, with significant, non-trivial coverage, in these sources, that should immediately call into question their notability and hence their inclusion. Having an "editorial staff" of amateurs does not somehow miraculously allow a WP:SPS to pass WP:RS; just as anyone could set up a website to air their opinions about music releases, anyone could set up a website with their mates (or even people they've found over the Internet) as an editorial staff, without making it a legitimate source. If their contributors have not otherwise been recognised as "experts" in their field (in Wikispeak terms, they been published by an independent, third-party source), what they have to say is irrelevant. The content of the site in question isn't published by an independent, third-party source, and as far as I can tell its contributors are enthusiastic amateurs. The site's mentions on other sites/books is merely trivial. We do not, for example, use Metal Archives as a reliable source (ever, ever, ever), even though they technically have an "editorial staff"; I have no idea what the comparative Alexa ratings are (not that it would matter), but I offer it as an example of something that we by vast consensus disregard, despite having "some sort of editorial board and a staff". JFHO fails WP:RS by a country mile, in my opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you don't use a site is a personal choice. All RS requires is editorial control. In addition, Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music quotes JFH when discussing albums and bands. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
How much is it quoted? Is it just the odd mention, or is the site used as a key source?--¿3family6 contribs 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you show me exactly within WP:RS it states that all that is required of a website is arbritrary "editorial control"? I personally, for example, run a website that others contribute to; none are professional, and it clearly fails WP:RS. I do however have "editorial control". I think your reasoning is flawed, unless you can point me towards some part of the guideline I have missed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Generally, I agree that there is more to an RS than just editorial oversight. The content must be generated by an actual staff, for starters. I have done some digging, and I've found that numerous sources refer to JFH. For starters, they are used as a reference for Newsboys in Refuel: The Complete New Testament for Guys from Thomas Nelson Publishers, though I can't view the full reference because of being limited to a preview. One of the staff of JFH has written at least one book, but that just makes him a reliable source, not the whole site. However, the site has had non-trivial coverage in HM Magazine: Circleslide getting JFH's Reader's Choice award and House of Hero's playing for the site's 14th anniversary. HM Magazine also gave fairly extensive coverage of a story done by JFH for an album by Fireflight. There are also numerous, more trivial mentions of reviews by JFH: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--¿3family6 contribs 14:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what weight this has, but I have found the following: On About.com, Kim Jones has Jesusfreakhideout listed as a review source, listed along with highly reputable sources such as Christianity Today and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are several, admittedly fairly trivial, mentions of JFH reviews in Christian Today: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. CCM Magazine also has a brief mention: [20]. Christian media outlet Cross Rhythms uses JFH extensively as a source for interviews, as can be seen from this search of the site. Finally, Christian webzine Rapzilla, which is used by Salem Publishing to cover Christian hip hop news, also mentions the site: [21], [22], [23], [24].--¿3family6 contribs 16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Some more findings: One of the staple sources of reviews for TodaysChristianMusic.com, a website run by CCM Magazine. The number of articles referencing JFH reviews, ranging from a quick mention to a major quote, is so long that I'll just give a link to the Google results. Two articles I will isolate are references demonstrating that JFH has exclusive music video streaming before a video hits other media sources: [25], [26].
There are also brief mentions of JFH in Crosswalk.com:[27], [28], [29], [30]. Also a mention by a writer for Beliefnet: [31]. The site Louder Than the Music list JFH among "major web sites" such as Gospel Music Channel.com, Beliefnet, and CCM Magazine, but I am not sure how reliable that website is.
But here is the most significant find: On page 12 of this PDF of a CCM Magazine issue, it states how JFH has become a major Christian music online resource.--¿3family6 contribs 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
In another CCM Magazine link, I found that John DiBiase was part of the magazine's review panel. Whether this specific info establishes the site as reliable, I'm not sure, but it means anything written by John DiBiase should be.--¿3family6 contribs 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
As an outsider to this conversation (albeit an occasional patron of the site in question), it seems to me the 3family6's sources, both in number and quality, are more than enough to establish the site as a WP:RS, especially those last two PDFs.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
So where does that leave this discussion?--¿3family6 contribs 02:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I discovered this discussion by accident but I have some very strong opinion on JFH as well. The problem is that we've been discussing it as a single entity. I don't look at it that way. I view it as three distinct entities or with three different purposes. Its first purpose is information. It passes-on press releases without vetting the information. So when it passed-on a press release about Relient K's recent EP, it introduced an error in the release's title. Albeit, that error originated from the label. There are more examples of that. In one sense, it's redistribution of press releases is a good thing, but in this aspect it's a primary source and not acting in a journalistic manner.
The second way in which it distributes information is in band interviews. When interviewing and discussing issues with band members we hear directly from the artists. In this way, it is a good and reliable source.
The final way is in album reviews. Here, I find the site lacking. Not all of the reviews are done by professionals. They use terms, particularly around genres, because they're asked to rather than understanding the full scope of those terms. Their ratings are usually accurate and in short they're purely the opinion of one editor. The real question though is how much editorial oversight do reviewers receive, and how does that relate to similar mainstream magazines such as SPIN?
In summary, JFH, can be a RS, but it's not always one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
So how do we determine that? Email or a Facebook message could work, but it would need to be verified.--¿3family6 contribs 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, given what Walter Görlitz has said, I think you'd treat the press releases as primary sources, interviews as a mix of primary (what the band members say) and secondary (what the interviewer claims), and reviews as secondary, and base reliability decisions not so much on the site, but on the reviewer. So if a reviewer has been published in other reliable sources such as SPIN, we'd consider the reviewer reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The reviews generally have no oversight and are the least reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you verify that? I'm not being obstructive here, just trying to make sure we make a decision from solid evidence.--¿3family6 contribs 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No I can't verify that so let's exclude it completely as a source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The about page does say "The JFH Staff writers adhere to strict journalistic standards. Our editorial staff is independent of any artist/record label/management firm." Evidently there is some editorial review, but the site is vague. Maybe a question on the site's Facebook page could clear things up.--¿3family6 contribs 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In general I agree with Walter's assessment. His summary is right "JFH, can be a RS, but it's not always one". I don't agree that their album reviews are necessarily lacking editorial oversight. Of course they are an opinion -- all album reviews are an opinion. I have found many JFH reviews on artists website and I added a few to the article. Obviously these artists feel that JFH reviews are important/reliable and the website is well-known to their fans. The website does reprint lots of press releases which are clearly labeled (and need to be treated as such). I was discouraged to see that Blackmetalbaz had removed almost all citations from the article (just because they were dead) right before slapping on the notability tag on November 14. They were placed in the article in 2007. Removal was against WP:LR so I restored them. And I added the Alexa ranking (before finding this discussion). Royalbroil 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
So with reviews, it looks like they are reliable as reviews, but not as sources for things like band history or genres, unless written by someone who has previous material that is not self-published. Is that a good assessment?--¿3family6 contribs 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the artists link to the reviews is simply an indication that they back the promotional material contained in them, not that they are reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with that.--¿3family6 contribs 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So what is the consensus?--¿3family6 contribs 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to note that, while I agree with the previous assessments of the site's news reports and interviews, I don't think they should be discounted as a source for genres, especially in light of the numerous instances linked to above of other reliable sources citing and discussing the site's opinion.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There is something I've been thinking about that could be relevant here. The New York Times is self-published by the New York Times company, but it is certainly reliable, and it is used in BLPs. What is the rationale behind this, and how is it a different case?--¿3family6 contribs 19:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything is self-published in a literal sense since no-one is forced to publish media, but basically in the way we use it, it is a divider between professional and amateur publishing. The theory being—although not always the case in practice—is that a hired staff will generally be professionally trained and qualified within their area and more capable of adhering to editorial standards. I think it's important to accept this as only a guide though, for me the real test is being cited in other RS media—it provides a form of peer review that in itself is more thorough and professional than the judgment of Wikipedia editors. It seems to be respected as an authority within its field, so I think it is probably reliable for relaying information. As for opinion pieces by its staff, I think that has to be taken on a case by case basis; some people's are opinions are worth more than others. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's basically what I thought, but I was not sure on the actual consensus.--¿3family6 contribs 02:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Taki's Magazine used as a source at James Kirchick

There is only one source for the BLP James Kirchick, and that's to Taki's Magazine, which, based on our article about it, doesn't appear to be a reliable source. If that attack page is removed, there are no sources in the James Kirchick article at all, and a BLP PROD could be applied. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph that apparently violated BLP on two counts. That does indeed leave it unsourced at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I fixed up the article for you. SilverserenC 04:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

skeptoid.com

Sgerbic (talk · contribs) has been adding dozens of external links to skeptoid.com, which is a skeptical blog/podcast/TV show. I think there might be some merit to judicous use of the website, operated by Brian Dunning (skeptic), who has some credibility in my opinion, but this user has been going through the archives and spamming links, for which they've been warned. I've left some in place on topics like Marfa lights and Devil's Footprints, where they seem to have value. I see no value in adding such links to topics like sin and faith. Any opinions? Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you - I removed a Skeptoid link from Pseudoscience before noticing your comment here. I completely agree about the Sin and Faith pages, and think the links should also be removed from Scientific method and Creation–evolution controversy (and probably from other articles, but these two in particular.)
Sgerbic, are you affiliated with Skeptoid? (Note that this isn't an accusation, just a question, and not an unreasonable one given your recent edits.) Dawn Bard (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a fan of Skeptoid. I explained to Acroterion on my talk page that I have been saving these edits up for some time waiting till I had a chance to add them into the pages they referred to. Apparently doing so all in one sitting has set off some kind of alarm. If I had made these edits once in a while then we would not be having this conversation. Sgerbic (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove the EL to pseudoscience? Surely a well-written article by someone noteworthy that discusses how to tell what is and is not pseudoscience is worth being included in an article about pseudoscience? Why didn't you remove the EL to the Skeptic Dictionary? * Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscience – Robert Todd Carroll, PhD. What about the article by Coker who is not noteworthy but wrote an article about how to distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

Here are the other references that were not removed.

Look up pseudoscience in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Skeptoid's 15 points on how to recognize pseudoscience fits well in this body of External links. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

These discussions about whether or not an EL should remain, should be discussed on the relevant page. Not here. And reverting an edit without a reason is not good policy. I thought the reason we were on the reliable sources noticeboard page was to discuss if Skeptoid is a reliable source or not?

I would like to add that I take issue with the claim that I am spamming anything. Each External Link I left is unique, and relevant to the page it was left on. Sgerbic (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sgerbic. The site has very good, detailed but consise essays on a wide range of fringe and pseudoscience topics. I've read through several of them and found them well-written and representative of the mainstream view and is well sourced. There is no spamming going on here. The links are added judiciously and appropriately. The reason so many links are being added is the large number of fringe topics covered by the site. This is a valuable reasource for our readers because it covers the topics in a basic, but thorough manner. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
My chief concern is where the EL is being added to topics that aren't fringe, sin and faith, as cited above, which I believe leads to NPOV problems.There appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach here that may not be appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. I agree they don't belong on such topics. But as for fringe and psudoscience topics, the site is top notch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Given that fringe topics are all too often linked to credulous conspiracy sites or *zomg* sensationalist crap, a skeptoid link may bring some reason to fringe topics, if used appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I respect skeptoid and think it would be a good EL on many specific fringey topics. However, indiscriminate use across a zillion articles would be a Bad Thing, and I doubt it's appropriate on most articles about general non-fringe concepts. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The most important thing, though, is that we all take our fingers off the revert button. Reflexive reverts just waste time and wear down goodwill, making it harder to reach a position that everybody's happy with. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Skeptoid is definitely reliable. There are dozens of episodes, so I think it would be easy to go overboard and reference Skeptoid in virtually every Wiki article dealing with pseudoscientific claims. Perhaps a better compromise would be to limit use of Skeptoid to more obscure topics that aren't widely covered. So, for example, there are a million articles on Homeopathy, so perhaps it's not necessary to use Skeptoid as a reference. But, certain UFO sightings, "haunted" castles, and other less widely-covered topics are covered by Skeptoid. Obviously, this isn't an official policy of Wiki, but it may make sense rather than referencing the articles a million times. Thoughts? JoelWhy (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I just wanted to jump back in to say that my removing the skeptoid link from Pseudoscience wansn't based on reliability - I do think skeptoid is reliable. But per WP:EL, reliabilty isn't the only thing to consider. The EL section already had three other links to "how to spot pseudoscience" type articles, and before I noticed this thread here, Sgerbic's edits looked very much like spam to me, and to at least two other Wikipedians. (I now think it's pretty clear that Sgerbic was acting in good faith.)

Also, from WP:EL "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" and "the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." So the question should be "why add it?" rather than "why not add it?" I don't think I was wrong to remove it, I think it's redundant, but I won't remove it again now that it's been added back. I stand by my assertion above that it should be removed from Scientific method and Creation–evolution controversy - like Acroterion, I think Dunning might have something to offer on the "fringier" topics, but there are many more appropriate resources on the harder science articles. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My take on this is similar to Dawn Bard's. There are often many sources that deal with our topics and relevance by itself cannot be sufficient for their inclusion - I think that's pretty obvious. In this case, while Dunning's Skeptoid podcasts/transcripts may serve a useful purpose in bringing pseudoscience to the attention of the iTunes masses, this very aspect of them suggests that they are unlikely to add anything new to our articles - the well-developed ones at least. A better approach, I'd say, would be to read the article, read the podcast transcript and if anything is covered better in the podcast, then use it to improve the article and cite it in the references.
A related concern is that of visibility and balance. The main sources for an article get listed, quite unobtrusively, in the References section. Those in External links, or Further reading appear far more prominently, and should, perhaps, be required to have a commensurate degree of importance to the topic.  —SMALLJIM  15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes the information on this web site reliable? I see above that some of us may like the broadcasts and the presentation of content on the site, but that isn't how we determine reliability. The web site is self-published, not peer-reviewed. Has Dunning established reliability by publishing in reliable third-party publications?

The web site is definitely promotional, pushing Dunning's broadcasts, live shows, books, videos, swag, and requests for subscriptions ("tips") which detracts both from claims of reliability and from the general utility of the site for this project. There are other sites with similar content that are not promotional. Jojalozzo 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal blog/podcast thing. That's generally a no-no for "reliable source". He just synthesizes other people's research, so why settle for the middle man when you could just go to the original research? I can also tell you that he says a lot of incorrect things in regards to climate change and a few other topics. In addition, he's been indicted for wire fraud and has some legal troubles according to his his wiki page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell all of the skeptoid pieces come with solid references and I note that he does issue corrections when errors are pointed out. Yes, wikipedia doesn't need an exhaustive list attached to all articles but he does a good job of gathering solid referenced facts together. Harizotoh9 were you going for ad hominem attack or something else? Daffydavid (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Still, it's a self published secondary source. If it has solid references, then why not just skip the middle man and use the same references he uses? Also, his legal troubles involve engaging in fraudulant activities, which does hurt his credibility as a reliable source a bit. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a bigger problem on Wikipedia than just the references mentioned here. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Let.27s_move_the_Skeptic_Society_references_to_a_single_section_of_the_article --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Worldstatesmen.org

User:Mewulwe has objected to [32] to be considered a RS, stating that it "clearly copies Wikipedia". It was originally included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Resources as an acceptable source for unreferenced articles, but Mewulwe has objected for it to be listed there. Any thoughts on this? – Connormah (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use a source that itself uses Wikipedia as a source. For a simple example in this case, the full name of former president of Nauru Kenas Aroi, "Nangindeit Temanimon Kenas Aroi," was added years ago to Wikipedia - along with a lot of other dubious Nauru-related information, including birth dates for Frederick Pitcher and Sprent Dabwido - by some self-declared Swiss schoolboy who has repeatedly been asked for a source and pointedly failed to respond at all (note my question two years ago as well as Aridd's recently). There is absolutely no independent occurrence of this data to be found anywhere else. Yet all of these have been later (as you can check via archive.org) adopted, clearly from Wikipedia, by worldstatesmen.org. (I have since removed all of these as unverifiable.) I could find any number of further examples, but really this should be already sufficient. Mewulwe (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

About.com (again)

Hi all, I'm reviewing AFN Munich for DYK, and I have concerns over the use of this reference from About.com. I am quite wary of it, as it is a) a language exercise and b) from About.com. As I do not speak German fluently, I cannot verify that all information in the about.com article is supported with the other sources; the nominator wishes to keep the current about.com reference as it is bilingual. Should about.com be allowed here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Need help on verifying sources. IMDB is obviously not reliable. However, the article is too big for me to check. Can you assist inspecting this article, please? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

www.renewamerica.us

Used heavily in Global warming conspiracy theory, including to make statements about WP:BLPs (that Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbuchev are part of the conspiracy, for instance). Does this source have sufficient notability to be used for such claims? 86.** IP (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm is the source for the claim that Jacques Chirac is involved in conspiracy, and http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover021607.htm for the claims about George Soros. None of these seem like sufficiently reliable sources to justify even a "these people are claimed to be part of the conspiracy" about WP:BLPs. There are lots of attacks made about lots of people on the internet, after all. 86.** IP (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that www.renewamerica.us is, at best, a questionable source (given Keyes' frequent promotion of WP:FRINGE viewpoints), so should not be used for material that "involve[s] claims about third parties". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
And I would suggest that Jim Inhofe & www.canadafreepress.com are likewise WP:QS (whether for extremism, or failure to fact-check). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


  • renewamerica is not in anyway reliable, see their publishing principles: ideology and no editorial control:

Our writers are united in their commitment to those unique ideals that are essential to American liberty. At the same time, we at RenewAmerica wish to reiterate the disclaimer we publish at the bottom of all columns that appear on the website:

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.

The same ultimately holds for writers of "analysis" pieces we publish — as well as all other writers who post at the site, or whose articles we may feature (or excerpt) from any source.

So that our writers might have sufficient freedom and latitude to express themselves (within RenewAmerica's clearly-defined commitment to our nation's most basic principles), we prefer to place the responsibility for the views of our writers upon the writers themselves. That's the only reasonable — and realistic — way to foster genuine diversity of opinion, as well as to inform our readers of a multiplicity of viewpoints.

  • http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm is not reliable due to parliamentary privilege
  • Canada Free Press is not reliable as it is an ideological screed, "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which contain love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership." (About Us); based on user submissions with no editorial policy
  • Anyone persisting in using these in BLP articles, especially after having our reliable sourcing policy explained, needs to be restricted from editing in this manner. If they're just used in non-BLP situations, just rip them out and delete the content sourced to them. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm familiar with these 'sources' and agree. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Caution. 86.** IP himself is not very reliable. In particular, www.renewamerica.us is not, as he claims, "[u]sed heavily in Global warming conspiracy theory". Also, there needs to be a careful distinction between a statement like "Al Gore is a conspiracist", citing (e.g.) www.renewamerica.us as authority re Al Gore, and the statement "www.renwamerica.us says 'Al Gore is a conspiracist'", citing www.renewamerica.us as authority re their own words. The point is not about Gore, but about a conspiracy theory, as the article makes clear. (If 86** hasn't gutted that part yet.) An otherwise unreliable source can be cited about it self, or, here, about what it has siad. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't be cited at all. The opinions there aren't weighty. Seek secondary sources, preferably academic sociology, on the nature of global warming conspiracy movements and theories. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am doing a systematic literature review of "climate change" and "global warming" "skepticism" and "denial". I have found a number of papers that seem to be relevant from 1991 to 2011. Most seem to be within sociology of science, political science, or philosophy of science. The journals that published papers in 2011 include the list below. I would be grateful for any comments on which are reliable. My impression is that all are normal academic journals except Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which is a magazine, and Neuroquantology which has pseudoscientific aspects. Some of the others seem to be prestigious while others are minor but respectable journals:
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine
  • Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
  • Environment
  • Futures
  • Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
  • Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions
  • Nature
  • Nature Climate Change
  • Neuroquantology
  • Organization & Environment
  • Osiris
  • Public Understanding of Science
  • Sociological Quarterly

Thanks for any comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith, let me boot Ulrichs:

  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine
  • Peer reviewed (0749-3797 1873-2607), reliable within normal academic limits of reliability:
  • MIXED: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    • 0096-3402 (Ceased) peer reviewed, reliable within normal limits
    • 1938-3282 (Active) not peer reviewed, may be reliable as a secondary source for non-academic claims, bring articles forward to RS/N for specific circumstances & claims
  • Environment
    • Taylor & Francis? 0013-9157 or 1939-9154 ? Peer reviewed, reliable within normal limits
  • Futures
    • Pergamon? 0016-3287, 1873-6378? Peer reviewed, reliable within normal limits
  • Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
    • Supply an ISSN?
  • Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions
  • Nature
    • Reliable
  • Nature Climate Change
    • Reliable
  • Neuroquantology
    • 1303-5150 Not listed as peer reviewed in Ulrich's. Their website indicates that they're peer reviewed to an academic standard. Normal academic limits on reliability
  • Organization & Environment
    • Reviewed, normal academic limits
  • Osiris
    • reviewed, normal academic limits
  • Public Understanding of Science
    • reviewed, normal academic limits
  • Sociological Quarterly
    • reviewed, normal academic limits
  • All of these except for recent publications in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are peer reviewed scholarly journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Gaia's ISSN is 0940-5550 and this is the journal website. I am seriously concerned about Neuroquantology. The editorial board listing gives countries but no institutional affiliations. The founder and editor in chief has a web page describing him as a neurologist in a private hospital. I Googled the names of two other editorial board members. One is on a university staff list as a doctoral student. The other is a psychiatrist in private practice, author of a number of books with non-academic publishers.
This is the relevant paper, with part of the abstract.

Schwartz, S. A. (2011). "The Antique Roadshow: How Denier Movements Debunk Evolution, Climate Change, and Nonlocal Consciousness." Neuroquantology 9(1): 118-128. This paper describes the rise of three "denier" movements in the United States, and describes how each is actively engaged in trying to debunk and impede the free development of science: the Creationist Anti-evolutionists, the Climate Change Deniers, and the Consciousness Deniers. The last, a group that cannot, or will not, consider consciousness as anything other than physicalist processes.

Any further comments would be welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"NeuroQuantology is a quarterly peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that covers the intersection of neuroscience and quantum physics/mechanics" sounds a bit fringe-y, as do some of the paper titles like "The Fractal Nature of the Brain: EEG Data Suggests That the Brain Functions as a 'Quantum Computer' in 5-8 Dimensions" or "Near Death Experiences: A New Algorithmic Approach to Verifying Consciousness Outside the Brain". Perhaps WP:FTN could help? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please spare a bit time for------

  • I would like to see you opinion about references as under,

1.http://www.bashaoorpakistan.com/urdu/download-urdu-novel-peer-e-kamil-pbuh-umera-ahmed/

2.http://www.pubarticles.com/article-critical-analysis-of-urdu-novels-of-umera-ahmed-1295436479.html

3.http://www.onlineurdunovels.com/author.php?no=1&a=Umera Ahmed

4.http://www.chowrangi.com/peer-e-kamil.html / http://www.chowrangi.com


1,2,3 and 4th links have been cited to article Umera Ahmad and Pir-e-Kamil, please give your bold and fair opinion sothat [unreliable source?] templetes on the said articles can be removed or remained. About link 4,I am sure of its relialibity, it is a kind of news journal/magazine. I hope editors will spare a bit time to give their review.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It will be hard to convince anyone that a website written in very poor English is a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No. 2 (Pubarticles.com) is definitely not a reliable source (anyone can submit an article, so we have no way of knowing if the author knows what he or she is talking about ... and there appears to be no editorial oversight.)

Daily Mail

An admin gave me a block threat over this edit, saying Daily Mail is usually not reliable. Is it true Daily Mail is unreliable? Pass a Method talk 21:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For most sources like this, they are never truly reliable or unreliable, as it depends on the context used. In terms of the Daily Mail, because of past scandals involving people, Wikipedians are wary of considering it reliable. So, unless you have other sources also backing up the information, it's best to not use it on biography articles. Other parts of it, like television, movie, or game reviews and other news that doesn't involve people is probably perfectly fine to use as a source. SilverserenC 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
And what i'm seeing when I look up information on this is a lot of sources saying that it didn't cause a controversy, mainly because Colonel Tom Parker kept it all under wraps. Some other rock stars that were involved in such controversies were a little upset that Elvis wasn't. SilverserenC 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is an excellent source for football scores. Not so reliable on people stories. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia will eventually have to come up with another term than "reliable source" - in Wikipedianese, it mainly means a known publisher which actually checks stories published it. It has nothing to do with the source being inerrant or infallible at all. The more "interesting" a claim is, the more likely it is to be sensationalized by any publisher (even the New York Times has done this). It is not really in Wikipedia's purview to be "as interesting as possible" but rather to give a neutrally worded and oriented article on any topic. In the case at hand, WP:BLP applies as one person is, indeed, a "living person" making the strictures quite strong. As a result, the admin rightly objected to a claim made without exceedingly strong sourcing (even the NYT as a "sole source" would likely be insufficient - this is not a Daily Mail case really at all). If you did provide such exceedingly strong sourcing, then the claim would likely be allowed. I can not, however, find "exceeding strong sourcing" for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute

I found this report:[33] its by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute, is it a reliable source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For what? The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is an advocacy group, if a respected one. I'd imagine the document would be a reliable source for its view on issues, but for facts - depends. What statement are you trying to use it to back, in what Wikipedia article, and what specific part of the document are you using as a reference? --GRuban (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It says on p 15 that Ein Qiniyye had a christian population before 1967. I was thinking about using it in its article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. That seems an off-hand mention among a long polemic about Israeli expulsion of Syrian Arabs from the Golan; the claim is quite likely controversial, so likely needs a good source. One without an obvious axe to grind would be ideal, but is probably too much to ask for, however one that devotes more than a passing mention to it would be nice. What probably is a good idea, though, is adding the alternate spelling 'Ain Qinya to the article lead. --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsure of "source"

Anon IP:200.148.33.5, is using this source, James H. Guill, A history of the Azores Islands , Volume 5, page 139, in the article Antipope Felix V in which he/she states that Amadeus VIII(later Felix V) had a daughter Margaride that married a Willem van der Haegen.[34]
The author James H. Guill, is only known for his history of the Azores and I found nothing in any other published sources that support this supposed daughter,Margaride, or that Willem was a grandson of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy.[35]
Any thoughts concerning Guill's reliability as a genealogical source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is another book mentioning that Felix V did have a daughter Margarita [36] ... as does Britannica (Margherita) [37]; though neither says whom she married.--GRuban (talk)
If we are to believe the article Antipope Felix V, it lists him having two daughters named Margaret, one that dies at 13 and another that is married 3 times(none of which is a Willem). The spelling may or may not be an issue concerning Margaride/Margarita/Margaret, yet since neither listed are married to a Willem, I am still at square one. It would appear the first link indicates Margaret of Savoy, Duchess of Anjou, who would have been between husbands in 1442. The second link is also Margaret of Savoy and her first husband. Unfortunately, I have not found anything in Spanish, French or English sources that supports Willem being the grandson of John "the Fearless", Duke of Burgundy. My sincerest thanks for the links, though. I usually do not get answers when I ask questions on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures as reliable sources?

Can pictures be used as evidence of the existence of something or does that involve interpretation and, thus, make them original research? The article in question is Ninjatō and the sources being used are this and this. They are being used as references for sentences stating the swords are on display in specific museums. The issue I have with this is that 1) You have to be able to read Japanese and interpret the Japanese in these pictures to confirm this and 2) there's no way to confirm that these are actually in the museums in question without going there. SilverserenC 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically they don't prove anything, as you obviously realise. The only reliable evidence would be a publication or the museum's catalogue. But it would be silly to remove these links from the article, since they add useful information which is probably not controversial. Our aim is to do things that are useful, not silly. So, if these two pictures are cited in a footnote, I would remove the footnote, leave the statement in the text unfootnoted, and insert the link at external links. Andrew Dalby 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, is this a reliable source? SilverserenC 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Virtual Museum of Traditional Japanese Arts is produced for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Kodansha International Ltd.". An academic source would be better than this, but I'd say this is OK as a start: Kodansha International was a reputable publisher. Andrew Dalby 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's good, that means I can use it in the article for info. However, do you agree that what it's currently being used to source (existence of Ninjato at the Iga Ryu Ninja Museum) is inappropriate, since it says nothing about the stated museum in it? SilverserenC 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Nitpick: "there's no way to confirm that these are actually in the museums in question without going there" - I'm not sure this actually disqualifies a source. The issue of accessibility of sources has been raised several times before, and IIRC the general consensus only required that it be possible for others to check a source, without requiring that it be easy to do so. (Context does matter here; I've run into one vandal who deliberately mis-cited inaccessible sources and it got to the point where I'd reject such sources on the pages he targets, but it doesn't sound as if that's an issue here.) --GenericBob (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
True, but there's a difference between accessibility to, say, a book, which you would be able to at least confirm exists online, even if you can't access it online. But, when you're dealing with a picture, there's no way to confirm it exists without going to the museum and, if you don't find it there, does that mean it was never there or perhaps they changed their displays? I find pictures to be very suspect when we're supposed to assume information from them, information which is not directly stated by the source. SilverserenC 11:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. We would accept a book as evidence (even if it isn't available online), because, via its creator's credentials, we can assure ourselves of its reliability. Similarly, we would accept a museum's website or its public catalogue on the question of what items it possesses because we would regard the creator, the museum, as a reliable source on that. But we don't know anything about the creator of these photographs.
I still say, if there's no controversy, they can be listed under "External links". We don't vouch for the reliability of "external links", we just want them to add something useful to the article. Andrew Dalby 10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the images to an external links sections. I've also moved the info from the Web Japan link to the Appearance section, since it said nothing about either of the museums. And i've also added a citation needed tag to that sentence about the museums. SilverserenC 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a parallel discussion currently at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tommy_Morrison_the_boxer where I commented "I have occasionally wondered about this (principle, I mean, not this photo). Why do we allow images with no reliable source to back them up, when we wouldn't allow arguments like 'It seems plausible to me' for written content?" Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing emoticons

Recently, an editor removed a large amount of content from List of emoticons (history), on the grounds that the removed emoticons were not reliably sourced. Since then there's been something of a backlash on the talk page, and after seeing complaints both on Reddit and from a friend I thought I'd bring the issue here for some new eyes.

Previously the emoticons under the "2channel emoticons" header were sourced to the 2channel emoticons board. Here's why I think this attribution is OK:

  1. List of emoticons has survived several AfDs, establishing the notability of the topic itself. From that point, notability guidelines (which were used to justify in part the cleanup) do not apply per WP:NNC.
  2. Emoticons are user-generated content, and are resistant to being reliably sourced. The standard for such sources should be lowered so that we can give a reasonably comprehensive treatment of the subject.
  3. Users' conversational posts aren't being cited; instead, the referenced sources are compilations of specific emoticons which were selected as well-known, popular, or especially clever. This is reminiscent of the "grouping or set" requirement in WP:LISTN.
  4. 2channel is the most popular imageboard in the world, and has an enormous impact on net culture in Japan - as the references in that article show. "If 2chan (the single biggest representation of Eastern internet culture) isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is."

What do you think? What should be the standard of sources for emoticons? Thanks! .froth. (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Malachi Martin

This article is about a controversial priest who died 10 years ago. In his lifetime he was widely published and probably interviewed 100's of thousands of times. Both he and his work have been written about. Many of these sources are listed in the article; however the bulk of the references (including everything from number of languages he spoke to him acting as the Vatican's own 007) are tied to an audio cassette put out by his followers which sounds like an obituary, eulogy: Doran, Brian (2001) (cassette), Malachi Martin: God's Messenger - In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, published by Catholic Treasures. I am not comfortable with this as source material for a biographical piece. Am I wrong? I say this as a fan of the priest's nonfiction writing before he suffered a stroke. I think better source material can be found is all. I just don't want to get into a pissing contest with some of the editors. Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for a cast listing?

I'm attempting to source the filmography for Dylan and Cole Sprouse. I have a few questions about what would be a reliable source for a cast listing:

  • Is Amazon a reliable source for this purpose?
  • Is a review aggregator (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes) reliable for this purpose?
  • Is an episode of a television show itself (especially if a timecode and/or the exact wording of the credit is given) reliable for this?

Thanks for any help. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If they receive on-screen credit in a television or film appearance, then that appearance can be cited itself. {{Cite episode}} is useful for this. If they're not credited on-screen then you'll probably need to use a source which would normally pass WP:RS and mentions their appearance. Reviews might mention this, or perhaps if there's an official website, as it would be authoritative in this regard. GRAPPLE X 02:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've only been citing episodes I have access to, even when I know they're in (and credited in) other episodes. Also, I'd use their website, except that it doesn't list a lot of their minor roles/appearances, which are most of the ones I'm trying to cite. I'm also still a bit unclear on whether Amazon would be reliable or not, though I'm leaning towards not. I have a hard time understanding/interpreting the information in WP:RS, even though I love finding sources (and generally am able to tell what's unreliable/reliable). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Amazon is not reliable. It mirrors the information supplied to it by publishers/distributors, often including errors and misunderstandings. Andrew Dalby 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! :) - Purplewowies (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

List of films in the public domain in the United States

How about this article? Are its sources reliable? Some Archive.org sites are invalid due to copyright issues, including URAA? --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive.org is a primary source on what the article claims to provide ("a list of films that certain cited sources believe are in the public domain"). We should not base an article chiefly on primary sources. In any case, to link to these files at archive.org, if we confidently believe that they are breaching copyright, is immoral, isn't it? And to compile a list like this on the basis of archive.org's catalogues is original research, isn't it? Andrew Dalby 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If you are right, may I remove the whole list, or may I PROD or debate it for deletion the second time? --George Ho (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's see what others say. My second (moral) point shouldn't be pressed if we think archive.org has arguable justification -- evidently the copyright status of feature films is extremely complicated. But, setting that aside, the vast majority of the footnotes on the list are to archive.org, so it still looks to me like OR based on a primary source. Andrew Dalby 19:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This conversation probably should be happening on the article discussion page. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Good point ... and discussion is now continuing there. See Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States#The list of films. Andrew Dalby 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Trade Magazine Sources for Article on Website

This relates to Internet Evolution, an online community which seems notable because of its list of contributors. In addition to a New York Times source, I have used independent, national trade magazine sources, including sources owned by Crain Communications and Haymarket Group. These are being challenged as "press releases." It seems to me that viable articles on commercial organizations will often be based in large part on information from trade magazines. It's also obvious that the coverage might be prompted by press releases. If the article simply reproduces a press release, I would say it was not independent or reliable. In my examples, however, (refs 2,3 and 4), these are by-lined articles with individual, unique content including (different) quotes, apparently from direct interviews.

Surely articles of this sort are distinguishable from press releases. After all, mainstream news sources use press releases. Thanks for any guidance.WebHorizon (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)WebHorizons

I have to agree that the notes 2-4 from trade publications tend to be acceptable, provided they aren't to clearly self-serving. None of the specifically cited notes (2-4) seem to be particularly self-serving, and should I think on that basis qualify as acceptable as per WP:RS and probably as individual indicators of notability as well. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

US Weekly and People magazine

Are US Weekly and People considered reliable sources? The reviewer for a GAN I nominated said that "People and US Weekly hardly high class reliable sources, rather they are tabloid press". Till I Go Home (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This depends on exactly what you are trying to support with a citation to these sources. They fall into the large grey zone between top-tier news broadsheets and low-tier tabloids. Note... even the most scandal-mongering of trash tabloids can be considered reliable in some situations, and even the most respected of broadsheets can be deemed unreliable in some situations. No source is ever considered 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Specifics matter. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
People is definitely reliable, but I wouldn't count on US Weekly. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The article in question, which I am reviewing is Heidi Montag. I am concerned at the quality of sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

UPI: are UPIS articles usable?

are articles published by UPI at UPIS usable? -- Semitransgenic talk. 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes ... what exactly do you wish to use it for, and in what article? Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
minor article, music genre related item, Dubstep, cite from this was removed. Source looks usable to me. -- Semitransgenic talk. 08:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Henry Charles Lea on Saint Dominic

Is Henry Charles Lea's book History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888) usable in the article Saint Dominic? Is it usable if attributed "According to the 19th century historian Henry Charles Lea?" Is this any good as a convenience link? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shome mishtake? The domain appears to be for sale ... But the required volume can probably be found at archive.org.
As to Lea's book, well, it was a good book but not always encyclopedic: "utterly guiltless" (currently quoted in the text of our article) is a bit POV for our purposes. Iit's very hard to find scholarship about Saint Dominic that is encyclopedic. Yes, it may be necessary to cite Lea for facts: I think I'd avoid quoting him verbatim. Andrew Dalby 21:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I must have miscopied the url in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sea buckthorn article

The article

  • Xu Mingyu; Sun Xiaoxuan; Cui Jinhua Yang. "The medicinal research and development of seabuckthorn". Xiyuan Hospital of the Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

is used on a whole lot of commercial Web sites that sell sea buckthorn oil. The article itself doesn't give many hints as to where it was published, although the credentials of all of the authors looks solid. Xu Mingyu, for example, is cited in the references of the paper as having written these two papers:

  • Xu Mingyu et al. 1991. Present conditions and the future research on the seabuckthorn medicinal use. J. Water and Soil Conservation of China (5): 38
  • Xu Mingyu et al. 1993. A brief report on an anti-bacterial experiment using seabuckthorn oil. Hippophae 6 (2): 28-29.

Would the first paper cited above be considered a reliable source?

It *looks* plausible but I would say no. Not unless you can substantiate that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. As it is, the paper says that seabuckthorn is the best thing since sliced bread, and it is found on seabuckthorn.com. Hmm. I have not looked, but if I bet a dollar the the main site sells the stuff would I lose my money? I think not, and didn't even bother to suppose I might not. Money at stake is an ENORMOUS red flag. If you can verify peer-reviewed publication, though, that's an entirely different story. Try scholar.google.com with the article title, maybe. Or an author? And if you find it, please use the journal as a reference rather than the website ;) I have actually seen some fairly solid Chinese research on herbal remedies, which the US drug industry is totally uninterested in pursuing, since you generally can't patent a plant. So this article conceivably *could be* the real deal, but so far this has not been shown. HTH. Oh. And... I believe that medical claims have somewhat more stringent standards than most articles. I am not familiar with them and you may want to see what they are exactly. But if the research is legit, you should be able to find more than one reference at Google Scholar, and several peer-reviewed articles probably will get you in the right ball-park of reliability, I'd guess. Elinruby (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
(btw, if anyone is having trouble with the link it has a typo -- you need to remove the extra F at the end of PDF)Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

National emblem

Please advise if this could be considered a reliable source for “Quebec - Yellow Birch” on National emblem#Trees. Daicaregos (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Err ... yes, that seems to be an official govt web site, and it does say the yellow birch is the official tree. But unless I'm wrong, that isn't the point of the argument on Talk:National emblem#Inclusion criteria for Nations. No one there is contesting that the yellow birch is the official tree of Quebec, just whether Quebec counts as a Nation for purposes of our article. The Quebec govt web site doesn't directly address that issue. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Nor should it. But thank you for confirming the Quebec Government website is a reliable source that Yellow Birch is the national tree of Quebec, per WP:V – the question posed. Daicaregos (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
As Quebec isn't a nation, Quebec's yellow birch should be excluded. Its addition has the potential to be provocative. Therefore, I reverted your edit (per BRD). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's the reliable source [38] that shows Quebec wasn't recognized by the Canadian government, as a nation. It merely recognizes the francophone majority population of the province, as a nation (i.e. Quebecois) within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the opinion of the Canadian government -- which I am not sure the CBC site reflects, as this is a ticklish point of internal politics and possibly constitutional law --- *Quebec* considers itself a nation. It has, for example, a National Assembly and a National Library. It also has a creation story that may differ from English-language texts ;) This is going to be a matter of how nation is defined. Personally I think it's a nation, even if not a country. The question in my mind is whether this list is important enough to have the argument over. I suppose I should go represent... Elinruby (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Ferrick

After working on Tom Ferrick (baseball)'s wikipedia article, I decided to send his son an e-mail and let him know I worked on his dad's wikipedia article, and ask him what he thought of my work after seeing that he was a writer.

He responded to my e-mail letting me know that he liked it, and made a $50 donation to wikipedia to thank me. His e-mail also included additional information-- very good information I might add-- about his father. The information he sent me is worth adding to the article, but there really isn't any way to reference it. Is there anything I can do?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer is: Probably not. Unless you can find a published source that mentions what Ferrick's son told you, you really should not add it to the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I added the information Tom Ferrick gave me about his dad to his bullpen article on the Baseball-Reference website. Read it; it would give any nostalgic baseball fan goosebumps.

Request for comment at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard

Request for comment at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn is made.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The debate at that section appears to belong on the talk page of the article in question, and neither here nor at WP:N/N. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

On this article two sources are used to back the claim that Pakistan denies giving financial and military support to the Taliban. The first source used says While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite.[39] The second [40] Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. I am of the opinion that this is a misrepresentation of the sources as it cherry picks one sentence and ignores the rest. Should the sentence be amended from Pakistan vigorously denies it to accurately represent the sources as in this edit. [41] were I wrote Pakistan vigorously denies giving support since the September 11 attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is being continued at WP:NPOVN#Taliban and the article talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources conflict

In the article on Overstock.com there is a conflict of sources. The Associated Press reported that the company set up fake websites. The entire segment was removed by a user who said the reporter was "wrong," citing a Wall Street Journal account. [42]. I've reinstated both versions, as I don't think we can choose between the two. Was this correct? Can we disregard an Associated Press report because we believe it to be wrong? The two versions are not mutually exclusive, but I hesitate and ask for advice because I don't want wrong information in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure the AP is wrong, but it may be.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to use both sources, the one which says they have set up fake sites, the other to say this report was denied. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The AP report hasn't been denied or corrected, as far as I know. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Then give both AP and WSJ stories and point out where they conflict. Glrx (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide

Source: Pehlivanoğlu Işıl. Assia Djebar'ın L'amour, la Fantasia ve la Disparition de la Langue Française Başlıklı Romanlarında Sömürgecilik Ekseninde Dil ve Kimlik. T.C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları (Fransız Dili ve Edebiyatı) Anabilim Dalı. 2010. URL:http://acikarsiv.ankara.edu.tr/browse/6288/ışıl_pehlivanoğlu_tez.pdf.pdf. Accessed: 2011-12-31. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/64LWMWPPu)

Disputed sentence: France is the most accused country of the Rwandan Genocide because of the support to Hutu government for the genocide.

Aside from the grammatical problems, the sentence appears to accuse France of supporting the genocide. I consider that an exceptional claim and don't believe the cited source is adequate (whether or not it supports the claim, which is somewhat in doubt). The article is Rwandan Genocide, the most recent diff is this one, and there is a talk page thread.

Thanks for any help. Rivertorch (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • God no, it is a postgraduate thesis. This is not a good enough source for such a claim, in fact I would expect a great many more sources stating this or you would violate WP:UNDUE. I have never heard of France being accused of sharing the blame in the genocide, and I have read a lot on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't a good enough source for the claim. In my own reading on the Rwandan Genocide, I have come across mention of French troops training militias; I would speculate that such training might be interpreted by some as complicity in the genocide. Perhaps that's what prompted the source's authors to make such a claim, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a mainstream view. John Shandy` • talk 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we make a claim that Bilderberg Group meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names

There's a bit of an edit war at Bilderberg Group, although being discussed on the talk page, about this. There's nothing in the article about this occurring, and it's based on a sidebar here [43] that says "Meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while an opposition MP". 'Verifiability not truth' is being raised as the reason to keep it it, and Loremaster isn't even willing to remove it from the lead. As is pointed out on the talk page, Clinton was already well known, and Blair was at the meeting 4 years before becoming PM. If this were true -and signficant, ie relevant to their becoming household names--, then it would have been an item of discussion by pundits. As it is, it is in an article by a free-lance journalist who isn't a specialist in politics [44] and not only that, it's in a sidebar and those are often written by editors (such as the text that introduces the piece). So we can't be sure of its authorship. I'm arguing that this is a trivial comment, author unknown, and not a reliable source for such a bold statement. The editor insisting it stay was asked to provide other sources but hasn't so far. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a little intrigued by this I went in search of sources, and like the Spanish search for the city of gold, found Nada. I would have to say, remove it from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination source dispute

There is a dispute at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories over whether this material is or is not acceptable as a reliable, verifiable source for a claim that the US Marine Corps has no record of their snipers ever having attempted (unsuccessfully) to reenact the assassination as described in the Warren Commission report. One editor is repeatedly inserting the statement, while another is repeatedly removing it, and each of them claims he has policy on his side. — Richwales (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No. An unpublished e-mail isn't remotely acceptable as a source for anything: see WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is missing the point. The USMC Historical Office says there is no official report on the matter. Anyone who wants to confirm can easily contact the USMC Historical Office on the matter. More significantly, if someone claims there is an official report -- where is it? If there is no official report of the sniper test, it is forensically worthless. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't missing any point - Wikipedia bases articles on published sources. This is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Where is the official report validating the sniper test? AFAIK there isn't one, and so the comments about the sniper test are invalid by Wikipedia's own standards. We can certainly say that the author of the sniper story, Craig Roberts, identified no official documentation backing up his claim, and without official documentation the sniper test is forensically worthless. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't based on what 'you know'. If you wish to argue that the source for the sniper test is invalid, then raise that here, in a new section - but note that we don't accept unpublished e-mails as proof of anything. As for things being 'forensically worthless', this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Would there be any objection to commenting that: "No one has ever produced official USMC documentation validating this test or demonstrating its forensic value." This is a true statement. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a published source that states that? Again, Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on what contributors think the 'truth' to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that's playing "prove a negative". Roberts did not identify any official USMC source for his assertions; no search online even indicates the existence of any such USMC record; and anyone who cares to contact the USMC will be informed there's nothing there. The simple fact is that Roberts made uncorroborated and unverified assertions; certainly it would seem relevant to the credibility of Wikipedia to point this out. If the phrasing is an issue, then let me know what phrasing would be appropriate. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not base articles on contributors original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody – an admin at that – honestly believes there's a legitimate possibility that an unpublished private purported email meets the Wikipedia requirements for verifiability? Really? So each reader is supposed to "verify" this assertion by sending their own email to the Marine Corps? Absurd.

That said, the anon IP does have a point that the entire paragraph about the Quantico test has other legitimate issues. The sourcing appears to be a private blog interpreting Roberts' book. The only source for the Hathcock quote is (that posting about) the book. The book itself, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza (ISBN 978-0-9639062-0-5) appears to be a self-published source. (On his website, riflewarrior.com, Roberts identifies himself as "Proprietor of 'Consolidated Press International'", the publisher of the book.) So while the "rebuttal" is obvious original research, I think anything in the article (i.e., the Quantico test and a subsequent mention in the Federal Reserve section) sourced to the book without mention in a reliable secondary source should also be removed. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) The second hand claim of an email is not a RS; the unpublished email itself would not be an RS; even a signed letter may not be an RS because it might be authored by a low-level employee. Proving the nonexistence of something may be an impossible task. What if the report is still classified? Furthermore, nothing in the source suggests that the USMC ever undertook an official investigation or produced a report. Hathcock and some others could have just set up the test on their own initiative; his comments may be about that informal activity. It could be a classroom project, and some students wrote a term paper that never got entered into a USMC catalog. Hathcock is a prominent individual, so his opinion may be reported. (BTW, using the apparent blog Count the Bullets isn't good practice; the book should have been cited directly.) Glrx (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
if the book isn't reliable, then the paragraph isn't reliable. Glrx (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I should emphasize my main issue is that the Hathcock test is being presented as a "proof" of conspiracy in the article, but I have tried hard to figure out where the story came from, and I can't find a trace of it -- very often conspiracy stories are garbled versions of true facts, but I don't even get that much out of it. Not accepting emails as proof? No complaint about that, but my question is: where IS the proof of the story?

It's not even logical. CBS NEWS did a really spiffy marksmanship test in 1967 with some of the 11 shooters out-shooting Oswald, none were pro shooters, Hathcock could have blown the doors off all of them. And what brief did the USMC have to investigate the assassination? None, and they would have stepped on all kinds of toes to contradict other investigations. If it was some informal goofing around, then why would anyone think it significant as "proof"?

But that's as much as I can say. I recommend striking the entire Hathcock issue as dubious, but you'll do what you think best. Give it some real thought and I'll live with the decision. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You should challenge the paragraph based on its source -- not by by trying to prove that the statement is wrong. You don't have to push your source; just condemn the article's source. The current source for the paragraph is a blog, and blogs are not acceptable sources. The apparent source for Hathcock may be a self-published book, and self-published books are often not reliable sources. The article needs a reliable source for Hathcock's story. Glrx (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. I can't find one. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems that you are missing the point. If the editors who want the paragraph in the article cannot produce a RS when WP:CHALLENGEd, then the paragraph is out. It's not your WP:BURDEN to produce an RS; it is their burden. Glrx (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh! That was my point all along. I just ended up coming to it from a completely bass-ackwards arguing position. I am shamed. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Allrovi and BLPs?

Are the biographies given on AllRovi considered reliable for BLPs? I'm trying to expand Jerry Hardin, and I'm not finding much beyond a very brief biography in an X-Files guide book, which understandably focusses a lot on his role, rather than him. However, a biography of his daughter Melora Hardin on AllRovi (here) provides some details I'd like to include, for example his wife's name. Nothing contentious, but I'd just like to be sure given how cautiously BLPs are generally approached. GRAPPLE X 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times licences Allrovi content so you can always that as the source instead: http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1548591/Melora-Hardin/biography. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the exact same bio, though, so it seems a cheat to source it to a mirror. I'd assume, though, that given NYT's credibility, that they're not going to mirror something shoddy. I'll go ahead with the original on that basis, if it's not suitable it can be removed. GRAPPLE X 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Intelius

Is Intelius a reliable source for a DOB? It is used in the Kath Soucie article (I know that even the Intelius article doesn't indicate the month, day or the precise year - just the present age). There was a brief discussion of Intelius on RSN here, but not much analysis. We also have an article on Intelius, but I don't know that it really resolves this issue. Although not strictly a primary source, Intelius strikes me as pretty close because one assumes it's getting its information from public records. Worse, unless you pay them, you don't even know what records they are using (and that assumes they tell you if you pay them).

Opinions?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Inteliius is really a data-miner with no fact checking. People with the same name may be easily confused. I don't think it actually has access to birth certificates of living people, but is rather using the public record trail most people leave behind. And you are right that they don't always give you what they will suggest they have even if you pay... unless you pay for the more expensive full background check. I wouldn't think it would qualify as a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of reliable media reports as secondary sources to support primary sources

  1. A full citation of the source in question.
  2. A link to the source in question.
  3. The article in which it is being used. For example article name
  4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
  5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

1. "Giant asteroid passes near Earth" BBC News, November 9, 2011 and "Asteroid 2005 YU55 passes close by Earth" The Washington Post, November 9, 2011

2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15572634 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/asteroid-2055-yu55-passes-close-by-earth-how-close-did-it-get/2011/11/09/gIQAdQpw5M_story.html

3. 2005 YU55

4. On November 8, 2011, NASA released a statement mentioning a number of puzzling structures on the surface of the asteroid, which were detected as it passed near the Earth.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_YU55#Strange.2FPuzzling_structures

Diff of deletion of references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_YU55&diff=465285428&oldid=465241886

Other editors are claiming the BBC and Washington Post are "low-quality" sources and that press releases from NASA (a primary source) are sufficient. They have deleted the press report references, claiming they are inaccurate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Per WP:SCIRS#Use up-to-date evidence "While articles should be kept up to date by citing current literature, care should be taken to avoid recentism, focusing too much on new sources that have not yet been evaluated by the relevant community." delete the lot about puzzling or strange structures. Pre-press reports of data are readily misinterpreted—this is a perfect example of where data has not fully been evaluated. Await scholarly publication of sources analysing the surface of 2005 YU55. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Also from WP:SCIRS (the lead-in): "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are sometimes inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing the non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones." No mention of government press releases. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, press releases are mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Other_sources Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
In these sort of fields, media reports are almost never going to be secondary sources in the way that we want them for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not news. We actually require our secondary scientific sources to possess the expertise to make meaningful summary and commentary on primary sources, At present it seems no such secondary sources exist, and there is no compelling reason for the NASA press release on "puzzling structures" to be in the article at present. Wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, preferably as part of a systematic review or similar. If this issue is really so significant, it's certain that academics will be quite capable of providing us with a decent secondary source in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that all the material in the article that is not sourced from peer-reviewed scholarly journals also be removed, or just the one line that has shown notability by its coverage in the mainstream press? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Popular reactions in a science article can definitely be sourced to newspapers; if they're WEIGHTy enough. "With the observation of object FRED2014 being on a collision course with Canberra, the Prime Minister of Australia said, "Bloody hell, lets evacuate."(Sydney Morning Herald 1 March 2015)." But content that falls under the SCI in SCIRS should not primarily be sourced to popular sources or "primary" scientific sources. If there's already a secondary (ie: journal article) source then sometimes it is nice to include "non-expert" readable summaries that are correct in addition to the secondary source. But the article should still be written out of the reliable scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo has failed to describe the problem. We are dealing with a currency issue. On November 8, NASA published a press release announcing the release of the asteroid radar film. Subsequent coverage by the popular media referred to this initial coverage. However, more recent coverage on November 11, superseded the initial observations and replaced the speculative "puzzling" and "strange" reports.[45] Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the problem currently (as I understand it from looking at the deletion diff and reading the article talk page discussion) is that this line in the article was based only on one primary source (press releases from NASA), so I added mainstream press reports in order to provide secondary sources. But the secondary sources were deleted. I should also add that this was widely reported in the mainstream press, so that readers looking for this in the article would likely be surprised not to see it mentioned there, as I was. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that initial, speculative popular media reports of a NASA report are superseded by newer releases? Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
NASA has made a conjecture as to what the "structures" are, but their follow-up report doesn't appear to be definitive and has not been discussed by reliable secondary sources (as far as I know). Even if they did release sufficient evidence to prove exactly what the structures are, and it was being discussed in secondary sources, you'd still want to note the fact that they were noticed in the first place. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Much of astronomical observation is "conjecture" and far from "definitive". In fact, most scientific "facts" are based on underlying theories that can't be described as "definitive". Finally, there's nothing wrong with using NASA as a reliable source to cover this topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, do you think Richard C. Hoagland was right when he claimed that YU55 was a UFO and shaped like the Death Star from Star Wars? Do you think the "structures" might be artificial? Wikipedia is not here to support fringe theories or fear mongering. When peer-reviewed papers are put out about the YU55 2011 passage they can be added to the article as reliable sources. Your thought process concerns me and does NOT make sense to the other editors of the YU55 article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Do the BBC and Washington Post articles that I want to use as references say that? Did I ever try to add that to the article? Then why are you insulting me like this? Your attempts to paint mainstream media sources as somehow suspect, and removing them as unreliable sources concerns me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, you have yet to get even one editor that agrees with your actions in the article. It has even been suggested by this review process that your "strange structures" sentence be completely removed from the article. The ONLY reason I have not removed the sentence is because it is rebutted by a reliable source (NASA) in the following sentence. Please quit beating a dead horse or I may file a complaint elsewhere. -- Kheider (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat intended to stifle discussion. If major mainstream news organizations found this notable, chances are it's notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

When writing a new article that is a biography of a living person - can that person be a reliable source? קולנואני (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They would be a primary source, so they can be used though they must be used with caution, but any information from a primary source still needs to be published somewhere. At minimum, you would need to get the information off of their personal website. Any "they told me" adding of information counts as original research. What are you trying to add and where? SilverserenC 20:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying to add anything. Someone else wrote an article, based on an interview they did with this person. The interview was never publish. I add "Unreferenced" template to the article and they got angry at me for doing so. קולנואני (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me which article you're talking about? SilverserenC 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The article is he:נילי צרויה. It is not in english. קולנואני (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't give advice related to Hebrew Wikipedia. It has its own rules. You will have to ask there. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I am asking here, becasue I want to know what EN Wiki's rules are, since the HE's rules are not clear. For example: I read something (in EN Wiki) about someone (famous person who is alive), and than I look them up in yellow pages, give them a call and ask them to confirm something that is written about them. They say that the information is not correct, give me the correct info, and I edit the article according to what they told me over the phone. Is this a reliable source? קולנואני (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No as that would fail WP:V Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain the logic behind this? If I publish my own peronal web site - it's not RS, but if I write publish a book that is my Autobiography, with the same content - it IS a RS? קולנואני (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
What does a website or book have to do with a phone call? A personal website should be ok, but how can you prove it is that persons site? Anyone can create a site after all. If it can be proved to be that persons website then I see no reason why it may not be used, Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If an editor said that they called the famous person on the telephone and got information from them, how do we know that the editor is telling the truth about the phone call? However, if someone calls a famous person on the telephone, gets information from them, and writes an article containing that information which is published in a reputable newspaper or magazine, that's different. In that case, the newspaper or magazine would be vouching for the writer and asserting that the article is accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis

Nelson Antonio Denis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are sources in this article reliable? I see one statement overcited. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Which ones do you find problematic? I've done some editing of this article in the past, and I agree that at one time its sources were questionable. I was under the impression the problems were fixed. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stuggling to get an article approved.

Hello Wikipedians,

I have been trying to get an article approved on a software that I am using to design websites. I am having trouble getting the article approved for one reason or another. Each time I submit for review I seem to get a new list of things to change and take out and add. It now seems that I have had to take so much useful information out I would like to share with others because of questions on reliability of the sources. I have referenced the page of the software as well as independent review websites. Please can someone help me to get this page uploaded. The article I have been trying to upload to Wikipedia can be found at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/XSitePro

Thanks in advance for your help Carl

It's lucky that there are two reviews that seem (to me) to be independent (on PCWorld and The Web Reviewer). To put it simply, you need to write the article from those reviews (and any others that are really independent). Write neutrally, citing the independent reviews: don't cite or use the official website and avoid borrowing wording from it; don't use inside knowledge; remember that you're not here to sell XSitePro. A link to the official website can be included under "External links", of course.
If you find all this difficult, you could try writing or improving an article about some other software first. Andrew Dalby 13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hulu As A Reference - Yea or Nay?

Okay, so I was watching an episode of Celebrity Ghost Stories on Hulu and I thought, "Could this episode be used as a reference for, say, Corey Feldman claiming that his grandmother's ghost helped influence his divorce?" Not that I would necessarily add something like that, but it's certainly out there for all to see, and I can't imagine it not being a RS when it's from his own mouth. My question is this: what is WP's position on using/linking Hulu as a reference to something like this, or anything else? Is linking Hulu stuff as a reference okay? Doc talk 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That should be an external link, not a reference, although I'm not an administrator. Hulu videos come and go. --George Ho (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
They do come and go for sure. External links are one thing, but we can link websites as references. Is the content on Hulu a "no-no" for the url section of the cite web template, the same as most YouTube stuff is? Hulu strictly abides by copyright laws, and would therefore seem to be a far more reliable source than YouTube. Doc talk 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
...Certainly not Hulu as "reliable". WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Verifiability can help. --George Ho (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Hulu is not a secondary source? Thanks for the policy pointers, but I have been here for a little while. Anyone else? Doc talk 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, anything distributed in Hulu is primary. Secondary source analyzes or reviews the primary sources (WP:No original research). --George Ho (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hulu acts, at best, as a WP:Convenience link, and probably not a particularly stable/reliable one (due to likely anonymous uploading to it, and inability to verify that it is a full, undoctored copy). In most cases it will be a convenience link to a primary source, but it is possible that it is one to a secondary source (e.g. of a televion program showing an expert offering analysis of something). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
We can credit something if it is backed by, let's say, ABC's 20/20. We can cite that information as coming from that episode of that broadcast, whether or not a URL is available. Can we use the URL from Hulu in the cite news and cite web templates when we cannot from YouTube? Hulu is not at all like YouTube: these are the real programs, not bootlegged, with full copyright compliance. Doc talk 11:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(Striking some parts of my earlier comment.) How stable are the links? Can we be certain that a link will still be around in a year or two? On a more personal level, I'm leary of citing video content (as it's not searchable, and so forces the reader to watch through it to verify claims), and especially so for video content that a significant proportion of the English-speaking world cannot access. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Some links are more stable than others: some will probably always be there, while others are routinely removed, never to return. I thought exactly the same thing about the video vs text citations; and I'm confident that I am not the first one to bring up Hulu as a RS. Linking an entire episode for one brief citation could be a small concern - but is it actually allowed with a free site like Hulu that is providing the same content that would otherwise be "sourced", but with no available transcript to prove it? Doc talk 11:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of video content, what topics do you want to research, Doc? What content? --George Ho (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is an instruction to citing a program: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/09/. Search at http://dmoz.org to find citation formats. --George Ho (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Because we are allowed to use URLs when citing things, I tend to prefer them when they are available and legitimate. But these tips are very useful - thanks! Doc talk 11:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbaiting - is this a neologism?

I keep seeing this term - Cyberbaiting - pop up in media sources. Quick examples: supposedly from the NYT and huff post. There's only one meaningful reference in Google Scholar (the first I listed), but a half-million in plain Google. We do not currently have an article on this, and I'm waffling over whether we should make one. I'd like to, personally, but I'm uncomfortable with the current sourcing. Looking for input. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just cyberbaiting last night! Oh, wait, I think that you're talking about something else... Seriously, WP:NEO is the policy that applies. It makes a distinction between sources about a term and sources that use a term. I did a quick search and found the following potential sources.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] I didn't read them, but it's a start. But I wonder, is cyberbaiting different than cyberbullying? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah: cyberbullying (as I understand it) is direct abuse of someone (usually a peer) using online media; cyberbaiting is closer to entrapment and seems to be used mostly on teachers - basically goading them into doing something stupid, recording it surreptitiously, and then youtubing it. maybe it would be best, though, to add a section to the cyberbullying article rather than make a new article. I'll look over your links and mull it a bit. --Ludwigs2 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Who's in the picture?

Not sure if I'm in the right place for this, but here goes. This image is stated to be of Ace Frehley, yet Zrinschchuck (talk · contribs) keeps removing it from Frehley's article claiming the image is actually of Tommy Thayer. This is his rationale, what needs to be done here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is really from the Kiss Alive/35 World Tour and really taken at the Helsinki performance of May 27, 2008 then it'd have to be Thayer. Frehley left the band for good in 2002. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
We normally accept the image description at Commons as being accurate. The rationale seems dubious to me: the original was added to an article about a 2008 tour, and therefore that addition was automatically correct? Maybe it was the 1999 Helsinki show, so it was Frehley. There's no date on the image description page.
However, I suspect that he's right, because there is a date in the file's metadata that corresponds to the evening of the second Helsinki concert in 2008. Either the picture was taken at the concert that night (with a digital camera) or the user "just happened" to scan an image from a prior concert that night. Assuming that he "just happened" to scan it during the concert seems a bit too much of a coincidence to me. I'd therefore suggest that it'd be safe to assume that the person is currently misidentified, and change the descriptions to the more likely (perhaps with a note that explains the situation and the rationale for the change, in case anyone's ever curious about it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
How can we change the info on the image and change its title without breaking WP:V? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I changed the description at Commons and explained the change on the talk page there. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the image file is called "Ace Frehley", is there any way the title can be changed? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I think they have bots to do that, and that it is done occasionally, but I must admit I don't really know. I bet someone else does. Andrew Dalby 08:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I discovered "Template:Rename" on Commons and I will add it to the commons file page. We'll see what happens. Andrew Dalby 10:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
It worked! Andrew Dalby 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
More of a side point, but concerning the statement: "We normally accept the image description at Commons as being accurate." - if someone is doing that, they should stop. The ability to upload a photo and type a caption does not in any way make the claims made in the caption reliable. I've seen plenty of images used on articles purporting to be various things that are just wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is TMZ.com reliable

TMZ.com must have come up before, but a search for TMZ but found nothing.

I believe TMZ is a reliable source. It was controlled by Time-Warner, the outfit responsible for Time Magazine; it is still controlled by AOL News. My local newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, often uses TMZ as source.

Currently, there is a dispute on Sons of Guns about TMZ's RS. It concerns this TMZ article:

TMZ is not a blog, does not appear to be self-published in the sense of a single author, and claims to vet its stories.

Glrx (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just remember that reliability is not inherited either. We know FOX News and News of the World share the same publisher but their reliabilities are gauged differently. See [53] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion of TMZ before: [54]. Results of those discussions seem to be mixed, but I read slightly more people weighing in on the side of reliability than of not. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know why my archive search failed the first time around. TMZ isn't a great source, and it would be nice to have a better source. Archives had a great comment that if it was on TMZ and WP:N, then there should be a better source. Sadly, nothing on the ATF website about the settlement or in searches that I tried. Glrx (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
If the only substantial source is TMZ then the statement should be clearly attributed: "Gossip website TMZ reported... ", and if TMZ is the only source for a significant statement then WP:UNDUE may be engaged.Martinlc (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is using a GPS receiver to find coordinates original research?

See Wikipedia talk:Obtaining geographic coordinates#Coordinates and original research. --Rschen7754 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We have an entire project devoted to Obtaining geographic coordinates? A source has to be published. So, not it's not a reliable source and is a form of original research. That said, there's nothing wrong with using a GPS unit to double-check a published source. But you need to cite the source, not the GPS unit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
But if the location is accessible to the public, anyone can go there with their GPS unit and reproduce the result, so it is no different than citing a book that is available in a single library. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Better yet, anyone can click on coordinates in an article and verify whether they are where they should be using any of dozens of trusted map services, aerial photography, and other indicative sources. —EncMstr (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Taking a GPS reading is no different than taking a photograph. Feel free to put GPS coordinates in articles as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say that the spirit of WP:CALC applies. Make the measurement or use a map (judges may take judicial notice of published maps). If nobody objects to the coordinates, then they are good to go. If somebody objects, then a consensus should rule; I doubt a no consensus would happen in many cases. There can be bizarre results (especially from maps), so beware. Mapmakers introduce deliberate errors into their data so they can prove a map was copied. Whether deliberate or not, I've seen errors as large as 500m on Google maps. Glrx (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
PS. IIRC, Death of Osama bin Laden introduced the coordinates of the compound in a manner that many would claim to be original research -- in other words, editors started looking at aerial photos to find a compound that matched the government's plan. The first published location was close but didn't fit; the correct location was ultimately found. Other editors could verify by clicking on the coordinates and comparing the satellite view to other sources. I think that method is OK; it seems more like WP:CALC than WP:OR because other editors can agree the "calculation" was done right. Glrx (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but running a GPS is not like checking a single book in the library. It's WP:OR, pure and simple. It's no different from anyone making a claim in any article and saying "because I say so". There are lots of things like this that I think are valuable exercises, but nay in the sense that they would be good for some other website completely, and not directly on Wikipedia. If someone wants to make there own website for geographic coordinates, and that eventually because trusted enough to be seen as a reliable source, then the info would make sense to be added to Wikipedia sourced to that site. Glrx's example above is one of many ways allowing people to put down their own coordinates without a reliable source can be bad. We should not make an exception for this violation of key Wikipedia principles just because someone started up a Wikiproject for it. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this could possibly qualify as a case of because I say so because anyone else that has access to a GPS device could easily verify the information to be true just as someone else could find another copy of a book that someone else read in a library. This is not something that could only be know to the person who first posted the coordinates meaning that at least IMO the because I say so argument is completely invalid.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The best parallel is the use of photographs. Running a camera is certainly not like checking a single book in the library. It's WP:OR, pure and simple. After all, what is the difference between going to a place and taking a picture of it, and going to a place and checking the coordinates of it? And yet, we allow it. WP:OI. Similarly this should be allowed, with the same restrictions - non-controversial, unaltered, etc. --GRuban (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
First, A Quest For Knowledge, GPS coordinates don't have to have a reference to the best of my knowledge because the verification is done by clicking through the coordinates to a mapping tool such as Google Maps. Besides, this is one of those things doesn't even need a reference because of the existing tools and ability to verify the results by anyone with the appropriate tool.
Second, DreamGuy, not all references are created by reading books, and this isn't really OR as it's easy to verify if the coordinates are or are not correct because of what was stated before. As stated in my first response, this sort of data don't need the book and paper verification method. In fact, I defy you to come up with a single reference of coordinates to any object from a book that doesn't require a calculation. What are the coordinates of the United States Capitol building? Do you have a reference for that? Would that come from a book?
Most coordinates are found by using Google Maps or similar, and I there's no guarantee that their lat-long values are correct, but they're within a meter and as far as geolocation goes, that's sufficient. In short, depending on what you're referencing, a set of GPS coordinates should be fine as an extension of WP:CALC, except a machine is doing the calculation and you're simply transcribing the results of the calculation. It's certainly not a form of OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the The Legacy of Jihad an unreliable source?

Just found this edit at Islam and war where everything sourced to the author of this book was removed with the edit summar "Removed unreliable work by Bostom who has no expertise in any related field". It looks ok to me, but I'd like other comments to help me decide whether this should be reverted. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to make a snap judgement, but at a quick glance, I would say Bostom looks almost as reliable as, say, Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Quarterly. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The main issue would seem to be that his academic expertise is in a completely unrelated field. On the other hand, he does appear to be a published author on the topic. Therefore I'd give him middling reliability (lower than an expert, but roughly similar to an average newspaper report). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This is published on Bostom's own website (andrewbostom.org) and hence should be treated as self-published content - which means "not acceptable". This source could be, however, considered reliable for providing Bostom's views at Andrew Bostom per WP:SELFSOURCE.VR talk 12:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, this should not be used. It's a book a) by a polemicist with no expertise in the subject, b) published by a non-scholarly publisher with an anti-religious and anti-Islam bent, c) which has been described as unreliable by sources that are reliable, like the journal Race and Class. Nothing about this suggests "reliable source." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Several issues. 1. The book has a WP article. If one wishes to find it a "non-notable work" then AfD is -> that way. 2. an SPS from the author of the book is RS for what his own opinions are - whether the book is "unrelaible" or not is irrelevant to that issue. 3. The book is a published work - the question at best would be whether "Prometheus Books" is an RS publisher. As a publisher of over 2,500 books, the normal presumption for WP:RS is that it is indeed an RS publisher. If one looks at refs in WP articles, one can find a great many refs which someone would say are by "polemicists" but that is not how WP:RS works. In short - if you wish to AfD the article - go ahead. Meanwhile, WP:RS suggests that the material meets the Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Buh? No one is arguing over whether or not the book is notable. It's just that "notable" very much =/= "reliable." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS looks primarily at the publisher to determine whether something is RS (which does not have anything to do with infallibility or correctness of what it says, if you read the policy). The book, published by an RS publisher, is RS for what it says. Where the material is opinion, the opinions are citable as opinion, just like all other RS sources. I fear you are conflating "reliable" with "correct." Wikipedia makes no such judgements, esecially where dealing with matters of opinion. Collect (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If the book was being cited only for Bostom's opinions, we wouldn't be having this conversation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Um -- most books contain opinions. It seems that you object to particular opinions in an RS published book -- but WP:RS does not make that distinction. Sorry - you are stuck with it as meeting WP:RS just like all those other books. Collect (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Yes, other books contain opinions. However, other books pass WP:RS because their authors have studied the subject at some point in their lives and are sometimes even experts on it, or because they are published by reliable publishers (which is not determined by the number of books they have published, though I'm sure some AuthorHouse customers are knocking at your gate right now), or because other reliable sources judge that they are reliable. None of these things are true of Bostom's book. See also Fat&Happy's very apt citation of WP:REDFLAG. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From WP:REDFLAG (all emphasis in quotations below added): {{Quote|Red flags that should prompt extra oldid=467080379 this edit] at Islam and war where everything sourced to the author of this book was removed with the edit summar "Removed unreliable work by Bostom who has no expertise in any related field". It looks ok to me, but I'd like other comments to help me decide whether this should be reverted. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to make a snap judgement, but at a quick glance, I would say Bostom looks almost as reliable as, say, Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Quarterly. [[User:Fatcaution include: ... claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.}}

The opening sentence of The Legacy of Jihad (p. 24):

The late philosopher and theologian Jacques Ellul emphasized in his forward to Les chretientes d'Orient entre Jihad et Dhimmitude: VIIe-XXe siecle (1991) [Bat Ye'or, ISBN 978-2204043472], how contemporary historiography whitewashed the basic realities of jihad war: ...

and further content from the two subsequent pages:

The prescient critiques of Jeffery and Rodinson anticipated the state of contemporary scholarship on jihad. Two salient examples of this current apologetic trend will suffice.

...

[Bat Ye'or] highlights ... the "thematic structure" of Esposito's selective overview, typical of the prevailing modern apologetic genre: ...

Just something to consider. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bostom is not reliable on the topic of Islam and war. I suppose one could write an encyclopedic article on that topic. But our current article is very far from encyclopedic. It seems it was broken out from jihad, which may be OK as "jihad" means struggle, not necessarily violent conflict. But now it needs to go to WikiProject Military History for some serious attention. For example, the Damascus affair, a 19th century antisemitic incident, was whipped up by the French consul and had nothing to do with Islam and very little even with the Turkish authorities. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias

Current reference is to [55] and says 55 million records, handful of new users are insisting it is 100 million based on [56], which to me does not seem as reliable. Thoughts?--Jac16888 Talk 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FAIR.org

Hi, i'm traveling & editing from a dumbphone so forgive me if my markup's sloppy. The news emerging now re GE prompted me to visit the company's article, where there is a FAIR.org source by one Sam Husseini, described as "FAIR's activist coordinator": "Felons On The Air." Currently it's reference #69. Can FAIR be considered an RS in this context? I don't have a problem with the information itself, incidentally, but i do think a neutral source like Bloomberg or Reuters should be insisted on in an article like this. Article: General Electric. Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1254 —Biosketch (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy, being comprised of professional reporters who often point out inaccuracies in mainstream sources. I can't find any record of their having made a mistake since 1993. Selery (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lifehacker.jp/ reliable?

It is a Japanese website, if http://www.lifehacker.jp/2011/12/111225magician.html could be a reliable resource for article Magican? By the way, please tell me at least how much reliable resource we should provide when editing an article?Thanks.

Someone who reads Japanese would have to verify, but it doesn't look reliable. The name, layout, images in the photos and so forth all suggest something unreliable, but that's more of a gut feeling. We don't outright ban foreign language sources but in general we should be very cautious with them, as most of our editors can't verify if the claim being made in the article is really supported by the site or anything about the site itself. Barring a good argument to the contrary I would default to no, it's not reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be the Japanese version Lifehacker, it should be considered reliable, see Lifehacker#Accolades (common sense applies, of course). Regarding the "name", hacker in this sense refers to Life hack / Hacker (hobbyist) / Hacker (programmer subculture), it is not about "hacking into computers" --SF007 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pastizz

In the opinion of editors here, do the sources cited below reliably support the statements made in this passage of text?

The Maltese expression "selling like pastizzi" is equivalent to the English "selling like hotcakes", to describe something which seems to have inexhaustible demand. Things which are "coming out like pastizzi" can be said to be emerging at a fast rate, sometimes too quickly.[1][2][3][4][5]
  1. ^ "No candle in the wind". The Times of Malta. 21 June 2003.
  2. ^ http://www.thinksite.eu/pages/tsdart.asp?id=739
  3. ^ http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=42265
  4. ^ http://www.illum.com.mt/2009/11/22/feature.html
  5. ^ http://www.alfredsant.org/pages/dassingle.asp?id=256

Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think reference 4 shows it as existing in the Maltese language -- if it says, as I guess it does, "Poinsettias are selling like hot pastizzi" -- but it needs someone who really knows Maltese to confirm this and to say what the proper form of the expression would be in that language. If that can be confirmed, reference 1 then gives it to us in English: it wouldn't be good enough by itself, because we couldn't know from this text alone whether the journalist made it up one day as a localization of the usual English phrase, but if the Maltese expression is confirmed by reference 4, then reference 1 is a good sign that the expression also exists in the English of Malta. That's as far as I can get :)
These would be primary sources for the existence of the expression, but I don't see any reason not to use them. Andrew Dalby 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the sources are examples of the existence of such expressions both in in Maltese and in Maltese English. But I see no mention in those sources of any equivalent meaning or equivalent expression in (non-Maltese) English. For that, if my understanding is correct, reliable secondary sources would need to be found. In the absence of those, it seems to me that the translations of the meanings are pure WP:OR. But I'd appreciate comment from others on this. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
So your question is really about the equivalence between this expression and the common English one? That wasn't clear (to me).
I don't see why it's a big deal. Does somebody doubt that the expressions are equivalent? If nobody doubts it, no source is needed, because (to those who admit the philosophical possibility of translation) their approximate equivalence is obvious and we don't need sources for obvious things. If somebody doubts it, reliable sources might be a bilingual dictionary or a philological article about Maltese idioms. If no such source can be found, the doubter could delete the common English equivalent "selling like hot cakes" from the article. Wikipedia would be only slightly poorer. Andrew Dalby 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I speak Maltese and I can confirm that the expression 'selling like cheesecakes' is more or less the exact equivalent to 'selling like hotcakes'. There are actually two references from English language national newspapers and two from Maltese language national newspapers. There is also a reference to things 'coming out like cheesecakes', which is a slightly different usage of the expression to suggest that things are emerging too quickly. This is a reference from an article written by Alfred Sant, who used to be the Prime Minister of Malta and is one of the nation's best known living novelists. I have restored these references to the article as there was really no reason for removing them as they are all accurate, from respectable sources and neither contentious or controversial. No disrespect intended, but there is no way a Maltese speaker would doubt the inclusion of this part of the article as it is such a commonly used expression in Maltese. Kont Dracula (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right. I'd suggest that you make it clearer in the text that two languages are involved here: you could add (citing reference 4) the Maltese-language form of the idiom, alongside the English-language form.
If you happen to find a phrasebook or dictionary or list of idioms that mentions this expression, it would be a good idea to cite it. Wikipedians like secondary sources! Andrew Dalby 12:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, which I've tried to take. And yes, of course some secondary sources would be good here. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Catholic Answers Reliable?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Catholic Answers [1] is a Catholic Apologist website. I feel that it should be viewed as a legitimate source on Wikipeida for general facts about the Catholic Church and its history. Some of the articles carry a Nihil Obstat while others do not. A Nihil Obstat is basically a stamp of approval that is given by an empowered clergy member that means that there is no moral or doctrinal errors (in accordance with the Catholic Faith) are found in the document. It doesn't mean that the Church agrees with the opinion of the author, et cetera. After having read into the source, it would seem as if there is a review process for articles, and solid sources (Bible passages, CCC paragraph number, Ecumenical Council) are always given to support their answer. The website's professed mission is basically to be a resource of Catholic Apologists. Because of these reasons, I think that we should view it as a fairly good source that will prove useful in writing basic information about Catholicism. It's not as academic as say a book on theology, but yet some real work, research, and review goes into the source.

One editor on here sometimes gets in a debate with me about the site. She terms it as having an agenda and therefore we shouldn't trust it. I guess in a technical sense you could say it has an agenda in that it wishes to teach and clarify the Catholic Faith, but I don't see that I ruining the possibility of it being a source. Particularly, at least as far as I've seen, other sources support it. So no, I'm not advocating that we use this as a source to in-depth theology, but it does seem to be good enough for some general background information, and shouldn't be deemed as having an agenda. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For ANY information of encyclopedic value that could possibly be added to WP, a MUCH more reliable source can be found than Catholic Answers. Find and use that source. There is absolutely no need to rely on Catholic Answers at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The trouble would appear to be that it is neither a neutral scholarly source (so WP:RS doesn't apply) nor an official organ of the Catholic Church (so WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply either). I agree with DV -- don't use it "at all". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I agree with you guys, WP as an encyclopedia should have better sources, but the trouble is I am running into people who are quoting news papers as reliable sources about the history of the Catholic Church. I'm all for doing research, and enjoy doing so, but it seems that to keep up with the speed at which people edit you can't give them a first century text in Greek in any timely fashion. I'll give you an example: right now I'm in a debate with an editor about the Catholic Church's teaching on artificial contraction. She is saying (and using as a source a news paper) that the Church only adopted this stance in the 1930's. Anybody that knows a bit about Church history knows this to be false, but finding an authoritative article without any alleged biased is very difficult. Any advice? --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
There are most probably hundreds of scholarly books and articles written on the Catholic Church's stance on sexual reproduction. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
@FCV: It's pretty difficult to say that the Church had any definite official policy on artificial birth control at all before Casti Connubii in 1930. Up until about that point, there really wasn't a pressing need to. The need arose in the 1920's, when latex condom manufacture was first automated, making condoms far cheaper and more available, and when the Anglican Church decided to allow the use of artificial birth control. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Also an explicitly apologetics organisation will have a fairly obvious motivation to maximise/exagerate the antiquity/continuity of church doctrine -- so is hardly an appropriate source for such claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A further problem is the fact that nowhere does the cited page ever state that contraception was against official Catholic doctrine before 1930. It simply lists a number of individual prominent Christians who condemned it. As such it fails to WP:Verify the claim, even if its were allowed as a reliable source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
All of this is pretty much exactly what I said on the article talk page about why Catholic Answers cannot possibly be admitted as a reliable source, so thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I see the point that this website is not as reliable as a scholarly article, but I'm confused as to why news sources can be considered legitimate sources about Church history when a website devoted to understanding Church history, et cetera, isn't. I could see rejecting both more than I could see rejecting just one. Also, just because a site exists to promote an understanding doesn't mean that it isn't neutral. One those grounds, I strongly reject what an above editor said when saying that an apologetic organization will have bias. Apologetics is all about explaining and teaching something to others through logic. A calculus textbook is an apologetic source for mathematics and yet nobody is going to say that it isn't a good source to talk about math theory because it seeks to promote an understanding of math! Maybe it wouldn't be seen as a good source to criticize math, but I'm certainly not saying that any apologetic source would be good to criticize it's topic. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am acqueinted with the website and actually radio show, being a practicing Catholic myself (disclaimer). Some of the material from some of its sources are occasionally very reliable. I for instance remamber during the last papal election the radio show having a correspondent live from the Vatican, who was a bit of an expert on papal elections. Having said that, some of the other content is sometimes rather clearly apologetic in nature, and occasionally at least a bit biased. If one could find better sources, like, maybe, statements from leading theologians or church officials, they would clearly be preferable, but I think it probably would generally qualify as meeting the minimum standards of RS, although there often might be better sources out there. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is NOT "a website devoted to understanding Church history" it is a website devoted to promoting the Catholic understanding of Church history. it is an explicitly partisan source. This is one reason why it is considered less reliable than a newspaper. "Apologetics is all about" promoting a particular worldview and defending it against competing worldviews (which generally have their own competing apologetics efforts). It generally uses rhetoric, rather than rigorous logic. Comparing apologetics to mathematics tuition is therefore utterly nonsensical. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think what we're arguing about is different perspectives. Yes, the website is explaining the history of the Catholic Church, a church in which it has no connection to. If a history textbook (or website), who's professed purpose is to explain US history (just as this site's is to explain Catholic history, et cetera), explains US history (citing documents to backup its claims, as this site does) do we call it biased? No, though we may find it interesting or in some situation important to note that it covering history from a US perspective. So if there was a situation in which it would be important to note that this is history of the Catholic Church as viewed by an independent organization that seeks to explain Church history, then we may, of course, do that. But just as with the history textbook, there is no reason to completely disqualify it. Secondly, apologetics is anything but rhetoric. Apologetics seeks to explain something using exclusively reason and logic. Saying that a math textbook could be apologetic to some mathematical concepts was a sound way to use the word. Thirdly, yes, I agree with John Carter. I am the first to admit that there are plenty of better sources out there, but that based on RS standards, and based on precedent of other sources accepted, this should be, at minimum, considered an acceptable introductory source. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.

— Mission and Vision

So:

  1. No, "the website is" not primarily "explaining the history of the Catholic Church" -- it is primarily promoting the Catholic Church, and subsidiarily promoting a version of its history that casts it, and its teachings, in the best possible light.
  2. Therefore to claim that "it has no connection to" this church that it is explicitly 'evangelising' is again utter nonsense.
  3. If we were to view this same history through the lens of a fundamentalist Protestant (or Buddhist, or Atheist) apologetics organisation, we would see many things completely differently. Therefore the reasonable thing to do is to take none of their words for it.

Please cease and desist doing me the incivility of insulting my intelligent by offering such transparently ludicrous arguments. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, please keep a polite tone as per WP:EQ and WP:CIV. You insulting my arguments is not logical, and it does nothing to further this conversation. 1) You need to substantiate this claim. The mission statement that you provides doesn't, it basically just says that it wants to spread Catholic knowledge. For this first claim to be met you will need to directly show that the website attempts to cast teachings, etc., in the best possible light- not simply explain them. 2) No, just because the source seeks to help spread knowledge, doesn't mean that it has some compromising connection to the Church. Again, they are separate bodies, and one independently explains the other. Go back to the textbook analogy (an analogy you have yet to refute). Church history is to Catholic Answers as US history is to US published textbook- both are independent of what they are publishing about and both wish to spread knowledge of their respective topic, thusly attempting to spread that topics knowledge (as per the mission statement). 3) An interesting claim, but as it stands, unsubstantiated. If you care to provide solid sources that give support to this claim, I'll be happy to take a look. Note though, that even finding two different sources that disagree on some historical fact doesn't prove anything other than different perspectives. Just as the US published textbook about US history may be different from the UK published textbook on US history. If, in an article a difference of opinion on historical fact came up, obviously, both sources would be noted as that would help further the depth of knowledge of the reader. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. An organisation that sets out to 'spread Catholic knowledge' isn't an independent source regarding issues concerning Catholicism, end of story. We don't have to provide sources for the self-evident.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's just as much of an independent source concerning Catholicism as a textbook who's implicit goal is spreading knowledge of US history is a independent source on US history. I take time to write posts that have a conclusion supported by premises. Please don't be illogical by attacking the conclusions in the future. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
@FCV: Not quite. As a matter of fact, not at all. The burden of proof is not on , or anyone else, to prove that the source is unreliable, but on YOU to prove that it is, and you haven't done so (and never will). I'm sorry, but tee rule on sources here on WP is "guilty until proven innocent".
We're talking about two different concepts of history itself. Apologists create and promulgate their own white-washed version of history for the purpose of making their religion or cause look as innocent and appealing as possible. Apologetics has a lot more to do with PR than with history as a scholarly pursuit. There is an inherent bias that severly compromises the reliability of the claims of apologists, just as there is an inherent bias in blatantly anti-Catholic sources.
One of the themes of apologetic history is continuity, the idea that the Church has remained essentially unchanged since the first century, which is relevant to what you are trying to say about the Church's stand on artificial birth control. Major upheavals and reforms that fundamentally redefined whole aspects of the Church are ignored, minimalized or reinterpreted as being continuations rather than discontinuities, and when that isn't possible, they are presented as a return to the original state of the Church rather than as wholesale innovations. Having studied the history of the papacy in depth, I can assure you that there are often huge differences between the apologetic version of history and the modern scholarly version.
Apologetic sources have a clear agenda (as they themselves state), and history in the scholarly sense is not simply part of that agenda. They are therefore fundamentally unreliable for history, including the history of the Church itself. That is why WP policy insists on independent sources. Comparing apologetic sources to mathematical textbooks is an absurd notion. I'm sorry, but, bottom line, sites like Catholic Answers are of little worth for our purposes compared to independent scholarly sources. They provide little useful information of encyclopedic value, and when they do provide useful information, it still has to be critically evaluated in terms of independent scholarly sources. It's therefore best to rely exclusively on independent scholarly sources, and treat apologetic sources with extreme suspicion, using them with extreme caution, if they are used at all.
Last of all, your "analogy" comparing apologetic sources to textbooks is fundamentally absurd. There is no resemblance at all. Statement like this make me seriously question your competence as a WP editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictio-cedit-veritati:

That my claim is substantiated is blindingly obvious from the definitions of Catholic Answers' own core self-descriptions:

  • Apologetic: "The defensive method of argument; often spec. The argumentative defence of Christianity."
  • Evangelism: "The preaching or promulgation of the Gospel; performance of the function of an evangelist."

Neither of these activities has the least implication of neutral, disinterested provision of information. Therefore it is not "insulting" to point out that your argument does not have the least smidgeon of merit. You may also notice that nobody else is giving your argument the slightest credence, so kindly WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic.com is not always reliable, and in areas where it is reliable there are better sources to use. Net result: we should not use Catholic.com as a source. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

At ATG- I have no idea what you're even responding to in your one sentence response. No matter what is, you won't convince me by simply saying that I'm wrong. @DV: The burden of proof is on me for showing that the website is reliable, but that is not what I asked of Hrafn. I asked him to substantiate the claim that Catholic history and, for example, Buddhist history, would depict a historical event differently. That is a claim that he made in trying to support his conclusion that I was skeptical of. Do you see how your argument is a straw man one? I, of course, accept that the website that I am arguing for here is guilty until proven innocent, and that is why I am trying to prove it innocent in this conversation. What I asked the other editor to prove was a claim the he made- making it something that he would have to prove. Now let's look at a claim that you made: "Apologists create and promulgate their own white-washed version of history for the purpose of making their religion or cause look as innocent and appealing as possible. Apologetics has a lot more to do with PR than with history as a scholarly pursuit." You say some interesting things in here that I believe to be false. What I take issue with is that you claim that apologists glosswa over things, et cetera, in their explanations. Now since this is your claim, and since I disagree with it, you will need to provide some evidence to back it up before we can use it in this debate. Here is another claim that you make: " Major upheavals and reforms that fundamentally redefined whole aspects of the Church are ignored, minimalized or reinterpreted as being continuations rather than discontinuities, and when that isn't possible, they are presented as a return to the original state of the Church rather than as wholesale innovations." I don't believe this one either, and it being your claim, you will need to back it up with some good source(s). Here is another "Apologetic sources have a clear agenda (as they themselves state), and history in the scholarly sense is not simply part of that agenda. They are therefore fundamentally unreliable for history, including the history of the Church itself." All of these quotes you have been giving me, if true, would be really valid points, and I would, obviously, reconsider if they were. But right now, as far as I'm concerned, they aren't true since you haven't sourced any of them. I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly just don't think you're right. So please show me you're right by sourcing the claims.
You're last statement of dismissing my textbook analogy makes me have concerns about you not understanding how to logically refute somebodies claim. You can't simply say 'the conclusion is absurd' or 'the entire analogy is absurd'. If you wish to refute my conclusion you must attack the premises, not proclaim the conclusion to be false.
@Hrafn: How does a desire to teach others something inherently make something biased? Sure, it is possible, as you argue, that since their professed mission is to spread knowledge, faith, etc., that they could stretch some things, exaggerate, etc., but it certainty isn't self evident that just because an organization wants to spread information that they are being less than honest with that information.
I think my overall point here is being forgotten about. I am not arguing that this source is super reliable. All I'm saying is that it meets the minimum standards for a source. Yes, as some have pointed out, there are more reliable sources, but there is no rule on Wikipedia that you must always use the most reliable source. I don't intend for people to use this source to write a page about some complicated theological topic or anything of that nature. All I'm saying is that it gives some good background information that could be useful. Like with all sources on wikipeida, if other sources disagree with it then there can, of course, be a discussion on the talk page, and a conclusion reached.
I understand that there are calls for me to stop this debate. I am reluctant to do that for the following reason. I have offered some logical reasoning for my arguments, and usually this reasoning is completely ignored. Yes, I am a legalistic person, but I don't think that it is asking too much for you to respond in a way that logically refutes my claims as apposed to simply saying that they're wrong. This doesn't apply to everybody, of course. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You are wasting your time. We don't need to offer a complete 'logical refutation' of anything. It has been clearly explained that the source you wish to use cannot be regarded by us as neutral - it is set up for a purpose which any reasonable person can see might tend to make its usefulness suspect. Furthermore, there seems to be nothing of any great significance on the site that can't be found elsewhere. We cannot possibly engage in an in-depth analysis of everything sourced from this site - and we have no need to if other, less controversial sources can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to offer a complete logical refutation insofar as you need to logically dismiss my conclusions, not illogically. Yes, you're right, you guys have offered some good reasons why it shouldn't be trusted, but these reasons are based on facts that I'm not so sure of. Wouldn't the rational thing for you guys to do at this point be to source your facts? I understand your 'reasonable person' argument, but I think a reasonable person would (given all the evidence) side the other way. We should probably just leave this proverbial person out of it since neither of us are likely to agree as to who he'd side with.
Yes, I agree, hardly anything on the site seems to be 'original', but that's alright, for a source to be legit there is nothing that says it must be original.
Again, I agree, there probably are less controversial sources, but from my experience, they take much longer to find. Could I find, in a library, a fact that is referenced on that site? Yes, probably, but it would likely take hours. It seems unfair (and in my case, at least, often times prohibitively impractical) to have to spend this much time for the simplest of facts. So yes, better sources would be preferred, and should indeed be sought out, but I really don't see why we can't term this source as minimally acceptable, or maybe more aptly, an 'entry level source'. Also, if the article on the site carries a Nihil Obstat (as some but not all do), it would make sense to consider that article highly credible within the scope of what the Nihil Obstat means. Any of this making sense? --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
For a start, there's no such thing as an 'entry level source' as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We don't make definitive assertions about the reliability of any source - even the most careful can make mistakes sometimes, and an otherwise-entirely-useless source may be cited as opinion. It all depends on what a source is being cited for. If you wish to cite the source for something specific, we can discuss its merits, but otherwise there is little point in continuing this further. This isn't a court of law, and we aren't here to reach a verdict - we are trying to write an encyclopaedia. This requires judgement based on an incomplete knowledge of facts sometimes, and often means relying on little more than rules of thumb: one of which is that sources which are set up to promote a cause tend not to be the most impartial in relation to that cause. If you feel that this is unfair in relation to this particular source, there is little we can do about it - we aren't going to change our methods on the basis of a single discussion - and none of the points you raise are new, we've seen all sorts of arguments regarding questionable sources before, and no doubt will see more of the same. I suggest that you therefore drop this debate, and instead do things our way. It seems to work... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware there is no such thing as an 'entry level source'; I just meant that to denote that it is acceptable but subordinate to some other kinds of sources. It would seem that Wikipedia simply says that 'care should be taken' when assessing a source that promotes a cause (as this one certainty does). I am trying to take great care in negotiating this source's use, and that's why I'm having this conversation. I understand your argument about using simple rules of thumb and you are certainly right to point out that this generally has worked out pretty well for Wikipedia thus far. My issue is that, having examined the pages devoted to sourcing (where the rules of thumb are codified), I haven't been able to find any rule that would object to this source from being seen as acceptable. I think the closest they get to saying it wouldn't be acceptable is, as I said above, noting that care must be taken when addressing a source that mainly advocates for something. I think I have given this matter great care, setting forth, among other arguments, many logical experiments which people never refuted. There has been no supported evidence that anybody has brought forward to suggest that this source is compromised by a bias, et cetera, and as outlined in a post above, proving or disproving other peoples' claims is not my burden.
By using this website as a source, we would aid in expanding Wikipedia because it would be a valuable starting point, and point of basic reference for Catholicism related articles. Therefore, I suggest that since I have explained and taken great care in discussing this source (and it should be noted that it did receive support from editors other than myself), and that by Wikipedia's own rules, no editor has been able to find any violation to these rules by this source, we end this debate accepting that Catholic Answers is an acceptable source within the scope set forth above. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No way. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody else agrees with you here. The source will not be used in the way you advocate, end of story. Can I suggest that someone closes this discussion, as the time-waster it has become. Fictio-cedit-veritati, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to do it our way, or not at all - we cannot engage in endless discussions about matters already determined by basic policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Fictio-cedit-veritati (i) You did not "receive support from" any editors here. (ii) The consensus here appears to be that Catholic Answers is, at best, a problematical source best avoided. (iii) Your suggestion that "we end this debate accepting that Catholic Answers is an acceptable source within the scope set forth above" is therefore blatant WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. (iv) Closer examination of the one specific instance under discussion, Catholic Church and abortion and whether the Cathloic Church forbad abortion before 1930, demonstrates that your source does not in fact support your contention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
@FCV: It has been abundantly explained to you that apologetic sources have an inherent bias and an agenda that severely compromises their reliability. It appears that you, likewise, have an agenda that severely compromises your competence to edit here on WP. I suggest finding another outlet. I will now close this discussion, as it appears you have no desire to listen to the advice you supposedly came here for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Raw Story

In the article Occupy Marines an article in the The Raw Story is used a source. Elements of the article are contradicted by other sources and it is used to source some contentious statements about funding. The wikilink states this is a weblog publication, so I have some concerns about its use as a WP:RS. I consider it should be used with caution. I would welcome external opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A link to the current discussion can be found here Talk:Occupy_Marines#Templates. The specific issue is whether or not Muriel Kane, “Occupy movement spins off OccupyMARINES and Occupy Police”, The Raw Story, 23 October 2011 is a reliable source for

Along with a newly formed online entity 'Occupy Police', Occupy Marines has been described as "staking out a new realm of metaphorical occupations" beyond the physical territories associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement

--Nowa (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
No that is not the sole issue, there are also contentious statements as to how the group is funded. Can we try and get an external opinion please? Wee Curry Monster talk 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is being contradicted by other sources? And what is contentious about the funding statement? SilverserenC 03:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, continuing the arguments here are a sure fire way of deterring the outside opinion desired. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Except you're asking about the reliability of The Raw Story in a biased manner, making claims that you have yet to explain. You have made a number of claims in regards to the article and its sourcing, but have refused to be specific about anything. SilverserenC 21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think (as an involved editor and one who hangs out here as well) that we need to worry to much about how the request is presented, most participants here can suss out bias in a request when it occurs. And we need some outside opinions, so let us hope we will get some. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster, for clarification please explain your assertion, "Elements of the article are contradicted by other sources and it is used to source some contentious statements about funding." This is confusing because you've bundled together two distinct issues without being specific about either one.
First, which elements of the article are contradicted by other sources? Apart from Funding, The Raw Story is referenced by only a single sentence in Occupy Marines, and that cites Muriel Kane's description of Occupy Marines as "staking out a new realm of metaphorical occupations." Is Kane's description contradicted by other sources? If so, please cite those sources.
Second, what "contentious statements about funding" do you detect in Occupy Marines? Please note, Occupy Marines does not declare as fact that the group's webpage was donated by The Pirate Party of New York or that the umbrella group Velvet Revolution will be acting as the group's fiscal sponsor. Rather, Occupy Marines states that such "was reported on Oct. 23, 2011" by The Raw Story. Again, if you have found other sources that contradict any of this, please cite them.
My concern is that you have framed your request for "external opinion" in such a non-neutral way as to prejudice anyone approaching this matter with an open mind. You're insinuating that The Raw Story is an unreliable source without telling us how you know so. JohnValeron (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the project namespace, John, no one has to write comments on a noticeboard according to NPOV. Wee Curry Monster is free to express his opinion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Basalisk, I don't object to Wee Curry Monster expressing his opinion. I'm asking that he substantiate his insinuations that The Raw Story is an unreliable source. JohnValeron (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
From a reliability standpoint, the first use of the source (where it is used in support of the "new realm of metaphorical occupations" statement) is fine. It directly supports an attributed statement as to Muriel Kane's opinion. We can argue about whether we should mention Murial Kane's opinion in the first place (does mentioning her opinion give it undue weight or not), but as long as we do mention it, we can not get a more reliable source than the website where she states it.)
The second usage (on the funding) is more problematic. This is a statement of fact about something appears on Occupy Marines website... as such the best source would be the Occupy Marines website itself. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar, please explain how editors could justify citing the Occupy Marines website in an article about Occupy Marines. Would that not be a primary source and thus unacceptable? According to WP:PRIMARY, "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." JohnValeron (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
From my experience and what others have told me before, if you have a choice between a primary source and a secondary source that states information that is on the primary source, it is always better to use the secondary source. SilverserenC 10:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is. And that brings us back to the subject of this thread: the reliability of The Raw Story as a secondary source. We've posed a series of questions here directly to the editor who disputes said reliability. And he (Wee Curry Monster) has failed to respond with sufficient particularity to build a consensus for his view. Let's give it another week and, if he still hasn't convincingly made his case, we ought to be justified in removing his [unreliable source?] and [dubious – discuss] tags from Occupy Marines. JohnValeron (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread was to elicit outside opinion on the reliability of the Raw Story as a source. From the web page it appears to be a collection of blogs, which as an WP:SPS would not usually be considered a reliable source. Trawling through the archives of WP:RSN I have found that in the past it was not considered a reliable source and it was advised not to use it. John seems to relish creating unnecessary conflict and turning things on their head. The Raw Story has been challenged as to whether it is a reliable source, the onus is actually on him and others to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of WP:RS, it is not on me to demonstrate it is unreliable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Family Tree Legends

I'm unfamiliar with the site Family Tree Legends, and didn't find any references to it in the RSN archives; can I get a consensus on whether or not its data is reliable for WP:BLP purposes? At the article Peter Ostrum, Connormah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is using it to cite the DOB of the article subject, and I want to be 100% on the reliability of the source used. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FTL seems to be a software company with some of its genealogy app databases online. I'd be wary of accepting it as a RS across the board, but in this case there doesn't appear to be a better source and the claim isn't a controversial one. A quick check suggests that all major sites that mention Ostrum (none of them RSes, alas) give the same DOB. So the reality is that the article can either list that date—unsourced or unreliably sourced—or omit DOB. (The latter option is impractical because innumerable editors will simply add it in again.) A longer-term goal would be to find a print source for the date. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input (and the minor rewrite; that's better). There was a previously reliable source for a MOB of November 1957 (see this version); would you (and other contributors at RSN) prefer the reliability of the MOB as previously cited, or this DOB as currently cited? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not sure. The memoir I Want It Now ought to be reliable but apparently only confirms month and year. I've noticed a problem, though: in the current version I was looking at the infobox, not the lede. Re the lede's refs, the Today/MSNBC article does not mention any DOB, as far as I can see. It would be nice to know more about the Dallas Morning News ref: it sounds like a column and is probably reliable. Based on incomplete info, my suggestion would be to remove the Today/MSNBC ref as non-germane, leave the Dallas Morning News ref in place for the time being, and remove the Family Tree Legends ref from the infobox. You might also start a thread on the article's talk page providing a link to this discussion, to allow editors with the article watchlisted to chime in. Rivertorch (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know why Connormah moved the MSNBC & DMN references; I originally vetted both of them, but they were only being used to cite Dallas as Dr. Ostrum's place of birth. The only citations there've been for the birthdate have been the MOB from I Want It Now!, and the DOB from Family Tree Legends. I'll leave a message at both the user's talk page and the article's. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As for moving the cites, the citations were clogging up the lead (and per MOSBIO, the place of birth isn't usually in the lead) and IIRC there shouldn't be a huge amount of citations in the lead. As for the site, I'll leave it up to others to decide here, but from my experiences with it, it seems to be accurate. – Connormah (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize MOS:BIO stipulated no POBs in the lede unless it was relevant to their notability, thanks for the heads up. #tmyk — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be badgery, but can anybody else provide input on this matter? Rivertorch and I recommend removing the FTL citation, and Connormah feels its reliable but seems lukewarm on its maintenance. I like my consensuses (consensi?) to have more input before accepting it in my favor. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Summarising: We have the month and year; we don't know how reliable the Family Tree Legends data is and it's our only source for the day of the month. Is that right?
Responding to your plea, then, what I would do is to put only the month and the year in the text, and to add approximately as follows in a footnote: "The day of his birth is given as November 1st at [URL Family Tree Legends], without full sourcing." N.B. This is only a slight variant on what Fourthords proposes to do, i.e. start a talk page thread; that would be fine too of course. This would be, in fact, an explicit challenge to future editors to find a reliable source.
Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know exactly how Family Tree Legends compile their data; well, I know databases where you are forced to fill certain relevant boxes with a valid digit. For all we know, that could have happened here. Andrew Dalby 09:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle

I have an ongoing dispute with an editor over my source use on the article Ryan Doyle (created last month). I've spent exhaustive, full time days studying what she's asked me to study and revising my writing. She's spent, and has asked I come here, a suggestion seconded by the dispute resolution board: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ryan Doyle. My qualms particular to her aside, she's correct that a lot of my opinions, questions, etc., are community issues, or disputes with what the majority of editors may feel. I act, feel, and argue from what I claim to be a brilliant understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia. The more I'm directed to guidelines, the more support I find for things I already believed, and the more justifications I've come up with to back my view. The whole point, e.g., of WP:YT, is to filter out people who are not established experts/etc. If Doyle is an established expert, then he is by definition a reliable source for information.

I clearly, absolutely agree that all the generic disputes one would usually have with the article on a first glance, i.e. minus my endless scrutiny of facts and policy, would be warranted. This has nothing to do with the particulars of the topic, the content of all references, which are a clear factor in the policies. Three editors total have agreed about the poor source status, but none have addressed the particulars at length, and none are anywhere near as versed with the subject as I am. That makes it a battle between my experience, and editors' abilities to judge situations at a glance, which I claim is inadequate in this case.

The entire spirit of the point of barring original research as defined ad nauseum, supports my "research" to prove Doyle's worth with references and policy. I claim there is a special factor that the more questionable sources when examined inter-intrinsically (new word) clearly show Doyle notable and reliable. This is backed in policy by that all factors should be weighed as a complex whole (including content). A lot of people act mechanically around here, not dynamically. No one will say "Doyle is not notable, because..." or "Doyle isn't an important person, because..." They simply state surface policy that if X comes from Y source in Z ways, it can't be included. I've not done research that can't be verified, I've done analysis that can be verified, but no one will verify it. Squish7 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? Pick a specific source and statement it is being used to back up. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The issue is about the general balance of sources, i.e. whether a primary sources tag on the top is warranted. I can give you the two I'm most annoyed about people putting down, though. Ryan works with Red Bull, and has been featured on an MTV series featuring parkour athletes. I've been told these are primary sources because they "don't have independent fact-checking going on" and "won't say anything negative about the subject". This seems outside the ballpark of reality to me, because these are the parties on earth that have the most motive to find and feature the best and most creative parkour athletes, i.e. the most motivated to check facts independently and scrutinize the information they have. It's also a very logical and natural way for someone like Doyle to be discovered. Who else on the planet would have the motive to seek out such talent? They're the ones who would discover that first. With infinitely professional skill, and every motive to be objective, I think these are extremely objective, second-party sources to establish Doyle a notable expert in the field. Squish7 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Aha. Well, the first sign that there is a problem is that you're writing two orders of magnitude more on the talk page than on the article. May I suggest giving a little? There's a middle ground that you and Cindy can reach. I admit I didn't read the whole thing, since it's just so darn long, but it seems she's worried that you're making the article into a puff piece. If so, she does have a point. Can you step back and imagine this article being read by someone who doesn't particularly like Doyle? Are there any parts of it that person could point to, and say were puffery, rather than cold, hard, fact? Try to rewrite them to just give the facts. Less of what Doyle is thinking, hoping, dreaming, and aspiring to, more of what he has actually done. If you do that rewrite, I suspect Cindy will be easier on the tagging. Don't worry about notability, you've proved Doyle is notable, you've put in plenty of sources, and the article isn't particularly controversial as such, it won't be deleted. The only question is what it will look like. BTW, here is another source you could use that isn't primary.[57] --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. My talking was a result of that she would not talk at all for a good period of time, which left me nothing but trial-and-error; write and remove, etc. In absence of any particulars how she thought the policies she referred me to applied, I simply had to cover all the clauses... She would say blanket things like Doyle's personal philosophies are not encyclopedic, when a large part of parkour is the philosophy of it. I hence wrote a paragraph about his teaching style, incorporating factual information (pretty solid, as he's an expert) with a bit of philosophy of the teaching incorporated; she tore it down with no suggestion or explanation other than reference to policies I told her I'd studied and applied carefully, calling me completely stubborn and 100% disregarding of policy and what "I was told" not to do. I've been seeking outside help for clarification of what part of her concerns reflect the community, and what parts do not. Trust me, I was already well aware of the idea of compromise and balance. I created the article fully equipped to handle the delicacy of these issues. Anyway, thank you, this has helped. Squish7 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that a special problem is that the more notable Doyle is, the more reliable his own sources become. That is, it's nontrivial to what extent I've proved his notability. If his expertise was exhaustively proved, referencing his videos ("self-publications" I designate them) would be much more appropriate. The main sources establishing his notability (MTV and Red Bull) have been continuously put down; someone even just said "we should them the same as his personal websites", citing this as the reason the article should be shortened... Note that Doyle studied media, and that his fans/students/etc are almost entirely younger people, who mostly use youtube/etc. Given web publishing is free, i.e. no need of an established middle ground propogating his publications (let's just consider the videos the equivalent of short stories or shorter scientific journal papers), does this not present him some reliability for being a publisher beyond a notable figure?... In other words, if he could be a reliable source for information about parkour, wouldn't be incredibly reasonable to include his viewpoints on the science/math/etc..? Squish7 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It would fall under WP:SPS as self published sources, which should be used sparingly and carefully. SilverserenC 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to all: Since this was filed I've given the article a major rewrite/copy edit, and reduced its length by more than half. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I have started an RFC on the use of primary sources in Calvary Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Talk:Calvary Chapel#RFC: Use of primary sources. Regulars may wish to comment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Der Spiegel

[58] shows why no source, however "reliable" is to be ever taken as "truth" -- unless you can really believe Theodore Roosevelt in 1933 banned private ownership of gold ... Anyone care to think Spiegel Online should now be barred? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a mere typo -- it was in fact Franklin D. Roosevelt who did so -- see 1933 Double Eagle. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this post? Are you currently in a debate elsewhere where someone is arguing to discredit a source on the basis of a factual error or several factual errors and you are arguing to keep it? Some context would be helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what point Collect was trying to make, but the conclusions I draw from this is: (i) no source, however reliable, is perfect. (ii) Even for a reliable source, the further it gets from its core area of expertise (and a German newspaper's core expertise probably does not include early 20th century American history), the more likely they are to make a mistake -- therefore better to rely on sources within their area of expertise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but even if the author's core area of expertise is finance, this seems to be a typical lapse.Henrig (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Some folks seem to think an error makes a source not "RS" - the point made is that all sources suffer brain-rot from time to time. 2. I thought the rationale was exceedingly clear - I do not know in any way why Rosco seems to think otherwise at all. 3. All too often, folks here fail to understand what WP:RS actually refers to - which has absolutely nothing to do with "facts" but only with "can we verify that the place published it". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.catholic.com/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112&oldid=1088102893"