Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Wikileaks?

IS wikileaks a reliable source? They accept user uploads, but they do appear to have some sort of vetting process. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends. See archive 45. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple of reliability issues

In the following diff, I've had a few concerns with sources ignored and reverted. I'll keep this note in regards to one of the concerns and expand to others if necessary:

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

www.humiliationstudies.org

I've removed a link to www.humiliationstudies.org from the article and ChrisO has returned it.[3] As far as I can tell, the link (http://www.humiliationstudies.org/news/archives/2005_10.html) is to a dead archive page in a blog. As such, it would seem like an unreliable source and I figure that ChrisO made a mistake here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that it's a blog? It looks like a group of academics that publish various materials. ← George ^talk 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I kind of see the issue with it after clicking your link. Why not just remove the source, without making any other changes in the same edit? That sentence already has another source, so I doubt it will be controversial if that's the only change you're making. ← George ^talk 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I'll wait on another comment or two before moving ahead with the edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already taken that link out of the article, even before you posted this, so there was actually no need to raise it here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I guess that at least part of my edit is agreed upon then. I've started a discussion about some of the other issues but you've yet to respond. If necessary, I have no qualms about opening those points to community review as well. I just noticed that you also agree that the commondreams.org source failed to verify the statement that "The deaths of al-Durrah, the ambulance driver, and a Palestinian policeman were confirmed a few hours later by the Shifa hospital." good to see we're not in disagreement on everything. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Seems resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Time of report based on article time-stamp

I've removed the following text as I believed it (a) contradicted several reliable sources that say the boy was shot at around 3pm, and (b) the time stamp assertion is based solely on the time stamp registered on the article, and it is not uncommon to update an article after the initial time-stamp was given. This is the only source that clearly makes the time of the event to be earlier than 12pm (if you consider the shooting went on for 45 minutes) when the cameraman, as well as other involved make it out to be a later hour. I believe ChrisO has disregarded the general opinion and made an error in reverting this issue.[4]

• His death was reported by an Associated Press correspondent, Karin Laub, at 12:35 pm local time.<ref>{{cite news|last=Laub|first=Karin|title=Twelve killed in Israeli-Palestinian clashes; worst violence in four years|agency=Associated Press}}</ref>

I'd appreciate some perspectives on this on top of the few people who already commented on the talk page.

• Sample: I don't think its a question of the validity of LexisNexis or its source, but of the relevance of the timestamp. We can all agree that sometimes articles are filed, are given a timestamp, and then are expanded as events progress. So the timestamp may not refer to the final article available on LexisNexis - the question is whether LexisNexis discusses the nature of the timestamps and how they can be used. I imagine they might not, since few lawyers and academics will use that level of detail in their work; even so, a question worth asking when the timestamp is being used as evidence on the same level as the rest of the article's content. Nathan ^T 03:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I already weighed in on the talk page discussion on this a couple weeks ago, but I'll do so again here. I see no reason to doubt the timestamp associated with the articles in LexisNexis. While you've (repeatedly) cited "several reliable sources" that contradict the time, I've only see one that I consider reliable (Enderlin), while quite a few more reliable sources agree with the general time (around noon, before 1pm, and the like). Questions about the reliability of LexisNexis timestamps seems to me nothing more than grasping at straws for anything to validate conspiracy theories surrounding the event. ← George ^talk 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole premise of this claim is fundamentally wrong. Jaakobou is attempting to use non-contemporaneous sources to dismiss contemporaneous sources pinpointing the time of the incident reported in the article. The incident, which occurred on 30th September 2000, was reported by contemporaneous sources to have occurred on the morning of that day, between about 11.30 am - 12 pm local time. One contemporaneous source broadcast only in France stated - apparently in error - that the incident occurred at 3 pm, a statement that none of the contemporaneous English sources supports. Sources of questionable reliability published several years later advocate a conspiracy theory revolving around the incident occurring at 3 pm rather than the time reported on the day itself. This has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page. Xavexgoem summed up the issue in a (discontinued) informal mediation: "All the sources for the articles are pre-dating the events after-the-fact. All the aggregators, like LexisNexis, are pre-dating the events after-the-fact. All the sources, and all the aggregators, have roughly the same timestamps, and report the events as being around the same time." He eventually gave up in the face of Jaakobou's obstinacy, commenting: "I'm closing this mediation down. "Loose Change" did not turn 9/11 into an article about a conspiracy. The implications here are doing precisely that, and tearing a hole in the space-time continuum." Since then Jaakobou has attempted to delete contemporaneous sources that contradict his non-contemporaneous conspiracy theory sources.

The specific claim being made above is equally wrong. Jaakobou is attempting to dismiss (and now to delete) an Associated Press report datelined 12:35 pm, reporting the incident. The dateline is part of the report itself - it's nothing to do with LexisNexis. The dateline is an integral part of the report, just like the headline or the body text. LexisNexis does not add anything to the report. Jaakobou hypothesizes (on the basis of nothing more than mistaken personal belief) that the report "may have been expanded" following its initial filing. There is no indication of this whatsoever. Multiple reports were filed by AP on the same day, each with a different headline, serial and timestamp, indexed in the sequence in which they were sent on the newswire. The sentence that "His death was reported by an Associated Press correspondent, Karin Laub, at 12:35 pm local time" is no more than what the AP report itself states. It is attributed to Karin Laub, it is credited to AP, and its dateline is 10:35 GMT (12:35 pm Israel time). Jaakobou has already been told this in great detail but is doing the old WP:IDONTHEARYOU shuffle yet again. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of LexisNexis and AP can't be seriously questioned, so it is not much of a question for RS/N. Doubting the timestamp enough to eliminate the source seems to be quite speculative OR. There is nothing here or on the talk page to support taking it at other than face value. As ChrisO points out, Karin Laub filed another version of the story later the same day, with a different timestamp, so what is being suggested is a practice of making major changes in a story and sometimes randomly changing the time, sometimes not. This is a rather dubious doubt. It's more a question of neutrality, but the principle, as always, should be to let the readers decide. Rephrasing to say "His death was reported in a story by Associated Press correspondent, Karin Laub, timestamped/datelined 12:35 pm local time" is even closer to the facts, but anyone would read both versions as saying the same thing, so it is an "improvement" of doubtful necessity.John Z (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to note when the story was filed? Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Long story. The short version is that conspiracy theorists assert that the boy reported killed in the 12:35 pm AP report was somehow switched for a hypothetical second dead boy whose identity is unknown, supposedly killed a few hours later, and that the first boy is not in fact dead but has been kept in hiding for the past nine years. This conspiracy theory (which Jaakobou apparently favours) relies on the claim that the shooting incident in question happened in mid-afternoon. However, reports such as this one from AP were filed before the time claimed by the conspiracy theorists. Jaakobou is trying to eliminate this report from the article; it doesn't fit with the conspiracy theorists' timeframe. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe the reason ChrisO is insisting on this time stamp as crucial and accurate content is his strong concerns about fringe conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure he's approaching the content even handedly though as sources that state 3pm as the time of the event include James Fallows, Charles Enderlin, and Esther Schapira among others. Ad hominem aside, there seems to be some confusion between sources mentioning clashes (which, reportedly, escalated from Molotov cocktails and tear gas to live ammunition only at around 2pm) with sources that report on the boy and father, of which, only one has a time-stamp this early. Is there any other source, apart from Associated Press, specifically mentioning the boy and father prior to 2pm (let alone 12:35pm)? Do we have any sources other than this time-stamp that contradict later WP:RSs? News agencies tend to publish stories and change them a bit as they develop, then publish again with a rewrite that refocuses the earlier article and change earlier versions, adding further input. Considering this time-stamp is contradicting other reliable sources and, thus, is making an exceptional claim - it would take perhaps a secondary source or some other measure, such as a clear clarification that the article wasn't changed since it was originally posted at 12:35pm. I don't believe we have anything of the sorts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC) fix 03:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once again, and I hope it gets through this time. Sources written years after the event (Fallows, Schapira, and conspiracy theorists) got 3pm from Enderlin. No other report from the year 2000 uses this time. The AP source, as well as the person who shot the video (Talal Abu Rahma in his interview with Schapira) and the doctors who declared the boy dead (in their affidavits) all gave times that would fall between 12pm and 1pm Israel time. I've explained this on the article talk page already, and I'm not sure why I have to explain it again. The Associated Press article was sent over the newswires two and a half hours before 3pm. Time machines aren't real. ← George ^talk 01:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this already on the article talk page, Jaakobou, and nobody agreed with your speculations there. This is just forum-shopping. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's really nothing other than the one report that gives a time other than 12pm-1pm. In a circumstance like this, with a source going up against several alternate contemporary reports, there's no real option other than to go with the majority of sources. WP:WEIGHT applies here clearly.

I'm rather unhappy with the way that these discussions have gotten personal between editors, but- as stated before- mere speculation about follow up reports are not good enough. We need sources that give other times, and so far there's only the one source that has been noted. George is absolutely right. The Squicks (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As you say, only one contemporary report - which was not picked up by other news outlets - gives a different time. All the others give the same time period and the AP report disputed above falls right in the middle of that time period. Is there any reason why we should not simply dismiss this as an obvious reporting error and move on? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue ought to closed, yes. The Squicks (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but George mentions three sources, not one. Where are we coming up with the assertion that reliable sources got their time from Enderlin and/or that Enderlin was wrong to begin with and that everyone is wrong except for ChrisO's assumption that the AP article was unchanged throughout the day? The time-stamp of AP leads to an exceptional claim that is not supported by any other sources. Best I can tell, there hasn't been produced a single source, other than AP, that mentions the boy and father were shot at prior to 3pm. Anyways, please provide the source that says reliable sources got their time from Enderlin and/or that Enderlin was wrong to begin with.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. would someone please provide the relevant quote from the source that includes the described scene on top of the source that says Schapira and Fallows got their time-line from Enderlin? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors should note that this has already been discussed at great length on the article talk page, from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Coverage timeline, and has gone through an informal mediation. There is literally nothing that can be said on this issue that has not already been said on the article talk page. Since the discussion here has produced a clear consensus that the AP article is a reliable source and that there are no grounds to discard it on the basis of an unsourced personal hypothesis, I don't think anything useful can be achieved by continuing the discussion here. Could someone please mark this as resolved? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on this issue. Firstly, both sides are assuming something. Jaakobou is assuming that a primary-stamp isn't reliable while ChrisO and George is saying that secondary sources are unreliable and inaccurate. Secondly, a Wikipedia policy here states:-

Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.

and

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source

Hence, in an article like this, I would say that the secondary sources is more reliable than the primary source. BejinhanTalk 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an interpretive claim - it's purely descriptive. The citation is being used to support three facts - that the report was (1) written by Karin Laub, (2) published by AP and (3) is datelined 10:35 GMT (12.35 pm local time) on 30 September 2000. All three of these facts are verifiably included in the AP article. Note that the policy you cite goes on to say: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

The issue with the secondary sources is not so much that they are unreliable and inaccurate (though they are) but is more to do with the problem that they are non-contemporaneous and not only contradict the contemporaneous reports, which all agree on the timing, but overlook the existence of reports filed before the time stated in those secondary sources. If you had a non-contemporaneous secondary source that said "D-Day happened on 7 June 1944" and various contemporaneous reports, some actually filed on D-Day itself, which said "D-Day happened on 6 June 1944", which would you go with? The bottom line is that the assertion about timing made in the non-contemporaneous secondary sources is not only not reflected in any of the contemporaneous English-language reports, but it would actually require contemporaneous reports to have been filed before the events on which they were reporting - a logical impossibility. As George says above, time machines aren't real. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The policy clarifies that it is improper to contradict secondary sources based on conclusions derivative from a primary one. The policy is that "[Primary sources] may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."[5] Saying the event was initially reported on at 12:35pm amounts to using a primary source in a way that contradicts "non-contemporaneous" sources (a.k.a. evaluative secondary sources that are one step removed from an event). Also, the time-stamp as qualifier that the boy was shot in that time is weak considering no other "contemporaneous" sources (a.k.a. Primary Sources) mentions the boy and father scene prior to 3pm. In fact, I think it was more like 6pm for the first report from other networks and agencies that mention the scene of boy and father... quite a stretch from 12:35pm when networks often copy stories from one another. We don't have any official statement from AP that articles are not changed after they are initially filed and all interpretive claims -- such that because a time-stamp is given, that is the first time someone mentioned the boy and father -- must be referenced to a secondary source let alone could be used to contradict multiple, independent secondary sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC) cite from policy. 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Added note: I haven't seen another source, other than Associated Press, reporting about the boy and father being hit after hiding behind a barrel prior to Reuters report on 19:25 (7pm) local time (17:25 UTC). This is a considerable time gap from 12:35pm IMHO. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a red herring:

1. No honest editor can question the integrity of the timestamp on an Associated Press report going out across the newswires.
2. Regardless of if the source is primary or secondary, it could not have been printed before the event occurred.

This discussion is bordering on the absurd. ← George ^talk 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an Argumentum ad lapidem. You disagree with Jaakobou's position therefore it "is bordering on the absurd". In fact, including the timestamp as part of the source is a clear sense of original research and an interpretive claim. As User:Nathan stated, we don't know how Lexis-Nexis's method of timestamping works and cannot independently verify it. Therefore, we shouldn't assume that the timestamp is relevant, because as several editors have correctly pointed out, news sources often update the story without changing the original timestamp (i.e. this is standard practice).

Now, this wouldn't be such a big deal if this source didn't contradict other reliable secondary sources. When there is a choice between using reliable secondary sources and the interpretation of one or two editors, it is clear which path should be taken on Wikipedia. User:Bejinhan also correctly stated this in his comment. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Jaakobou is claiming that the timestamp is inaccurate because we can't prove that the timestamp was dated to the exact moment the article went out across the newswires. In fact, no one on earth will ever be able to prove that—for this article, or any other. Perhaps you're new to the discussion, but other editors have pointed out that whenever an update to an article goes out over the newswires, it has its own timestamp. Looking through the records of what went over the newswires that day, this article was sent out twice—once at 10:35 GMT, and once later in the day. They both include mention of the boy being shot. That point was in the first and second version; not only in the update.

This source only contradicts Enderlin in 2000, a single, primary source. Fallows in 2003 specifically cites Enderlin for the 3 p.m. claim, and says: "But according to the photocopy I saw, the report also says that the boy was admitted at 1:00 P.M."—confirming Enderlin's mistake. Schapira's television documentary from 2009, a centerpiece of the conspiracy theorist movement, is not a reliable source (per discussion on this very page) for anything factual and controversial, which includes the time of the killing.

There are no reliable, secondary sources that confirm Enderlin's time. There are primary sources that give a time between 12pm and 1pm (Abu Rahma, the cameraman, in the video interview, and the affidavit of the doctors who pronounced the boy dead at the hospital), as well as secondary sources, including the AP article in question, and well as a Xinhua article also from 2000: "The crossfire took place at about 11:30 a.m. local time (0930 GMT)." The secondary sources support the approximate 12pm to 1pm timeline, not the 3pm claim.

This is a clear case of when editors need to use some WP:COMMONSENSE. ← George ^talk 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

A) Charles Enderlin is not mentioned by James Fallows anywhere on the article. Fallows says, "around 3:00 P.M."..."The time can be judged by later comments from the father and some journalists on the scene, and by the length of shadows in the footage."

B) Xinhua does not mention Muhammad al-Durrah and no one argues about there being clashes throughout the day.

C) I haven't seen another source, other than Associated Press, reporting about the boy and father being hit after hiding behind a barrel prior to Reuters report on 19:25 (7pm) local time (17:25 UTC).

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A) Fallows wrote "At around 3:00 P.M. Mohammed al-Dura and his father make their first appearance on film." If he's not talking about Enderlin's film, what film do you propose he's talking about?

B) Xinhua states that fighting took place at 11:30am, local time. Numerous sources state that the gunfire lasted about 45 minutes. Is your claim that the gunfire instead lasted for 4 hours, and if so, what source says that?

C) See (B). ← George ^talk 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, first off guys... WP:CIVIL. Calm down. Cite to what the RSes say. Is this up at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute as well? RSes are RSes. If there is reliable source-based discussion of this conspiracy theory or whatever, it deserves a subsection of the article and a mention whenever the time comes up. If there isn't, get it off of Wikipedia. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; dealing with several weeks of tedious editing can cause civilized patience to wear thin. I'm not sure if this is a reliability, accuracy, or content dispute. The statement in question is: "His death was reported by an Associated Press correspondent, Karin Laub, at 12:35 pm local time, 10:35 GMT." It's cited to an AP article, timestamped at 10:35 GMT, which states: "Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire. Cowering behind his father, he screamed in panic as shots hit a wall just inches above their heads. Seconds later, the boy was fatally shot in the abdomen." This is the earliest report of the boys death, which is why it's mentioned in the article. Some editors would like to remove this line, saying that the timestamp on the AP article isn't reliable. Based on what other editors view as those editor's... shall we say, past prevalence for promoting a conspiracy theory that relies on the boy being killed at a later time, such attempts to remove the statement are quite contentious. I guess a key question would be what kind of dispute is this, and where does that dispute belong? ← George ^talk 00:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To say "His death was reported ... at 12:35 pm local time" is an interpretation of primary source material which does not say "the boy was reported dead at 12:35". That there is a time-stamp, which is contradicted by reliable secondary sources, has lead to this interpretation - but it is still an interpretation. This is an example for why the policy says that "it is easy to misuse [primary sources]".[6]

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How would you characterize the timing of the report that says the boy died, that was published at 12:35pm? Do you have some proposal for a rewording? How about "An Associated Press report by Karin Laub, published at 12:35pm local time, mentioned a 12-year-old boy being 'caught in the crossfire'."? ← George ^talk 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not written anywhere. Not in the AP primary source or any other primary source or any secondary sources. AP's report does mention the 12-year-old boy (unlike Xinhua) but the article time stamp is not a clear clarification that they didn't change the text between 12:35pm and a later time. There is a common practice to rework articles at later hours and you're assuming something that is not stated in the text. To top it off, it is also an exceptional claim considering reliable secondary sources give 3pm as the time the event occurred (no time stamp used) and the first primary source to mention the boy aside form AP is Reuters, at 7:25pm. The best way to deal with this is either find a secondary source that supports that '12:35pm is the time that Muhammad and Jamal were reported on' or at the very least find someone other than AP mentioning the boy and father at such an early time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Jaakobou, I'm just tired of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe some other editors will have better luck explaining this to you. ← George ^talk 01:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• (from the talk page) I have just spent a good while searching LexisNexis News, what ChrisO is claiming gave him these timestamps. NONE of the articles I pulled have timestamps. NONE. I have two versions of an article titled "Twelve killed in second day of clashes; worst violence in four years" (one 1013 words, one 1043 words), an article titled "12 Palestinians Killed in Clashes" (1047 words). None have timestamps. The only things with timestamps that even mention this story by Laub are two AP News Digests, one timestamped 0000 GMT September 30, another 0600 GMT September 30. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's in the database, like it or not. I'm sorry to hear you're having difficulty finding it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I found it readily enough. And it's not a "timestamp", it's a dateline. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• As this issue keeps being raised, I've added a section describing the discrepancies to the article. I tried to do it a way that avoids OR. The current version of the section is here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way off course for the reliable sources noticeboard. As such, I'm marking the substantive issue - the AP report as a reliable source - as resolved. Please take editorial discussions to the article talk page - this is not an appropriate place for them. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reopened by Jaakobou on 04:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC) following premature closure by ChrisO on 04:01, 16 October 2009.

Note: from what I can see, an article version that is word for word with the version ChrisO cited for 12:35pm, September 30, 2000 is registered at Lexis-Nexis for having LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2000. To clarify, the article says "More than 500 Palestinians were injured, the Palestinian health minister said." and it doesn't appear to have any time stamp other than 'September 30, 2000, Saturday, BC cycle' at its top and October 1 at its bottom as a load date. I'm suspecting a possible confusion with ChrisO's original listing. I still can't see where he got his time stamps from. Perhaps, ChrisO can give a link to an image file (preferably a PDF) of the entire relevant information article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The load date is when it is put onto the Lexis-Nexis system. The dateline (not a "timestamp") is when the report was actually filed. It is part of the report itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The dateline would be "GAZA, Sept 30 (Reuters)", for example. I think we're safer sticking to "timestamp" to describe the time the computer recorded the story. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked another editor, User:Awadewit, to look into the Lexis-Nexis thing and she didn't see any time stamp either on any of the dates. ChrisO, I still can't see where you got the time stamps from. Perhaps you could please give a link to an image file (preferably a PDF) of the entire relevant information full article text?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't, because the network I use for Lexis-Nexis access doesn't allow that. It would be pointless anyway since it's a text-only database. What you see is what you get. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia policy states that secondary sources should be used in an article, I would suggest that we stick to the timestamp of the 3 secondary sources. Unless, of course, the AP report timestamp is backed by another secondary source. BejinhanTalk 06:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, I cannot find this timestamped article. Neither could Awadewit. ChrisO appears to be the only person able to find this source, and I feel uncomfortable maintaining information that clearly is not in the source right in front of me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed from the article any reference to the Karin Laub Associated Press report, timestamped 10:35 GMT, and filed Saturday, September 30, 2000. We have been assuming this is a 24-hour clock, because the other AP timestamps are, which would make it morning GMT, either 12:35 pm or 1:35 pm in Israel.

  Reading the story, it says: "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak spoke to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat by phone late Saturday" (my bold). The article therefore can't have been written at 10:35 a.m. GMT. That's not "late Saturday" in Israel, the Palestinian territories, the U.S., or Europe.

  Either this is a PM timestamp, or it's the timestamp of an earlier version of the article, the contents of which we don't have. The other details in the article would seem to confirm that it was written later than 10:35 a.m. GMT. There is too much official confirmation of the numbers killed for this to be such an early report. I've therefore removed it from the article, because the truth is that we currently don't know when it was written. I've left a similar note on Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#Time_discrepancy_again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE: Apparently, another part of the initial edit I've mentioned here, where I've had a few concerns with sources ignored and reverted (per "these changes are hopeless"[7]) -- is now agreed upon as correct (per "I concur."-George, "I agree too."-ChrisO[8]). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Seems resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

armscontrolcenter.org & independent.org

An editor on the article Military budget of the United States appears to be using information from the following websites as a way of expanding the information on the article that is outside of its scope. Would these articles be considered politically neutral reliable sources of information? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian Research Journal a reliable source

Is the Christian Research Journal [9] a reliable source for an article on Maharishi University of Management, Reception section here? [10] (Final paragraph Roark)

It seems to be simply a collection from self-published websites (including anonymous websites), the type of source that Wikipedia doesn't value. The journal is affiliated with this site and organization [11]

The site as well advertises and sells "Christian products" so may also be a spam site. [12] (olive (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't consider it reliable in the slightest, it's a Christian apologetic site and should only be used in narrow circumstances about itself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Olive, you have seriously, and I expect, deliberately, mischaracterized what this journal is. It is most certainly not a collection of self-published and anonymous websites, but a bi-monthly journal published in hard-copy form, and also with articles available online, with an extensive set of guidelines for submissions, and a comprehensive editorial review policy that requires research and sourcing of submissions. [13] Whether or not it, or the website of the organization that publishes it, sells advertising or sells any other product, is irrelevant to whether or not it is a reliable source. And, Cameron Scott appears to have relied upon that mischaracterization in making his comment.Fladrif (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. I have linked to the site in question and assume the editors replying here are intelligent enough to click on the links, and to evaluate what they see. I made this post as neutral as possible and prefaced my comment about the "collection" with "seems". I am asking for neutral input from neutral editors who did not use this source in an article , and who will evaluate the situation for themselves. Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

I went across and looked at the editorial guidelines. I don't consider it a reliable source for anything but it's own views on that basis as its POV and purposes is apologetics as it clearly notes itself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

From the website link: "Our goal is to equip Christians with the information they need to discern doctrinal errors, evangelize people of other faiths, and provide a strong defense of Christian beliefs and ethics." No, as already stated that does not look like a reliable source for anything else than the views of the organisation it represents. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A good "rule of thumb" to generally go by is this- if it is a publication regarding a religion best to only use attribution "so and so says x" or as a source for what that religion believes "the Catholic religion believes in Original Sin, the Jewish religion does not". Religious publications should never be used for FACT.Camelbinky (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, that is exactly how it is being used, as a citation for the statement that

"MUM's former Dean of Faculty and Chair of the Department of Physics, Dennis Roark, is critical of the university’s “crackpot science” protocols, meritless claims concerning the relationship between physics and consciousness, and the suppression of negative data in research that is then widely quoted as “scientific” proof by MUM of the benefits of Transcendental Meditation

One can independently verify that Roark did indeed say and write these things about the Maharishi University.[14] MUM acknowledges this, as David Orme-Johnson of MUM published a response to it on his website [15]So, I would think that this use would fall within the scope of appropriate and acceptable use of a publication that, notwithstanding an unapologetic POV, has editorial and publication standards that insist on proper research, citation and attribution. Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, as a commenter notes, Christian research journal is useful only as a source for what that religion believes. If you want to use this letter written by someone who hasn't stepped on campus in 30 years you'll need to find it in the context of a secondary source, ideally one that gives the letter proper scholarly or journalistic treatment. That would mean, for example, an attempt to corroborate the hearsay that Roark includes in his letter. The fact that someone said something to Roark 30 years ago about research shouldn't be used in Wikipedia to suggest that the entire body of research on TM over the past 40 years conducted at over 200 institutions worldwide has been subject to suppression of data, which is what your addition to the article implies. The Trancenet site is hardly a reliable source for this letter. It incorrectly says, for example, that he was head of the physics department and dean of faculty 1975-1980. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The argument being made against the use of this journal as a source is an extremist version of an argument I read over and over here that is basically this: "Source X can't be reliable because it promotes a particular POV on subject Z." That argument is ill-conceived and fundamentally wrong. Every source promotes a POV of one kind or another. Peer-reviewed science and medical journals promote the POV that the scientific method is a correct way of analyzing questions of science; or promote modern western medicine over alternative medicine. Do promoters of various flavors of woo woo get to argue that you can't cite them because they are promoting the POV of science instead of neutrally giving Woo equal treatment? The balance of TG's argument has nothing to do with whether this is a reliable source or not.Fladrif (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source. Even worse the website is designed ask for donations. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, just because a website asks for donations that's not a reason to throw it out. That's a bad precendent to set Four Deuces. I agree its not reliable though, but for the reason that religious websites arent for anything other than their own opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reality TV and reliable sources

I keep an eye on a number of reality tv series articles such as The Apprentice Australia and Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 5. The majority of these articles are unreferenced. I would like to know if episode summaries (and all these "call-out" tables) can be fully referenced by using the tv episode itself with a {{cite episode}} citation. Is it better than nothing?  florrie  00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if there is a place somewhere, preferably online, that you know of that has these episodes "saved" where people can access them easily it would be good to use that url and put that in the citation (something similar to Hulu). Others may say "no", but as we've gone through before on here and even had to write an essay about it- verifiability does not mean verified by YOU, this instant, from your computer, for free, without any effort. If the information does in fact exist in the episode then it exists and is verifiable (anyone can look at the episode). Of course keep your "summaries" short, use a NPOV manner of writting, dont over analyze or write your own commentary. It is better than nothing to have this type of citation, the article would be lacking if this information was not cited to anything or worse- removed. This is a clear example of where IAR comes in handy, you want to improve the encyclopedia and have to break or bend general policy in order to to it. Have at it.Camelbinky (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If the episode is not on Youtube, and is not being re-broadcast, how would a reader verify the information?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming it exists somewhere (Youtube is not the only thing of its kind, do you think it is unique? In case you didnt know Google also has competitors!) Unless the film has been burned in a pile or put through a woodchipper it exists somewhere. I dont care if YOU cant verify it yourself. Someone, theoretically can. It is the same as using as a source a one of a kind book that exists only in an archive in a museum in St. Petersburg, Russia. Yes, you cant go to Russia right now and verify it says what the article says it says, but it can still be used, you might not even be able to read what language it is in, but it is still a verifiable and reliable source. It never matters how difficult it is for an individual themselves to verify something. That is not the purpose of verifiability to make it where anyone and everyone can verify something immediately. It is that SOMEONE could verify it if they had the opportunity. That is why this noticeboard decided to write the essay that clarified that point because of the continued questions about "instant gratification". Oh, and of course there's IAR, we dont need to go by the letter of WP:V because we are adhering to the spirit of it and indeed improving the article. As long as you have good faith and are actually improving the article, using a subpar citation is better than removing the information. WP:PRESERVE.Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

the article would be lacking if this information was not cited to anything or worse- removed - Considering these are reality programmes, with commentary on real people, I'd have thought WP:BLP would be of importance and a little more care taken with verifying events. Your advice makes me uneasy, but I thank you for your opinion.  florrie  01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Camelbinky. Presuming that a copy of a broadcast must exist somewhere does not make its contents verifiable. I agree that material doesn't have to be easily accessible, but it has to be accessible in some practical form. Otherwise we're leaving the door open to hoaxes and other false information. "Just because you can't find a copy of 'Lives of the Swedish Saints' in any library or bookshop doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. I read it ten years and I am faithfully citing it. The burden is on you to track it down and prove I'm wrong." Broadcasts are no more verifiable than live speeches unless there is a recording.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate data

On my user page I have evidence for my belief that there is no reliable source for climate data available for use on Wikipedia. My evidence consists of links to climate data hosted on various websites that to me is obviously false. Most of this data is not currently being used on Wikipedia, but we are using other data from those same websites. If my understanding is correct, a website which is correct most of the time but can be shown to have some false information on it cannot be considered a reliable source. If my argument that there no reliable sources for climate information is accepted, I would like to know what we should do about it. Is it possible to make an exception to the policy in order to allow climate data to stay on Wikipedia so long as the people who watchlist the articles are assumed to be checking the data on a case-by-case basis? Or should all climate data be removed?

Note that weatherbase.com has the most links to bad data because it has the most data; it is not, in my opinion, the "worst" source; in fact I would say it's the best source for anyone who can spot bad data like that. Also note that there are some sites I haven't yet included links to, but that does not mean I believe they are 100% correct. This is still a work in progress. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page about how to use Reliable sources/Noticeboard. We are unable to act on broadly scoped suppositions. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The sites mentioned on your user page are about weather, not climate. You must provide examples where these sites are used to show e.g. average temperatures where you believe them to be inaccurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They are about climate ... most of the data I link to is average temperature data, and a few others are record high and low temperatures ... but those are all considered aspects of climate. However, in response to Fifelfoo, I don't know where else to bring this up. There is no WikiProject Weather, believe it or not ... I suppose I'll ask for advice from members of the hurricane and severe weather projects. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you are right and there really is no accurate source of accurate temperatures available either on paper or on the web, then it is still OK to use the sources that are most often cited. See WP:V - we are aiming for verifiability. It is a bit similar to the situation for language groupings, where it is known that sometimes there is no agreed group that a language belongs to. If you spot an average temperature that it obviously daft, then you could add a "dubious" tag and then discuss it on the talk page, i.e. resolve on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDB?

Is IMDB suitable as an external link vis a vis TV shows? Prior to air, people there submit cast that aren't actually in the show, or are miscredited, as determined when the show actually airs. They also use tentative or non-existent air dates that have not been reliably confirmed elsewhere. As a site with minimal editorial oversight, where everybody can contribute, they seem to fail the verifiability and reliability standards. I'll be glad to provide examples as necessary if folks feel this warrant further discussion (and if as a non-editor I'm posting in the right place :) ). Or relate this to individual pages where they are listed for more specific details. And please note, I'm talking about their suitability as an external link. As a source for articles, obviously their reliability should be judged on a case by case basis. --Gadflyr (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh gee, another IMDB question. We dont get enough of these. (sarcasm) Gadflyr is correct to say their reliability should be judged on a case by case basis when talking about being a source. I would say the criteria for being an external link would be less than that of being used a source and therefore IMDB could be a suitable EL. By providing external links we arent saying "this is fact", we're simply saying "other information we didnt use in this article, for whatever reason, can be found here-". I do think this warrents further discussion and is actually a welcome different take on the perennial IMDB question. I would like to hear lots of opinions.Camelbinky (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I like them as an EL, because they can provide directory type info we're prohibited from providing per WP:NOT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

DVDverdict and ALLmovie

Are dvdverdict.com and allmovie.com reliable sources? My gut tells me no, but I'd like a second opinion. These keep popping up at AfC. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Context please. As RS indicating Notability for AfC purposes? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, are the reviews on these sites reliable enough to contribute to notability? I don't really can't get a gauge on their reputation or editorial process. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as far as I can tell neither site has an editorial policy equivalent to the RS standards of a newspaper (the equivalent type of reviewing body for popular works). Not RSes for notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. That will help a lot! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think they both have editorial staffs and policies.[16][17] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so they have editorial staffs and appear to be at least 10 years old. Are these experts though? Do I needs to do a cass-by-case basis with the author of whichever review I'm looking at to see if the author has been published elsewhere? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliability comes from the publisher, not the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Then that comes to the question, is this a reliable source by virtue of it having an identifiable editorial staff? What distinguishes this from other self-published review sites? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The big difference is that the writers get paid, and what they write is looked at by an editor. DVDVerdict has that weird way of calling writers and editors legal names, but they have been referenced by other RSs a bit.[18][19] I've seen them accepted a lot at GA reviews, although I haven't seen a thorough look at them beyond what we're doing here. I don't do music stuff, but I think allmusic is considered really good for that field, so I'd assume that allmovie is pretty good too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock

Is this an acceptable source to provide information that Russell Blaylock is an author and lecturer as well as being a radio guest? Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As it's an anti-vacc site, and that is a BLP, I'd say no. Verbal chat 09:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is being an an "anti-vacc" site relevant? If it is, does that matter for a BLP when none of the information the source is suggested to support pertains directly to vaccination, it pertains to his being an author, a lecturer and a radio guest, nowt to do with 'anti-vacc' specifically. Comments from editors who have not previously expressed an opinion on the article's AfD and/or been involved in edits and reversions to the article would be most welcome.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, its a WP:SPS and not reliable, especially not for a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a private charity run by two persons [[20]]. It appears to be Self Published, and an advocacy organisation. it also does not appear toi have been given much in the way of medai attention (thus raising doubts in my mind as to exactly well respected the organisation is with regards to fact checking (see its own artcile here [[21]]. As it is not making any contentious claims (with regards to this question) its use is not that serious, but I would say that other sources ae preferable and that it certainly has issues.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will continue looking, bearing this in mind. Other sources have stated his radio appearances, but none so far so clearly as this one.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What do users think of this? It’s self published, and it has no province, but if we assume it’s by the person it claims to be it should be fine[[22]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is already being used in the article and I think isn't up to date with the radio stuff - the generationrescue source mentions more named shows and has "over 100" syndicated shows for example, whereas Blaylock's own and other sites still have "over fifty" syndicated radio shows. The intial intro line is what I'm trying to get a better balance on - for some time it was "health practitioner, author, lecturer, and newsletter editor." but was changed to "...who writes and gives interviews on talk shows." but when I changed that this morning to "...author, newsletter editor and radio show guest." this morning (on my home ip), the newsletter editoring and radio show appearances, as "neither verifiable from current sourced material nor noteworthy", which, regardless of one's view on whether they add any notions of notability, is not entirely true - his newsletter is mentioned and referenced to his own site and the radio shows are mentioned, again using his own site for reference - so I did wish to improve on using his own site for those if possible. If after another good look about, I still find no better I will re-introduce this ref (which was removed and the general college site used instead to add words about the college) and also use the generationrescue source for his being an author, a lecturer and a radio guest.163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Amazon confirm that he is a published author? Unomi (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Atheism source.

Hi, this is used as a source at the Atheism article. Can it be considered a reliable source regarding definition and use of the word 'Atheism'? Unomi (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

404, Not an RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, all my wikimarkup foo has abandoned me, link should now be fixed Unomi (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Its engaged in promoting a religious polemic, and is not in the business of publishing. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that this points to having site removed as a source from the articles which reference it? Unomi (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could the same be said of other 'promoters of religious polemic' ? Unomi (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could this be resolved by just citing the OED? I can check what they say later today. The definition from that source does not seem particularly contentious to me on the face of it, but I would also be leery of citing them in that article. As a general principle, broadly neutral sources are preferred to trying to attain balance through opposing polarized sources, though Criticism of atheism is obviously a bit of a special case. The incoming links and GNews hits do not give me confidence that they are a particularly major player, though, so I would avoid it. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pink News

Is Pink News [23] a reliable source for this edit [24], which creates innuendo about a living Polish politician's sexuality? I'll note the Pink News' editorial policy which states that their pro-gay stance is reflected in the "tone that we use to describe homophobic politicians", a category to which the politician might easily be said to belong, unfortunately. To complicate matters, a Daily Telegraph article mentions related rumours,[25], but doesn't address them per se or provide any of the details in the Pink News report. And this San Francisco Bay Times also mentions rumours, but states that they are unsubstantiated.[26] --Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not reliable source because is biased.--Jacurek (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Pink News sufficiently reliable by itself? No. This is an extreme claim, and would require multiple sources of proof. Pink News is merely acting as a wireservice with trapping for an actual report in the newspaper "Rzeczpolita." So for an adequate RS go to "Rzeczpolita", they broke the story in Polish. Go look it up. Is Pink News generally reliable? Yes. They have an editor. Additionally Pink News is drawing an editorial inference from "Colonel Jan Lesiak is reported to have said: "It is advisable to establish if Jaroslaw Kaczynski remains in a long-term homosexual relationship and, if so, who his partner is."". I have to agree with Jacurek: Pink News editorial policy regarding homophobic politicians means that they are not RS for this item. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the analysis, including the thought that the original Polish article might be worth looking at. However, I would have more confidence in summary in the Pink News if they didn't mispell the name of Polish newspaper, which is apparently Rzeczpospolita not Rzeczpolita. I am, however, still concerned about the RS guidelines that we are not here to repeat rumours: "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." As reported in the Pink News, it seems to me that it's all rumour, and that the leaked reports might actually say more about those in the secret police than anything else. .--Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL : sorry, my browser is lagging terribley again, thought I was on EARS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing RS

hi, this topic (sungazing) was already posted some time ago and had only one response from an outside editor. i feel it is important to list some reliable sources so the page can progress and not rely on incorrect information about what sungazing is (and is not). There are certain practise guidelines listed on many! different web pages that seem to get no credit on the page. and hence the page suffers from lack of proper information about the practise.
this was the original post...
"i was wondering if i can use the source Hira Ratan Manek Sungazing DVD to support information about the actual practise of sungazing. ie. guidelines, rules, safety precautions etc... on the Sungazing page. Sungazing is a practise and there needs to be some form of defining a "safe" practise in order to distinguish it from staring at the noon sun for hours. For example, the DVD states one should only sun gaze during "safe" times when UV levels are below 2. Usually within one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. The practise also entails a very gradual start. One begins with sungazing for 10 seconds (during a safe time) and each day increases the time by ten seconds, to a limit of 45 minutes.

there is also information here... http://www.sungazing.com/652.html http://phoenixtools.org/sungazing/practise.htm

youtube has copy of the DVD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlCJPxxKoaY these sources are just for the facets of the practise itself. Thanks!"

the only conclusion from the last discussion was not if the sources were reliable but if wikipedia should discuss the details of the practise, for safety reasons. there are many web sites that share the exact same information for the safe practise of sungazing. these safety guidleines are not currently on the wiki page for sungazing as i'm guessing some reliable sources need to be established in order to present the information properly.
for example can this book (found at the website listed) be deemed as reliable source ...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/378210/The-Art-and-Science-of-Sun-Gazing-Living-on-Sunlight

wondering on how to proceed...

Thanks

J929 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, the sources in that article are terrible, simply terrible... let me get my flamethrower. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

J929 completely misrepresents the last discussion at this noticeboard. Here's the link. The one editor who commented agreed with my position. Hira Ratan Manek's self-published works are unreliable sources that should not be given equal weight with medical journals, which invariably conclude that staring at the sun is bad for you. Skinwalker (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I am indeed that one "outside editor" who commented last time. How are you?! "If at first you dont succeed, try try again". I'm sorry that this time I have not changed my mind. My opinion stands, for safety reasons and reasons of "what Wikipedia is NOT" this information can not be put in an article. We arent a "how-to guide" and this information puts in a liability legal issue. Here is a copy-paste of my comment from last time-

• I agree with Skinwalker, plus Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to outline how to do something and when it safe to do so and how to do it safely, especially something that is so complicated you have to start with a predetermined safe time and you can increase your time over time. We dont want to be held liable if we are (or our source) is wrong and damages someone, nor do we want someone to get damaged if a vandal should change the wording or time allotments on a page even for just an hour or day before before the correct information is reverted back. Better safe than sorry I think. Sorry, but really you shouldnt put the information is, even though I think it is very interesting information.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Fringe theories, the independent sources commenting on a practice should be our guide to the level of detail appropriate to devote to it. This form of inedia has attracted very little outside notice that I can find. It is inappropriate to source medical claims to those self-published sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

the request is a question of, are the sources reliable in presenting the parameters of the practise of sungazing, itself. i understand wikipedia is not a how-to guide (and agree with camelbinky on the concerns of liability) but the practise of sungazing does require certain safety guidelines to be followed. Sungazing, as a practise does have criteria that define it. ie. standing barefoot on loose dirt or sand, gradual increase of time gazing (not staring) at the sun etc etc ... the sources i'm asking about define the practise.
Most sources do agree on certain guidelines that define sungazing as a practise (as opppsed to staring at the sun to recreate a vision of the Virgin Mary, as one source refers to) such as gazing at the sun in low levels of UV, sunrise or sunset, (not staring into the 3pm sun as the current medical journals are discussing), gradual increase of time spent sungazing, where after over 9 monthes does a "sungazer" reach 45 minutes of gazing, etc... there are ample websites that state these guidelines and parameters. as it stands now these sources are not allowed in the article and therefor the practise of sungazing is inferred as staring at mid day sun. (and all the consequences therein)
the page now holds statements such as "The practice of sungazing is dangerous." (with out a reference or source to this statement) and "Solar retinopathy, damage to the eye’s retina due to solar radiation, and blindness to varying degrees and persistence frequently result from sungazing during a solar eclipse." i would like the author of this statement to produce ONE source that promotes sungazing during an eclipse. every source i have read clearly states (with common sense as a guide) that gazing (or looking) at a solar eclipse is harmful. why then is this considered "sungazing"?
hence i have posed the question of reliable sources for this topic.

Hira Ratan Manek states the guidelines for sungazing. many websites share these parameters. Skinwalker states these "should not be given equal weight with medical journals". i think that may somewhat off topic as medical journals dont really ever present the guidelines of sungazing. (i understand medical journals will not write about the guidelines or specifications of what is "sungazing" but there is concensus among many sources on the guidelines for the practise of sungazing.) the guidelines and parameters of sungazing will most likely be discussed by a sungazer.

"staring at the sun is bad for you", sungazing is not staring at the sun.

J929 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, you can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, but Manek's self-published material will not be given equal weight with medical articles. The consensus is clearly against you here and at the article. I suggest you move on. Skinwalker (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sleep to Live Institute: Establishing notability through international media and industry journals

Would appreciate some feedback on a few sources to establish notability for a research and development organization (Sleep to Live Institute):

Is an interview featured on the Mornings with Kerri-Anne, a popular morning show on the Australian's Nine Network that bills the head of the Sleep to Live Institute as an American Sleep Expert reliable for establishing notablility from an international presence for an research facility based in Joplin, MO, USA? Airdate on feature from show's homepage referenced here.

Do additional Australian radio interviews (interview 1, interview 2, interview 3, interview 4, interview 5) further add as reliable sources for establishing international media sources? One of which is also referenced by ABC here

Are industry publications reliable in adding to notability such as the feature on the trend of combining sleep research and bedding companies, where the Director of Sleep Research for the Sleep to Live Institute is pictured in this article (electronic pages 24-25 on the spreads; print page 22)?

Are product awards useful for establishing the notability for those research and development organizations that develop them as is the case with the Sleep to Live Institute and the DormoDiagnostic/BodyDiagnostic system?

For context sake, these are some of the sources used in support of this userfied article.

Thank you Cronides2 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been userfied, I don't see the issue... unless... did you userfy it during an active AfD? Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Xymmax chose to delete and userfy it based on the limited amount of discussion given on the AfD that was relisted once already, and directed me here to get a more wide spread analysis of the sources reliability for notability purposes, and will restore it if they are found to be reliable. Cronides2 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Give me a chance to review. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing... If I were responsible for deciding the fate of the page I would probably keep it based on newsmedia references suggesting the company is a notable one... and stub it because that's about all you've got. Your CoI shows rather clearly and the article reads like an ad for the company which employs you according to your own user page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So you would be fine with the reliability for notability sake... but stub it with concerns of advertising? I am in the company's employ, and have attempted to write it in a NPV carefully for that reason. This organization does not itself sell or market anything and wouldn't have reason to advertise; it is completely a sleep research and product development facility. Not to deviate terribly from the purpose of establishing the reliability of the sources; but, would you have any suggestions regarding the way it's written to better adhere to NPV in your opinion? Thanks for taking the time. Cronides2 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lede and history paragraphs look basically fine. The rest of the article has to go.Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the text in that publication, and I do not consider it a significant mention; just one in a group of places, each mentioned in a single paragraph. There would need to be more than just that to prove notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional feedback DGG. There are additional sources of a similar nature on the userfied article. For the sake of brevity (which I struggle with :) ), I was only presenting one of them as an example. Do you have thoughts regarding the international media attention with the TV interview and 5 radio interviews? Cronides2 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dog breed sources

I have begun reviewing Alsatian Shepalute for GA, but I am not a dog expert. I wonder which online dog breed websites are reliable sources. Are folks happy with dogbredinfo and rightpet? Be nice to get some more independent sourcing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be extremely wary of the fact that the breed isn't recognized by any major kennel association.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to indicate reliability on their about pages.[27][28] I didn't look too hard, but I didn't see anything that would make the authors experts and their sites allowable per WP:SPS either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

international-divorce.com

A recent change to the article International parental abduction in Japan, included significant material from this website. Although it appears that the individual maybe an expert, as the link is to an international divorce lawyer, it appears that it maybe original research or maybe a work of the lawyer himself. Would this be appropriate for this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

skyscrapernews.com

Is skyscrapernews.com a reliable source? The context is these articles of theirs [29], [30], [31] for use in this Wikipedia article [32]. Information about their editorial staff is here [33] and their previous use on Wikipedia is here [34]. As instructed (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems ok to me. The editorial staff is named, even if individual articles aren't all signed. They're also cited by clearly reliable media (BBC, for instance. I'm sure there are more than that, but it's hard to parse out with many of the references appearing in user comments). As long as the information isn't controversial, I would consider them reliable enough without needing any further evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that their reliability drops rapidly as soon as the object of investigation is outside of London. Moreover, given that they republish press releases (look in their non UK sections), I'd suggest they're not RS for the purposes of establishing notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo, but have found use for skyscrapernews.com as an easy to cite source for information that otherwise would have been harder to source (ie- not on the internet, though that doesnt affect its reliability or verifiability many like to have an internet source to click on). I would always, as with any source, double check and verify that the source got it right.Camelbinky (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree with the above; I didn't check the site outside the context of the UK. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Times of South Africa

This article, which contains the sentence Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year. is being used to source The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in the Arab world in the Gaza War article. A number of sources have been provided showing the use by various Hamas officials and spokespersons using "gaza massacre" as the name used in English and Arabic but it was argued that was not sufficient to say Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre. Is this a reliable source and is it sufficient to source the sentence cited? nableezy - 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not that "massacre" cannot be used but that it was not a primary title or description to be boded in the lead while not mentioning others. Proposals for inclusion without it being used as the primary title in the Arab world or by Hamas have been rejected. In an attempt to reach consensus, a proposal was even made to remove the well sourced Israeli operational title from the lead all together while still keeping the term "massacre" in the opening.

The accuracy of this source in particular is disputed for the following reasons:

• It is the only news organization who has stated that it was called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world. Al Jazeera uses the term "War on Gaza" for its special report. Al Arabiya and others reporting from the region yield 0 results or very few for "Gaza Massacre" when searched.
• It could easily be a circular reference.
• There has not been any response to multiple emails to [email protected]
• There have been 10 instances of the term "Gaza massacre" being used by Hamas officials that we have found. It was used as a description a few times and maybe asserted as a title a couple but not enough to give it prominence in the lead.
• Google news searches for other titles and descriptions result in hundreds or thousands of results wile "The Gaza Massacre" results in less than a hundred. Caps are not searched so many of these are descriptions (the Gaza massacre).

Cptnono (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reliable news source and it does support the idea that the description "Gaza massacre" has been used in the Arab-speaking world. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the argument in relation to this article. It is only one source, and even the best newspapers can be mistaken on occasion. If you cannot find any use of this phrase in Arabic-language media (not directly tied to Hamas), then it wouldn't seem to be appropriate to mention it. An English-language source is to be preferred, but one or two further sources in another language would be acceptable, even desirable, here. Maybe there are some in the google hits, even if they are relatively limited in number. We wouldn't expect an Arabic phrase to get numerous hits when searched for in English. I would disregard the capitalisation issue given that we are talking about translated text.

Say you do find further sources, you will still have to reach consensus about whether to mention this description (not everything that can be reliably sourced is worth including in the encyclopedia). And if you do agree that it is worth including you also have to reach consensus about how much prominence to give it. Finally, don't forget that you can attribute the source ("According to The Sunday Times of South Africa ... "). Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No question that the newspaper itself is reliable. No question either that "massacre" material will be included in the article. It is just a question of whether it will be included in the lede. The issue really falls on the use of capitalization and English grammar. When dozens of sources specifically do not indicate that it is a proper name and one reporter uses capitalization that indicates that it is a proper name, it can be supposed that the writer made an error. Whether the reporter is reliable for everything he writes is another question. The writer is a bloggist The sickie joke's on me and writes "fluff pieces" for the Times such as It's official --handbags are the new shoes,Youngsters' hot salsa wows showbiz bigwigs, Calendar boys strut their stuff, Saving electricity begins in your home, I'll be back, says celeb chef. I don't see this source as sufficient for the issue at hand.Stellarkid (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, the writer also publishes news pieces like this or this or this or this. That the writer also has a blog is irrelevant. nableezy - 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All very local stuff at best. We are talking international conflicts and he or she is talking local cellphone tariffs.Stellarkid (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is use in the Arabic media, such as this program on Al-Arabiya, or this and more from a Palestinian source, or this piece in al-Jazeera. nableezy - 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Three sources. "yada yada Gaza massacre" in the title of an article is not good enough. Have you tried finding ones that say "Gaza bombing/assault/insert juicy term here"? Are we going to list them all? We certainly can't assert that it was the primary title with what has been provided. Al Jazeera clearly labels its special report section "War on Gaza". Is that going in, too? "الحرب على غزة" gets 3,140,000 standard google hits. It also yields 7,170 hits in a google news search since the start of the conflict. "مجزرة غزة" receives 182,000 (millions less) in a standard search and 833 (thousands less) in a news search. No one is arguing that it wasn't used. Was it a title in each instance is argued and even if it was a title, does it deserve prominence as a bolded title in the lead? Mentioning "there were calls of it being a massacre" was a fantastic proposal in my opinion. I also think it has been demonstrated through what we have found that the news source (the Times) in question is fine but they may have made a mistake in the individual article or it might even be circular. Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Those were just three random sources, and the problem is you keep saying "not enough" while never saying what is enough. nableezy - 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also there was this source, also in the South African Sunday Times, but by a different writer that says More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre". It was likewise argued because this foreign editor for the paper also has a blog, even though this was published in the Sunday Times that this source is likewise not suitable nableezy - 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We've had that conversation. Someone said there were press releases that made it clear that Hamas used "Gaza Massacre" as their official title. You also said there were a dozen but so far the 10 you have provided indicate it as a description as well. They said other things ("Gaza victory" is just one) so it doesn't look like their primary description or title. I am past the point of believing you can provide enough sources to prove it is the main title used by Hamas or in the Arabic world with all of the sources we have both found. I simply believe the Times in South Africa is incorrect and potentially a circular reference to Wikipedia from a blogger who didn't do their homework. If you had other sources saying "It was called the Gaza Massacre" we would certainly have to look at them but they don't seem to exist. It took less than a minute to find a source that verified both "War in Gaza" and "War in the South" ([35]). Use of the term as a title has been disputed for months. I said some time ago that I was OK with keeping it in and time will tell. Time has told that it is a term used sparingly (most often by bloggers) and massacre is often used as a description like "victory" (much less), "attack", "bombing" and so on. Its use as a title is so little and so contradicted by what else is out there that I don't believe it is possible anymore. That is why I made a proposal to use the term massacre but not give it prominence.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Both are the same paper. Both are by bloggers for the paper who got it published as a main article. Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those people's primary job is "blogger". nableezy - 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>The second source] given from the Times is much worse than the first. The second article, called "Seeking the brutal truth" doesn't even have an author associated with it but is by someone know (or not known) as "unknown" claiming that someone else we don't know, named Jackie May, says something. For all we know this is a blog or opinion piece. A search for Jackie May yields no results and obviously "unknown" is really useless. Anyway, "unknown" or "Jackie May" calls it "the Gaza massacre." Unknown and/or Jackie May indicate through the use of capitalization that the Arabs do not use the expression as a proper name. Further, as has been shown on the article talk page, Arabs have also called events in 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2008 "the Gaza massacre" so unknown's comment demonstrates this is not a name specific to or equal to the Gaza War. The whole issue is a red herring, as no one disputes that the paper is probably a RS. The question is really if the initial author (Lauren Cohen) should be taken over other sources such as the BBC, NYT, that do not capitalize the term. And Nableezy, we are only arguing the RS issue here; it is not necessary to be trying to make your WP:POINT in other ways with other sources. Stellarkid (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors should know that some editors have been pushing for months to find any way they can to try and remove or relegate the term that Hamas/Gaza has used to describe the Gaza War. These attempts to delegitimize a journalist and newspaper that reported the term represent the latest effort. Sorry for the time-wasting, clearly the SA Sunday Times is a reliable source and no amount of wikilawyering will change that. But the system allows editors to try try try. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether that's true or not, there is little more ot be said on this page unless anyone has a further question or opinion about the Sunday Times of South Africa or another source. Whether a point is important enough to include in the lede is not a sourcing issue to discuss here. The "circular reference" question I think has come up before. If it is only a supposition that a journalist may have used WP, and the source meets normal fact-checking requirements, we cannot discredit the source on that basis. And the fact that a journalist runs a blog as well as publishing in a newspaper is not relevant either. Hope this helps and that you can continue to discuss, hopefully in a more civil tone than I saw in the talk-page discussion to date. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that a search on the exact phrase "the Gaza massacre" brings up many articles on google search and google news. The inclusion of the word 'the' in the phrase shows that the term "Gaza massacre" is being used as a noun to refer to a particular incident. However, this is conversation is irrelevant.

The Sunday Times of South Africa article is a reliable source for it's description of the use of the term "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world. That is all RS/N should concern itself with. End of story. Let's not get sidetracked here by other issues. LK (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy neglected to mention the fact that this citation is supposed to be sufficient to include the reference to a massacre in the lead of the article. WP:LEADCITE specifically says Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. A Google search does indeed bring up the phrase, but not for reliable sources. Google News searches bring it up also, though much fewer and many fewer reliable sources. One needs to look carefully at the phrasing without jumping to conclusions since most of the usages are not from RS, and most of the reliable ones carry quotation marks : 'Ahmadinejad Blasts Gaza "Massacre"' [36]. The fact that there is no capitalization is relevant as it demonstrates that it is a descriptive term, ie "the massacre in Gaza" not "The Gaza Massacre". If it were accepted as a "descriptive name," WP dictates it should be neutral and by consensus. Considering that this is the only source out of thousands of sources that refer to a large "m" and considering the author is not of international repute and mostly writes fluff pieces, (It's official --handbags are the new shoes,Youngsters' hot salsa wows showbiz bigwigs, Calendar boys strut their stuff. This may be reliable and sufficient for inclusion in the body of the article, but not in the lede. Stellarkid (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not true that the author "mostly writes fluff pieces" as a simple google search will show, and it is also irrelevant. The "the" in "the Gaza massacre" clearly makes it a noun phrase referring to a specific thing, also known as a proper noun. But the point of this board is to determine the reliability of the source and there is agreement here that the source is reliable to source the statement "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'". nableezy - 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have made it clear in the beginning that this was about putting something controversial in the lede, not simply in the article. As such it is misleading, implying as it does that some of us are attempting to keep something out of the body of the article, which is not so. You are attempting to use this source to add an alternative name to the first sentence or two of the lede. The lede has even greater verifiability issues than the rest of the article. Why didn't you explain this thoroughly at the top? Stellarkid (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I came here to ask if this source is a reliable source for that statement. That is all I came here to do as one of the arguments has been the reliability of the source. I was trying to get answers that address that argument, not the entire argument. nableezy - 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This type of thing comes up at RSN all the time. You've got a reliable source, but you've also got a dispute. You can try an RfC or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you want. We try to not get drawn to far into these thing here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried that, I'm just trying to get each of the arguments resolved one at a time. It is too difficult to arrive at any sort of consensus when 7 different arguments are bundled together. nableezy - 04:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not read the article closely, since we were only dealing with one particular aspect of the article. On a close reading, I see that this article fits in with the assumption that Ms Cohen is a local interest writer for the So Africa Times. She is covering a story about a local upcoming (controversial) and event and it appears she has interviewed Mr Achmat and one or two other local individuals for her article. She is either mouthing Mr Achmat's opinion or her own in this story. It is unlikely that an article about upcoming events would have editorial oversight or be reliable for international and controversial issues. WP:V also says that just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. This is particularly true for controversial POVs. Could I get an opinion on that? Stellarkid (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although this newpaper is a reliable source, it should not be used in this case. If I were looking for sources for a war in the Middle East, I would not choose an article in a South African newspaper about a visit of an Israeli offical to South Africa. If the information is true and sufficiently important for inclusion in the article then it would have been mentioned by major news organizations. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a major news organization, "major news organizations" is not limited to Europe and the US. nableezy - 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

History texts by Chandra Chakraberty

These are referred to frequently in our articles on Kambojas and related. I am getting publishing dates from the 1940s and 1950s onwards but I wonder if they are reprints of earlier publications. Could it be the same person who wrote about Indian medicine in the 1920s? Relevant books include The Racial History of India, Literary History of Ancient India in Relation to its Linguistic and Racial Affiliations and Racial Basis of Indian Culture. Anyone know what their status is in relationship to current scholarship? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler might be able to help, I've invited them to contribute on their talk. My understanding is that Indian history improved dramatically in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fifelfoo. I have put on the talk page of the main Kambojas article a to-do list that includes agreeing a cut-off date before which sources are to be regarded as primary, but have not had any responses to that. In the current state of the articles, primary source Sanskrit and Pali texts are cited pell mell with 19th century British Raj writers, early 20th century Indian scholars and recent authors. And when the given publication date is recent in fact the text is often a reprint of a much earlier book. So it is hard to work out which are the best sources to cite. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the Kambojas and related articles involve large-scale synthesis and POV-pushing. Some authors in the bibliography on the talk page are well known; others are obscure. Yes, facsimile reprints of old books being passed as new ones is a problem I have seen in some other Indian history articles. I don't know too much about this period, but I will try to comment on the talk page. In my view, this entire topic relates to a period of Indian history for which there is very little documentation: no archeology and some scraps here and there from historical linguistics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fowler. It's becoming clearer. Incidentally, if you want to see the funniest thing on the whole encyclopedia, look at the "Recommended reading" in Migration of Kambojas. Handbook of the Bombay Presidency. Satbir's link is to google books but you only get it in snippet view there (where it is labelled "Fiction"). Looking for the title on ordinary google I found it in full [37]. It's a travel guide. The version I found said it was a revised edition, 1880.

As the excessive perspiration destroys kid gloves in a single wearing, it will be wise to provide oneself with cotton, silk, or Swedish gloves, and those who wish to shoot on the W. Coast should have gaiters steeped in tobacco juice to keep off leeches. Sleeping drawers should be made to cover the feet, and as the washermen break off or destroy buttons on underclothing, it will be well to use studs. All clothing sent in advance of the owner to India will have to pay duty, as will firearms that have not been in India before, or which have been removed from India for more than a year.

So that's where we've been going wrong. We've been trying to source history articles from history books, when all along we ought to have been using the Rough Guide. Pass me my firearm. I think some leeches have crept into my sleeping drawers. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorates

Are honorary doctorates considered notable awards in regards to WP:ANYBIO? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

An unusual board to use for that question. Each University in the Commonwealth/US systems tends to award at least one a year. Not an award establishing notability. People awarded Honorary Doctorates are generally awarded them because of achievements, these should be sought out to establish the individual's notability. WP:N seems to imply that WP:AfD or the Talk: page are the appropriate forums for notability issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a honorarydoctorate from a recognized, accredited university is certainly a notable award. It may not be enough to establish notability on its own, but it does contribute towards it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly something that should be included in an otherwise-notable biography. Whether it would be enough on its own to establish notability is a different question, though. If the university granting the award has published somewhere a citation explaining why they granted it, I would count that as a single reliable source for the notability of whatever the awardee did to deserve it, but just the bare fact of the award doesn't seem like enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I ask is due the statement "Keep. Three honorary doctorates is a serious indication of notability." in this AFD. Furthermore, in the article itself those degrees are unverified. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Fifelfoo and Stephan Schulz. Having one or more honorary doctorates does not guarantee that a person is notable, but it does tend to be a sign that the person is notable. In this particular case, Gina de Venecia has enough Google News Archive hits to convince me that she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, even without taking into account the honorary degrees. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice on AOL/Youtube clip - Newsnight

Can I ask for guidance on whether this can be used as a reliable source using the cite episode template? [38]. The original BBC programme is not available. I can find a number of archived discussions about the acceptability of similar features but would welcome specific guidance on this particular clip. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 14:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If this was on Newsnight then just reference Newsnight (time and date of transmission, timestamp of segment) and maybe use this as a convenience link. I can get hold of the program if you tell me which date it is and provide this info, and confirm the link is accurate. I see no reason why Newsnight wouldn't be considered reliable. Verbal chat 15:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same report? BBC Newsnight link. Please give me the timestamp of the relevant bit, thanks. Verbal chat 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DVDTalk and DVD Verdict

Are DVDTalk and DVD Verdict reliable sources? This is in the context of the Articles for deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Endgame (2007 film). The two film reviews being proposed as reliable sources are [39] from DVDTalk and [40] from DVD Verdict. The two relevant comments in the AfD discussion are the ones dated "21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)" and the one immediately underneath it. As instructed (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Some info on the DVD Verdict one, the site owner describes the site as a "film and television marketing company" [41] and says that as part of the promotion for your DVD they will write a review for you. They look like a self published source by him. Being a film critic on the site is an unpaid position, the only qualification listed as required is that you watch films and the answer to the question "How much experience do I need?" is "If you know your way around the English language and can express your thoughts in a clear and engaging manner, you're in good shape. You don't have to be a professional, but you may very well become one by working with us"[42]. Although there's no pay, there's mention of "perks and incentives" of "Free admittance to press screenings, festivals, award shows, and other events" [43]. These seem to be your average unqualified Joe Blogs off the internet (e.g. me) writing reviews. As instructed (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• What is ommitted above is that the DVD Talk article shows that was sold to Internet Brands in 2007... so "self-published" does not apply. Placing things in perspective, WP:RS allows among other things, that a source's reliability should be considered in context to what is being sourced, and that a reliable source has authors who are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. DVD Talk has received the respect of many other reliable sources, and are themselves written about and often quoted in such RS as St. Louis Post-Dispatch, InformationWeek, Calgary Sun, ABC News, io9, CNN, Wired News, FOX News, The Record, TV3 News, WMTV, WSAV-TV, among dozens and dozens of others. Their own notability per guideline seems fairly incontrovertible. The point being is that they are themselves regarded by numerous other reliable sources as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Is it a sin that they offer to review DVDs? Nope. Its what they do. New York Daily News offers news. DVD Talk offers DVD reviews. DVD Talk is respected as authoritative in the industry for their expertise and for reviews from editors independent of the subject. RS is RS. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We just discussed this a few days ago WP:RS/N#DVDverdict and ALLmovie Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just read it, thank you. Seems that DVD Verdict and Allmovie, per User:Peregrine Fisher are accepted as reliable. I believe there are older RS discussions as well... as it seems to come up every month or two. Anyone opinine recently about DVD Talk's acceptability? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DVD Talk seems more reliable than DVD Verdict. It has a Wikipedia article, one of their reviewers states that he is a professional film critic and gets paid for it [44]. His web page also indicates he does have qualifications and experience as a film critic [45], they're not a self published source. The previous discussion about DVD Verdict is conflicting though. It says "as far as I can tell neither site has an editorial policy equivalent to the RS standards of a newspaper (the equivalent type of reviewing body for popular works). Not RSes for notability" (the other site referred to is allmovie, not DVD Talk). There's then a later comment that DVD Verdict has "editorial staffs and policies" with a link to their staff, but there's nothing there that indicates any policies. Also, the same person that made the comment that they have a staff then clarifies that getting paid is the thing that distinguishes them from other self published sources, but the site itself clearly says that they don't get paid. With that reasoning, logic would dictate that they then aren't distinguished from a self published source. As instructed (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You might then ask Peregrine Fisher to claify his comment, as he's been around Wikipedia for a little while, and seems to understand these things. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the above is, an open question to anyone to help clarify with respect to DVD Verdict and the information above. As instructed (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• In visiting (or re-visiting) DVD Verdict, it must be remembered that guideline actually does accept SPS with certain important caveats: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." DVD Verdict has been around for 10 years and is not exactly some fanboy page. They were founded in 1999 [46]. Their current editor-in-cheif is Michael Stailey. His reviews are seen in such sources as Rotten Tomatoes and he is quoted in such sources as Top Ten Reviews, Pop Matters, hddb, Urban Cinefile, Mahalo, among others, as well as related sites cinemaverdict and tvverdict. DVD Verdict has been written about and had their reviews quoted by such reliable sources as CBS Marketwatch, USA Today, and many, many others [47]. They are even praised by such as Anthony Augustine of Uptown. That their internal organization differs from a hardcopy magazine simply reflects the age of the internet, and there is no mandate that all sources must have the same hierarchy as a newspaper. DVD Verdict is expert in their field and have been written of and quoted in reliable sources. Oh... I certainly would not use them to source information on foreign policy, but I feel their pedigree is decent and they appear to be reliable enough "in context to what is being sourced" for consideration of their DVD reviews. We're not talking about quantum physics, after all. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

TV Acres

Is TV Acres considered a reliable source? Here is the description of their Research Method.--Work permit (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source for what purpose in what article backing up what statement. Please see the top of the page for what RS/N editors need to work on. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

For purposes of adding material to the Ling Woo article, specifically about her role in the show. The specific source on the cite is here. Addition would be to the background section. Relevant quotes from the citation are: "Eventually Ling became a lawyer with Nelle's firm." and "Ling employment history changed when she compliments twin babies she sees on the street. ("Aren‘t those the 2 most beautiful babies ever...Makes you just want to quit the law to breed"). The children's mother turns out to be the Governor of Massachusetts who offers Ling a job as judge". I haven't composed the specific text to be used in the article yet, it will be a paraphrasing of the above quotations.--Work permit (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

TV Acres should be fine for information about character/plot of a TV show. We don't require academic sourcing for non-academic topics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayne Pierson

Dear Sir/madam,

My user name is saber.etc and I recently created a wikipedia profile for Jayne Pierson (fashion designer). In doing so I have stuck to the guidelines of "biographies of living people". I have established, internal links , citations, references and external links. The citations are from reputed news websites such as BBC. Also the writing is in a neutral point of view with a component for criticism.

Therefore, I request that the box appearing on top of the article to be removed. The quality standards and citations concerns are dated September 2009 and if you look at the versions recently, you will be able to observe that since September I have met all the requirements for this article in terms of internal links, external links, references and in line citations.

Also If I have left anything out, please let me know as soon as possible so I will be able to fix what ever is wrong and get back to you.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Regards,

Navam Niles

You may remove it yourself. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

digitalspy.co.uk

Is it reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is extensively used as a RS in the reality TV articles, Big Brother UK and the like. It probably is regarded as "reliable" but bear in mind a lot of it's content is celebrity gossip which swirls with rumour, inuendo, claim and counter claim. I don't think the forum on there is acceptable.

take a look at these for guidance [48]

Leaky Caldron 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Baldwin

Could someone review the follow sources and see if they are suitable for a BLP?

1. SEC Arhttp:Page 16 http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2009/34-59325.pdf

2. The Price of telling a regulator to go to Hell http://www.brokeandbroker.com/index.php?a=blog&id=118

3. RRBD Broke and Broker http://www.rrbdlaw.com/RegulatoryLinks/CASESOFNOTE/NASD/2009.htm

I do not believe that these links are sufficient to source negative unsourced information about Shawn Baldwin. Please comment at Talk:Shawn Baldwin#Unsourced additions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane Historical Society - Not Reliable Source

Resolved

(related to) Irish Bulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've opened a section on this subject so as to leave no doubt as to the singular unsuitability of it's publications. The "publisher", Aubane Historical Society, is a small group of amateur historians that has received exceptionally critical treatment from the press and academics. "It often presents itself in populist terms as a group of amateurs speaking for the plain people of Ireland as against academic historians, whom it presents as elitist snobs with sinister political agendas.The Aubane interpretation of Irish history has also been criticised by Irish academics."

• The criticism of the group is brutal, "published and promoted by the cranky and cult-like Aubane Historical Society (Google the phrase, "From Peking to Aubane" to follow Aubane's strange evolution from super-revisionism to super-nationalism)..." "Their (Aubane's) campaign seems designed merely to sow doubt, create confusion and muddy the waters..." "the Aubane Historical Society, and its allies, bombard the media with a massive mailbag of tendentious and tediously argued letters. These create so much fog around the facts..."[49]

• Or from this article:[50] " decent local people were not wise in accepting the dubious assistance of the Aubane Historical Society" ..."The latest lunacy..." "I can see why naff Irish nationalists need to believe the fiction..."

• And still more:[51] "The Aubane Historical Society seem like a group of people genuinely interested in Irish history, but with some strange and contentious opinions. They also seemed like a very introspective group – felt like I’d walked in on a group of very close friends where I didn’t know anyone. I’ll let my relative’s comments be the last word: “I don’t know about these “Aubane” people, they sound like very strange folk indeed!”"

• The Irish Times has published various opinions on the Aubane Historical Society like, "Conspiracy theorists display narrow notions of Irishness"..."Diehards reveal true colours - The amateur historian in Ireland is often little more than a propagandist masquerading as an expert, writes David Adams" ..."Most people would consider that an act of outrageous vandalism - though these obviously would not include some members of the Millstreet based Aubane Historical Society,"

No doubt, a voice will be available -somewhere- praising their fearless revisionism or the relative merits of amateur historians unshackled by the restrictive binds of academia, but frankly it appears that the source and it's publications are simply not suitable for our purposes in building a Reliably Sourced encyclopedia using neutral references.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

SELF published and Vanity press? Not RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... Self-published sources can be RS... although their use is limited. A lot depends on what information you are taking from the source and how you phrase it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal

• I am not aware of the 'Aubane Historical Society', a publishing concern, as having been cited here as a source for anything. It is the authors of their various publications that are invariably the source. It is a critical distinction. RashersTierney (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The source in this specific instance is Dr. Brian Murphy, a graduate of Oxford University, University College, Dublin and Trinity College, Dublin. Among his publications are;

• John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty Irish Academic Press, 1995

• The Catholic Bulletin and republican Ireland, 1898-1926: with special reference to J. J. O'Kelly Athol Books, 2005

• St. Gerald's 1918-1998: An Educational Initiative Kestrel Books, 1999

• The Canon of Irish Cultural History: Some Questions concerning Roy Foster's Modern Ireland Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 82, No. 326 (Summer, 1993), pp. 171-184

His credentials as a reliable source on Irish history cannot seriously be disputed. RashersTierney (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Agree. There is no discussion worth having on this subject. The source, Dr. Brian Murphy is both a WP:RS and as such is WP:V. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, the source is the publisher. The lack of publisher location for the Kestrel Books example leads to a small Welsh Vanity publisher, which doesn't advertise the text. Vanity => Self => Not RS. If the work cited is published in an appropriate forum, that's fine, if the work published is in an inappropriate forum (vanity, self, self-established journal), that's not fine. The Author's background doesn't come into it. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Athol is also Vanity. Irish Academic Press has a misspelling in the HTML title of its landing page, "Irish Acdemic Press", despite claiming to be an academic publisher, it looks like a very very small press, more work would be required to determine if its a Vanity press or not. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review is an RS, it has an editorial board and policy. Closer inspection via Ulrich's periodical index indicates Studies is refereed and must be considered as the Highest Quality Reliable Source. 10:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) It isn't a Highest Quality RS in Feature Article terms, as its publication method doesn't include peer review, and its audience is popular, not academic. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish Academic Press, a vanity publisher? I agree entirely with the qualification 'more work is needed'. The dismissal of Studies in Wikipedia will no doubt have prospective Irish history PHds scurrying for alternatives. RashersTierney (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria aren't Academic criteria. "Studies" might want to more clearly voice their status as a peer reviewed journal, instead of making me go to Ulrich's... "ISSN 0039-3495" issues of Studies is referee'd according to Ulrich's, and is the highest quality Reliable Source type. Irish Academic Press might want to a) correct their spelling error and b) voice more clearly their editorial policy, history, etc. to back up their one line para in the top section of their catalogue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I endorse everything Fifelfoo has said, and have a few more points that may help. For history articles, especially those that relate to nationalism of any kind, the bar for sourcing is set high. Since Dr Murphy appears to be a qualified historian with a record of relevant publication, this source falls into the category of a scholar's self-published work. It can be used, but other sources should be preferred if possible. What I can't see immediately looking at the article is whether the statements this source is used for are controversial in any way. And are there any alternative sources that could be used for the same details? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific issues are corroborated by my main source which is Ian Kenneally's The Paper Wall. I introduced Murphy as a secondary source to avoid any contention that there was over-reliance on a single authority. Regarding whether there have been any specific objections or contested points, the answer is no. RashersTierney (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Collins Press is a small commercial publisher based in Ireland, which reviews manuscripts (it appears more commercially than academically) and also commissions writers (obvious indication of commercial press). It meets wikipedia's criteria for a RS. For a High Quality RS (ie: Featured Article quality), I'd suggest, on the talk page of an article where Collins was used for history, linking to academic reviews of the work in question from peer reviewed journals to indicate the work is esteemed by relevant historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice and time taken. RashersTierney (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Collins might be run by the guy with the name on the cover, and he's the contact, but he runs Collins as a commercial publisher. And discovering that kind of stuff is what RS/N is here for. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy's day job is as a Monk. His education would appear to be chiefly religious, and there is a possibility that an earlier academic thesis of his was on the Flute. His credentials are no more than any amateur historian, and the publisher here is not at all reputable - quite contrary, they have been well considered by multiple Reliable Sources and rejected with Cause. _99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On the specific issue of Aubane, barring any overturning of the apparent consensus in the academic world, here at Wikipedia, and as reported in national papers in society at large, I intend to shortly tag this as resolved that Aubane's pub's are not a Reliable Source. ..-99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about lack of consensus in the 'academic world', which is most emphatically the case, there is no consensus here that all publications by Aubane are to be considered unreliable as sources. RashersTierney (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane is quite clear on their amateur status, "This Society was founded by a number of local people in Aubane in 1985. It aims to contribute to the growing body of local history publications being produced across the country." For more on how they feel that Aubane alone holds the torch of Truth - read this Polemic from them, "Aubane Versus Oxford"[52] which reads in part, "We were rather surprised to see a number of references to the Aubane Historical Society in Professor Roy Foster's recent book, "The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making It Up in Ireland." Foster is the Carroll Professor of Irish History at Oxford University and the doyen of the revisionist school of Irish history."...-99.135.170.179 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya' know, being the center of a chaired Oxford University professor of Irish history's book titled "The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making It Up in Ireland.", on top of the mountains of criticism from Ireland based academics and national Irish newspapers really does close the issue. Tagged as resolved. _99.135.170.179 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane have been sharply critical of what is often described in Ireland as the Revisionist school, epitomised by academics such as Roy Foster ant Peter Hart, and newspaper correspondents Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris. The views of these individuals are important and cannot, and should not, be dismissed lightly. However, their particular take on Irish history is far from universal and among their most consistent critics are a number of historians who publish through Aubane. Vociferous attempts to dismiss or trivialise them as a group is nothing new. I sincerely hope Wikipedia editors are not seduced into appearing to give definitive support to one side or the other in this ongoing cat-fight. BTW, how and where is this tagging done, and what is the review process? RashersTierney (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians publishing through Aubane should know better than to publish monographs central to a major debate in a vanity press. I suggest you write an article on the Revisionist school of Irish history where Aubane texts would be PRIMARY but be acceptable for descriptive use. As far as using Aubane texts elsewhere, they are not Reliable Sources, and a Reliable Source would be required to establish any claim, and such claims would have to be appropriately WEIGHTed and characterised. Aubane texts could be used as a second source not going to verifiability, after a RS had established the point in question. But even then, the question would be, why go to a second source? ... As far as any "tagging" process. The process is generally to remove non-RS citations, and add {{cn}} where required, and then after a reasonable amount of time, delete uncited claims. But that's something to take to individual article Talk: pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that the references can be retained if also backed up by a recognised Reliable Source? RashersTierney (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No. See WP:RS for an overview. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no historians publishing through Aubane. The club member mentioned above, although educated at notable schools, is employed as a Monk. His degree's are unknown but possibly include a thesis on the Flute.99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This man's vocation is a total red-herring. Many religious work as full time historians and researchers. RashersTierney (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends. It needs to be in good faith, and not advertspamming. So for instance, "Milksales in Australia grew by 50% in the 1930s. [reliable source] [non-reliable source "History of the Australian Milkman in the 1930s"]." That looks in good faith, because the non-RS is dead on the topic of the assertion. Whereas if it was something like, "Milkmen shot babies,[rs] and everyone nice hated them[non-rs]" is obviously bad faith, its working in an opinion from a non-RS in, as if it was RS. Care, slowness, goodfaithg, double citation, avoiding advertspamming. For instance, history articles often also cite Full Text On Net newspaper articles, even though they're not really RS for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is precisely the opposite of the situation here are of a widely documented case of a group constantly rebuked in multiple countries from academia to the daily papers for its poor accuracy, scholarship and fact-checking.99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note the real difference between those who are not a Reliable Source due to uncertainty, many cases exist of unknown reputation --- and those who are not Reliable Sources for cause. It's one thing for a local history club to publish an oral history of Lobstermen, which we could use here in a restricted fashion under WP:RS and quite another to do full battle with multiple professors of Irish history and the popular press which we cannot use outside of an article on the subject of say, "Irish History Revisionism" itself. But even then it would technically be "subject" and not "source" outside of a circular reference to itself. -99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it seems we have now crossed over into the realm of WP:NPOV... presenting differing accademic opinions in a neutral tone. The key is avoid engaging in "full battle" (ie choosing which view of Irish history is "correct"), and instead to present the different views on Irish History (the traditional and the "revisionist") neutrally, with attribution as to who says what.Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. The issue is Irish Historical Practice in all its variety, versus, a group of non-historians acting outside of acceptable historical practice, and driving a particular line rather than acting faithfully in terms of disciplinary practice. And that's not weight and npov at all. See Historical revisionism versus Historical revisionism (negationism) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

These are not differing academic opinions. Aubane is not academia, its members are neither historians nor scholars. Aubane is a local club which self-publishes it's 30 some odd members from about the northern half of one small county. It's notoriety is as a polemicist. _ 99.135.170.179 (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Dr. Murphy is not a scholar is too much (POV). The fact that this publisher is based in a small town in a small county and in a small country is irrelevant. Polemics? There is certainly a lot of it about. RashersTierney (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He is employed professionally as a Monk. That he is not employed as a scholar is simply a neutral observation. Frankly, I doubt whether we even have a RS to say whether the Dr. you've placed in front of his name (which I don't doubt he has) was for Medicine, Religion, Music or P.E. --- 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He studied history at Oxford '58-'61, HDip at Trinity and the PhD thesis (Modern Irish History, UCD, '84-'85) was on the subject of JJ O'Kelly and the Catholic Bulletin. RashersTierney (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Employed professionally as a Monk"? That sounds awfully like an oxymoron to me. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent). I'm removing the "resolved" tag because there seems to be a misunderstanding about how this board works. We weren't asked to rule on whether the Aubane Historical Society is RS in all circumstances. Obviously it is as a general rule not RS. Instead we were asked about a specific case and have given advice tailored to that case. This query will be resolved when the original poster is happy that all his/her questions have been answered. I do hope that editors on the Irish Bulletin article will now get back to the article and work together to improve it. Neither this board nor the article talk page are appropriate places for general discussion of Irish historiography, or of scholarship and the religious life. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I too would be glad to get back to the article. This has been exhausting, but Murphy's book is worthwhile as, at the very least, a corroboration of Kenneally, and for that reason I would be reluctant to see it deprecated. The personal attacks on Murphy for being a monk and the questioning of his academic credentials, without foundation, I could not let pass without comment. RashersTierney (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no attacks. It's an observable fact that he's a Monk - as opposed to say a Reader of Irish history and this was presented neutrally as such. The request for a RS regarding your repeated assertion that his matriculation from notable institutions seemed to endow him with presumptive RS status was legitimate and still unmet with a cite. I was quite clear that I did not doubt his attendance or degree at the named schools.99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane is not a Reliable Source. That's really unquestioned, as such it is resolved - and yes, in this as in all RSN matters you rule on the source - not on the content debate. (also note that the "related to" tag was added by an uninvolved editor with a drive by edit - it is the source itself that has been specifically discussed and thoroughly impeached here.) I see no reason to now declare it Reliable outside of a single page - there is no basis for your action. The source is directly involved in 2 articles currently under contention and at least one other that links to them. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you require that a separate section to discuss be opened for each one? Is this one-at-a-time method also in place for IMDB, Answer.com or Palladin Press? .. __99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, if you like, there is a consensus among uninvolved commentators here that the AHS source is as a rule not reliable. But there may be a few cases in which it can be used and we need context to be able to advise further. "Thoroughly impeached" is not the most helpful language. We don't say that of IMDB. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, IMDB is not the same. AHS is in a separate class owing to the specific, notable, and Reliable Source refutations of its veracity as an institution. The most readily communicated being it's central place in a chaired Oxford University professor of Irish history's book titled "The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making It Up in Ireland."[53], on top of the mountains of criticism from Ireland based academics and national Irish newspapers regarding its lack of accuracy, reliability or scholarship. (of which perhaps a dozen more are quoted and linked to above)

May I request that you reconsider your removal of the tag in recognition of consensus? Thank you. --99.135.170.179 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of basic courtesy I think it should be the original poster who says that the matter is resolved. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am the original poster, sorry if I did not indicate that.99.135.170.179 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Foster's take on Irish history is critiqued by an Aubane published author here too:

• The Canon of Irish Cultural History: Some Questions concerning Roy Foster's Modern Ireland Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 82, No. 326 (Summer, 1993), pp. 171-184

Having the temerity to criticise an Oxford academic on a different perspective on historical events does not of itself indicate a marginal or unreliable view. RashersTierney (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, and that's not why academia and the press have criticized them. Terms used include, propagandist masquerading as an expert, Conspiracy theorists, Diehards, cranky and cult-like Aubane Historical Society, strange and contentious opinions, very strange folk indeed, The latest lunacy, naff Irish nationalists,...etc...etc...etc - and those are just from Ireland. --99.135.170.179 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please quote your sources. Name names! Irish newspapers have some very eccentric contributors - occasionally. RashersTierney (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As you well know - each of those is included in the possibly dozen or more references the quotes are attached to above from numerous notable academic text's and Reliable Source newspaper reports.99.135.170.179 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we are still waiting to see you challenge a single ref. from this source at the Article. RashersTierney (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't recognized this, I am challenging a ref from this source in the article.99.135.170.179 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Come back to the Talk Page and we'll see if we can work it out there. You haven't said what specifically was disputed. RashersTierney (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As you know, being the Ed. involved - I was sent here from the talk page. If the Ed. that removed the tag would respond or replace the tag I'd head straight back. The debate has been factual and civil, but I do believe it is resolved now that AHS is not a RS.99.135.170.179 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still avoiding saying what it is in the Article you find factually questionable. Most of Dr. Murphy's book is footnoted to primary sources. Are you suggesting he is just making it up? RashersTierney (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue per policy. Note: "This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content." _-99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What is at question is the reliability of Dr. Murphy as an authority in this area of study. I was no wiser than anyone else on this board as to his credentials before today, so I took the liberty of contacting him directly. He was utterly bemused by this debate, and answered all questions I put to him regarding his studies. His PhD in modern Irish History was under the supervision of Donal McCartney at UCD. Are you seriously suggesting that unattributed sources, such as you have used from the BBC website should somehow take precedence as an authoritative source on the Article? RashersTierney (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: We do not, as a rule, telephone people and ask them if they are Reliable Sources - nor is it a proper cite for their academic record whilst in school. I thought there was a reason you didn't link to a reference for this info earlier when asked for the cite. Will we need to credit ASH for this or do you want the research under your name? _99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When asked for what cite? If this is just a matter of verifying his credentials then there may be alternative sources. The above was for your information. If you are disputing it, please say so directly. RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AHS is simply not a Reliable Source, we have ample evidence of Historians like Irving who've done both Reliable Source work with standards for accuracy and as well as work that is not RS. These are often cases of professionally trained and employed scholars whose work is simply not a RS - no matter their training, position or pedigree. This is true right up to Hawking, we don't report what he say's unless it comes from a Reliable Source. _99.135.170.179 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has become circular. I would draw your attention again to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:

• When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I fully accept that the references should comply with these restrictions. Dr. Murphy has published in at least one peer reviewed journal on the topic of Information/Disinformation/Propaganda in Ireland during the relevant period. There will not be a disproportionate reliance on this source in the Article but there is no need for it to be entirely censored.RashersTierney (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC) If I understand correctly, these limits should satisfy the concerns of uninvolved editors who have commented above.

AHS is not a Reliable Source, as such we simply cannot use it. The impact on the Encyclopedia's veracity by not relying upon such a source will be a far greater good than any sleight you might perceive should occur by the removal of your footnote.99.135.170.179 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the Article will not rely on this book. It will be used sparingly to corroborate mainly the Kenneally source. It contains extensive extracts, not otherwise available, of referenced primary material. The veracity, reliability etc. of Wikipedia will in no way suffer. Wikipedia is not censored, and an outright prohibition on this book would amount to just that. I take referencing seriously on this project, as will clearly be seen from my editing history. My objections are not about any slight, perceived or otherwise. RashersTierney (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Article in question is already subject to editing restrictions. I have no objection to restrictive use of this source being made explicit in that Talk Page 'Notification'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is going in circles. Answers from uninvolved editors have been given. And your debate here is intimidating for any other editors. Please start a wiki article on modern Irish historiography and continue the debate there. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to intimidate other ed.s I'll leave my input at that. RashersTierney (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I posted a determination of consensus of this thread at Talk:Irish Bulletin#Consensus of uninvolved editors at WP:RSN. This administrative determination has now been challenged by the anon editor (99.135.170.179 / 99.135.174.186) at the administrators' noticeboard (link). Any interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As described and referenced at AN/I, where it was brought at your direction, your 'determination' was challenged by editors representing both sides of the discussion and found no editor supporting it. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Byford Dolphin

Could anybody help me with a problem I have with the article Byford Dolphin, please? In the article, there is a paragraph

Some individuals have alleged the investigation was a cover-up, as the commission investigating the accident did not mention the irresponsible dispensations requested by comex and authorized by the diving section to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, on vital equipment in their report, which had a large role in the accident's occurrence, and they also alleged the accident was due to a lack of proper equipment, including clamping mechanisms equipped with interlocking mechanism (which would be impossible to open while the chamber system was still under pressure), outboard pressure gauges and safe communication system, which had been held back due to dispensations done by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

which seems to have no sources, but an editor is insisting that this book verifies the claims made in the paragraph. As I can't read Norwegian, I am unable to ascertain whether that source actually is a reliable source and verifies the paragraph. Can anyone advise me, please? --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used translate.google.com a few times with quite good success. The translation is often broken (bad English, incomplete), but it often quickly shows whether a claim is plausible. If a claim is substantial, there should be more than one source (see WP:REDFLAG). I have not looked at this case, but if something is really significant, it will be mentioned in more than one source (and if it's not significant, it probably should not be in an article). Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although the claim is apparently based on the contents of the book (which doesn't seem to have a functioning ISBN number), rather than the webpage offered as a source. --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española

Hello, I have some sort of dispute with the Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española as a source in the article of Diablada. The DRAE states that the meaning of the word Diablada is:

Typical dance of the region of Oruro, in Bolivia, called that way because of the mask and the devil suit wore by the dancers.

Source: [54]

Which would mean that some parts of the article don’t belong there because they are talking about other similar dances of other cities that are related but the word itself is for the Oruro dance and not about those other dances. But another editor challenges that information by telling me that it’s against WP:NAD but I don’t consider that the rule necessarily forbids to use a dictionary as a source, under my perspective it’s about articles that focus on linguistics and word usage or are only stubs with nothing else than the definition and probably should be on Wiktionary but I don’t think that the rule applies when we're talking about an article of over 20kbs. Actually I think that the information of the DRAE could provide a good definition and help delimiting the article. But I’d like to clear all doubts about this matter; so specifically my doubts are:

• Am I wrong with my interpretation of the WP:NAD rule?
• Is the DRAE not reliable considering that it's a name that comes from the Spanish language?

Thank you in advance for any advice. --Erebedhel - Talk 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAD has nothing to do with the use of dictionaries as sources: it is merely about not having articles here that supply no more information than a dictionary would. As for the reliability of DRAE: I think there is likely nothing more reliable for definitions of Spanish words; nevertheless, it is possible for it to be mistaken. If there are reliable sources that conflict with each other, we should report on the controversy rather than attempting to side with one or the other. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much you have cleared all my doubts. Actually there is a dispute about the origins with Peru that also declared it as part of its patrimony in 2003 so I think that the most detailed redaction would be:

"According to the UNESCO in its declaration as Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity of the Carnaval de Oruro the traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the uru god Tiw became the main dance at this celebration in the city of Oruro, Bolivia [55] a similar definition can be seen in the Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española where it's defined as a typical dance of this city characterized by its mask and the devil suit wore by the dancers [56]. It's also considered by Peru as part of its patrimony where it's danced during the Fiesta de la Candelaria [57]..."

(Probably the last source may not be RS but I can’t find online the Peruvian government declaration).

Of course the actual content should be discussed with the other editors, but as for Wikipedia standards and policy there are no problems right?--Erebedhel - Talk 08:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is RS as far as it goes, but your use of it is questionable. A dictionary usually gives a short definition, not a comprehensive discussion. So your argument that the dictionary definition does not cover extended usage of the word is rather weak. In short, I would only use positive, explicit information from a (good) dictionary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan for your comment, but how could I articulate it better? Of course I don't think it'd be correct to, based on that, say that "if the same dance is danced elsewhere it isn't Diablada". The concern in my head when posting this question was, how can I write an accurate description of the problem? Both the UNESCO and the DRAE associate the Diablada with the city of Oruro and I consider that this information should be in the article as it is, as other editors also think that those organizations aren't saying that it's "exclusive" of Oruro considering that this dance is also performed in Peru and Chile and it's considered by their respective governments as part of their patrimony, so far I can't find any RS or dictionary giving any other definition other than the DRAE though. And on the other hand there is a problem with the delimitation of the article, in Regional Variations there are prospects of new sections of other dances such as: Danza de Los Diablos de Cajabamba, Son de los Diablos, Danza de Diablitos but based on the definition of the DRAE those can't be considered regional variations of the Diablada unless there is a RS saying so, else I think that'd fall in the WP:OR category. --Erebedhel - Talk 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As a dictionary, it is a reliable source, and can be used to reference topics about correct word usage, spanish gramatical rules, etc. But in the end, it's just a dictionary. For any topic that needs at least 2 lines of explanation, it's simply not enough. MBelgrano (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I think you're right, as a dictionary it can complement some other sources but by itself it isn't sufficient. --Erebedhel - Talk 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Source being used to break WP:NAD

The user who submitted this RSN has purposely included here information in such a way that it twists the meaning of what he is proposing. First of all, nobody in the article [[Diablada] (Where this discussion stems from) has stated anything against the "Real Academia Española" being used as a source; because it is a reliable source. However, most of us are against it being used in order to push a particular POV that ends up also breaking WP:NAD.

• This is the type of edit being proposed by user:Erebel (Using this dictionary's reference as a source): [58]

• Moreover, as can be seen in his posts above, he states: "Actually I think that the information of the DRAE could provide a good definition and help delimiting the article."

• Also: "Actually there is a dispute about the origins with Peru that also declared it as part of its patrimony in 2003 so I think that the most detailed redaction would be..." (He goes on to include a non NPOV definition)

Obviously, based on the evidence given above, the user is trying to establish a dictionary's definition into the article in order to favor his particular POV. This is indeed breaking WP:NAD. Furthermore, user:Erebel is attempting to use the "Real Academia Española" as something that is more factual than the statements made by PhD.s in Anthropology and History. If that were not enough, the user attempts to use the UNESCO's statement on the matter of the Carnaval de Oruro in order to fit his particular POV in the article Diablada. Obviously, once again, the "Diablada" is not what the UNESCO is certifying as Bolivian and much less a cultural patrimony of humanity (UNESCO focuses its mention on the "Carnaval de Oruro"; not individual dances).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MarshalN20 for bringing your perspective to this debate; nevertheless I think that the purpose of this section is for editors to seek help with the usage of sources, I'm here just asking for advice about this particular source. I'm not so sure if this is the place to raise accusations or debate NPOV, that could lead us to deviate from the main topic. I could, however, clarify two points here that Dentren did agree with me on the DRAE issue [59] and the sources regarding those "PhDs in Anthropology and History" are the following: [60] which is an interview in a Peruvian newspaper and [61] which is another Peruvian newspaper. I don't consider that those sources can qualify as more factual than the exact text of the DRAE or the UNESCO, it can be easily verified, just by following the source, that the text I'm proposing remains faithful to the source. And above all I don't consider that those two sources can be strong enough to impose some sort of "ban" to the DRAE the UNESCO or any other non-Peruvian source, for me actually doing so is breaking NPOV. --Erebedhel - Talk 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Peruvian newspapers you mention are being used to reference the statements made by the Anthropologists and Historians. I once again repeat that your edits are twisting the UNESCO's statement on the Carnaval de Oruro in order to fit the particular POV in favor of Bolivia regarding the Diablada. Regarding the addition of the DRAE in the article, your constant attempts at including it in the introduction and imposing it above all the NPOV contributions is using a source and its information incorrectly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to understand how the phrase "the traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the uru god Tiw became the main dance at this celebration in the city of Oruro, Bolivia" could be considered "twisting" since it's clearly seen in the source [62] one of the cornerstones to achieve NPOV is to focus on the content, in my redaction I consider I accomplish two fundamental things Attribution and citation, attribution: who? The UNESCO, said what? "the traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the uru god Tiw became the main dance at the Carnival of Oruro" nothing else, hiding information will never be "neutral". Yet I don't believe this is the place for this discussion, please read the instructions above and address your concerns in the right place, thank you. --Erebedhel - Talk 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Diablada is not the article on the Carnaval de Oruro. Simple as that. What other explanation do you need?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To further elaborate, the information itself has importance in the sense of serving to certify that the dance is popularly danced in Bolivia (as it is already asserted in the introduction to the article); however, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the material. The extra and more complex information regarding the dance and the UNESCO could very well go into the body of the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If the source mentions that the Diablada is the main dance of the Carnaval de Oruro it belongs to the article and actually it deserves to be in the first paragraph, but still I insist this is not the purpose of this area, I think we'll only disturb others with this discussion. --Erebedhel - Talk 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat again, the first paragraph of the article already mentions the importance of the dance in the Carnaval de Oruro. Thus far, you're the only one that seems to be disturbed from holding a discussion related to the erroneous usage of a source in the article. What's more terrible is that you're attempting to use the RSN contributors in order to certify your usage of the source (obviously breaking WP:GAME); which apparently has had a lack of support as Stephan Schulz mentions, "your use of it is questionable" (in regards to your "proposed" revision), and MBelgrano states, "But in the end, it's just a dictionary. For any topic that needs at least 2 lines of explanation, it's simply not enough." Why don't you want to understand these simple things that most people are recommending you to follow?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20 I believe there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of this area; this area is only for editors to seek help and guidance about the use of a certain source. I can't respond to any of your personal attacks or accusations because they aren't related to the topic, but instead probably you should read WP:HOUND. Excuse me but I don't consider appropriate to continue misusing this area for this debate, so in the future I won't reply to any of your comments in this thread, thank you.--Erebedhel - Talk 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

creation.com website...

Resolved

I am involved in a dispute with an editor Ratel over whether or not this page entitled "Ian Plimer's Bloopers" at a creationism website is a reliable source suitable for listing mistakes a living scientist has made in a BLP... I have tried referring to sections of the WP:RS policy to no avail. Ratel believes that this is suitable because "...[the creationism] site does not attack Plimer, only points out his errors. This is not libellous, BLP-sensitive stuff." Some opinions (probably a few will be required) would be appreciated. Sorry to have to bring this here. See also Ian Plimer, Talk:Ian Plimer#Creationists. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is already under discussion above. ► RATEL ◄ 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, so it looks like we already pretty much have consensus then. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we have two views. This isn't a vote. ► RATEL ◄ 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolving because it is a duplicate of the above issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com

I'd like to use many of the articles about the Oath Keepers that are on the Examiner.com website in the Wikipedia article about Oath Keepers. Is Examiner.com considered a RS? The articles are often very good. Varks Spira (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can search the archives for multiple conversations. Although Examiner articles can be well written, the contribution and vetting processes have been called into question. I personally have also seen glaring errors in some of the articles. A good thing to try is searching for the information provided in the Examiner in other sources. Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that unlike other cities, the San Francisco Examiner uses a professional staff and editorial control so their articles tend to be reliable within their scope of expertise, about as much as any second or third-rank local city paper. However, the San Francisco Examiner portion of the examiner.com website tends to reprint crowd sourced / citizen journalist articles (with a credit that they come from the xxxx Examiner, where xxxx is the name of the other local city edition), and vice-versa. Also, note that the examiner.com reprints Associated Press articles as well, and those are reliable (but one could just go to the AP site for them). I hope that's right. I've followed this a little bit but it's confusing. Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. Does the San Francisco Examiner newspaper have anything to do with Examiner.com? Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. I fell for that one too. Examiner.com's material is basically self-published columns.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Nevermind then. Wow, what a trademark morass. The real San Francisco Examiner is at http://www.sfexaminer.com. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They're owned by the same people, and they're are 3 or 4 cities that have real Examiners that are RSs. I haven't heard that they ever put stuff on Examiner.com though, which is basically a blog. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

PrideSource.com

I found an article at Pridesource.com [63] that is a reprint of a May 2004 interview in Between The Lines of writer Aaron Krach. PrideSource.com is published by the same Pride Source Media Group that also publishes the weekly LGBT print publication, Between The Lines. So I thought to double-check in to see that its okay to use for a bit of sourcing to an article on Krach. Or should I try to find an archive of the original print piece? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally provide the reference to the paper copy and also the link, so as to help a reader to look up the source if they want to. The web version is just as much a reliable source as the paper one. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

What's your opinion of a reviews published at Bryn Mawr Classical Review ( http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/ ), say, as (additional) evidence to establish notability of an article about an eighteenth-century book? NVO (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BMCR is definitely a reliable source, but you will have to post more information about your particular case, because it sounds more like this could be a question of WP:SYNTH than about reliable sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic Post Office Publications - Use as a Reliabable Source.

I am aware that primary source material, (particularly that produced by a company in support of its own products and services) is generally not considered to be an ideal basis for editing articles. However, given the paucity of sources currently available on the Prestel article page [[64]] I am thinking of including some information based upon such sources in this case.

These comprise publicity material produced by the Post Office in the early 1980's which go into considerable detail on the technology etc. which I doubt would be available in other third party publications. Note that I do not propose to include the material in order to express a point of view about the success or otherwise of the technology, nor do I wish to produce any original research by drawing my own conclusions about such issues. I am limiting my intentions to simply adding some more detail on the functioning of the Prestel Organisation as it stood at that time and how its monitoring and registration processes were operated.

What is my best course of action: to ask on the relevant discussion page for the article - bearing in mind that there have only been four issues raised in the past four years, spend time searching for alternative sources of the same information or Be Bold and go ahead with some editorial additions?

Inspeximus (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Post Office material sounds like an ideal source in this case. Just be careful to leave out anything that is promotional rather than factual. There is no way that worries about WP:SPAM apply here. For courtesy, note on the talk page what you are doing and why, and of course remember an edit summary. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a good plan to use primary written sources for descriptive purposes. Given that the primary source is a government instrumentality, and the purpose of use is to discuss a technological function of an item, there doesn't seem to be any problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Byford Dolphin - question on sourcing

I hope someone here will be able to help with a dispute over the reliability of a source. The section of the article Byford Dolphin#Aftermath of Investigation reads

Some individuals have alleged the investigation was a cover-up, as the commission investigating the accident did not mention the irresponsible dispensations requested by comex and authorized by the diving section to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, on vital equipment in their report, which had a large role in the accident's occurrence, and they also alleged the accident was due to a lack of proper equipment, including clamping mechanisms equipped with interlocking mechanism (which would be impossible to open while the chamber system was still under pressure), outboard pressure gauges and safe communication system, which had been held back due to dispensations done by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

I have cast doubt on the sources the author of the paragraph claims as support for this paragraph:

1. [65]Safety and responsibility section of the bok 'Nordsjødykkerne'
2. Pioneer Divers in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea

He has requested that a third party "take a closer look at the sources". I'd welcome any opinion on the viability of www.pioneerdivers.org as a reliable source to support that paragraph, in particular whether it has a reputation for fact-finding & accuracy. The Byford Dolphin talk page contains a fuller exposition of the debate. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IGN - Awards

We are having a debate about awards given to fictional characters at WT:FICT, and the reliablity of this award has come into question. My view is that although IGN is a well known and respected website, it is not reliable. My view is that if the source is not published (i.e. there is no persitant version) and you don't know who authored the award, then the source cannot be deemed to be even remotely reliable. Does anyone else have a view? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a little troubled by the idea that we emphatically don't use web only sources or anonymous ones, because were we to apply that to the BBC... The source is published since it appears on the web, and a persistent version can be made using webcite. The page in question would be a reliable source dependent on context. You make a good point about the authorship of the article, but it's fairly obviously written by the staff of IGN, which is a division of Fox. Judging the reliability of a source is all dependent on context. I'd never use the site as a reliable source for an opinion on government policy, but I wouldn't hesitate to cite it to support the idea that the character in question was seen as a "compelling, fascinating and layered" creation. Hiding T 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Hang on, I might have misread you. Are you asking whether the page is a reliable source for the fact that the site made that award? Hiding T 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• I believe "published" doesn't require dead-tree format. Publication on a website is fine for WP:V. What would not meet WP:V would be something that was only ephemerally on a website with no permalink available. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Everything is ephemerally on a website. Some things online have a Digital object identifier, but a permalink is no guarantee of permanence. Have a look at Encarta, which is disappearing from the web on Saturday. Hiding T 20:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By "ephemerally" I mean something like a news ticker, something buried within a Flash animation, or something like streaming media. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think to compare IGN to BBC is entirely misleading, as IGN is a "a video games and entertainment portal" whose purpose is to "Stimulate excitement and raise awareness". My understanding is that IGN fits perfectly into the Questionable sources category. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That still wouldn't invalidate IGN as a reliable source for information about themselves, such as the fact that they made the statements contained in the website. Personally I would place IGN at the low end of reliable. It's a companion site to Rotten Tomatoes, which has long been regarded as reliable. I don't think it is misleading to compare the BBC and IGN when someone makes a rather misleading blanket statement along the lines that if we don't know who authored the page, it cannot be deemed reliable. I'm glad we have dispatched that notion. Hiding T 09:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It must do, because an organisation such as the BBC is dedicated to providing unbiased news coverage, not promotional coverage of video games and entertainment. The BBC and IGN mode of operation is completley different, the latter being portal, such that a lack of authorship completely undermines IGN are reliable source. The reason is that IGN does make a distinction between purely promotional content (press releases, public relations and promotional coverage originating from distributors and publishers of games and other products) from its own content. As long as you are able to distinguish between a geniune news agency and a entertainment promoter, you will understand what I mean when I say that the provenance of the coverage from IGN is important to understanding whether it is a reliable or a questionable source.
On a side note,I think you will agree that sites like Rotten Tomatoes do not provide evidence of notability in accordance with WP:MOVIE, which disallows listings in comprehensive film guides, press releases or trivial sources. IGN and rotten tomatoes may provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references, but they are not allowable by themselves. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since WP:MOVIE makes no mention of rotten tomatoes, I would think you would have to concede it is merely conjecture what that guidance means with regards the site. Attempting to state they are not allowable by themselves is simply your opinion. The best place for that conversation would likely be at WP:FILM. As to your other points, I'm glad you've conceded that a blanket statement such as anonymous sources aren't allowed are misleading and disingenuous. Given that IGN is widely cited in Featured Articles, I think we'd have to concur that the consensus is that they are a reliable source. Hiding T 09:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, although not for controversial statements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is that "Its reliable, although only as a primary or tertiary source". Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to denigrate IGN as source per se, as they provide in depth coverage of video games and other entertainment. However, IGN's inclusion criteria, authorship and citation policy are promotional, and not as strict as Wikipedia's, so as a rule of thumb it can't be classed as reliable.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for your statement that "IGN's inclusion criteria, authorship and citation policy are promotional, and not as strict as Wikipedia's". Thanks. Hiding T 09:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• They're a reliable source, I think the real question here is whether the award they've given out is 'important' enough to be included in the article. That's an entirely different question. Anyhow, Dexter should have won =) –xeno^talk 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Online biographies

I'm working on the Lindsay Lohan article, and got stuck on which sources to use for early life/early career type material. Looking at some existing featured articles on contemporary actors ([66], [67], [68], [69]) they use online biographies from People ([70]), Tiscali ([71],[72],[73]), Hello! ([74]), The Biography Channel ([75]) and Yahoo! Movies ([76]). The Lohan bios from these sources are at [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Basically, I'm looking for which of these sources are the most reliable, or preferrable for any other reason. Or indeed if they are equivalent and I can just go to town. Any advice appreciated! Siawase (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say People and TBC are the best, although they may all be reliable. If it's for something controversial, try and double cite it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)`

Hello Magazine is a celebrity gossip mag, so that's probably the least reliable.--Otterathome (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your replies, that helps with how to prioritize. Oddly, parts of the biography channel bio[82] is very close to older versions of the Lohan article from 2006.[83] And when I looked up TBC from 2006 on archive.org, they didn't have a listing for Lohan.[84] Is it possible they used parts of the wikipedia article for their bio or am I missing something here? I can't find any information on the TBC site about how they source their bios. Siawase (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, but unlikely. Our articles are usually correct anyways, so worst case scenario, info that started with us now has the stamp of a reliable source. But I doubt it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. The kind of info I'd source from there shouldn't be at all controversial, so I guess it'll be alright. Siawase (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation Ministries aka creation.com

There is an argument over whether this page can be used on a BLP. The subject, Ian Plimer, attacked the Church involved and dragged them through the courts for years, claiming fraud. He lost the case. The Church now hosts a list of scientific errors he made in the book he wrote attacking them, called Telling Lies for God - Reason vs Creationism. Excluding the Church's riposte under the aegis of RS/BLP seems both unfair and damaging to the encyclopedia, in that it tends to cast less light on the topic than more. Comments please. Note: the Church website should be considered a RS for their own take on a matter that concerns them intimately, such as this legal battle. ► RATEL ◄ 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on this issue specifically but in regards to reliability of sources on Creation Science page, the criterion being applied seems to be slanted towards " reliable as a scientific source" when in fact a notable CS site is almost inherently reliable about itself and the views of some other group of people. Their point appears to be that sense CS claims to be science, only valid scientific theories are reliable but you have to argue that "creation science is whatever creation scientists do." Contribs welcome on their talk page, you can see where I raised the issue. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If this dispute was notable, it would be covered in reliable third party sources. If it's not, it's not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute was covered in many reliable sources and is definitely notable. However, the church's response to the Plimer's attack book is obviously not replicated in RSes. ► RATEL ◄ 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source and unless the church's position was covered in RS then it should not be covered here. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the Four Deuces. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is surely a reliable source when it responds to charges directed at it. It is commenting on an attack upon itself. To exclude the response is censorship and wp is not censored. (Note: I am an atheist and do not support the Church at all). ► RATEL ◄ 23:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Any other opinions on this? The actual context can be seen here and the Talk discussion can be read here. Thanks ! ► RATEL ◄ 09:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is being used to make a specific and serious allegation of plagiarism, I would think no. If its notable enough, someone more reliable will pick up on it. WVBluefield (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism? That's not on the source linked, is it? There is no mention of plagiarism on the wikipedia page. ► RATEL ◄ 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you are wrong. The source links given on the wikipedia page as it stands do not link to a page that accuses Plimer of plagiarism. Please withdraw your comment. ► RATEL ◄ 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact I am not wrong and don’t intend to retract anything. Your insistence to use any source under the sun to advance a shady argument is exactly why we have policies like WP:BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon request I went over the relevant page and re-read this discussion. Post review I have to say that I stand by my original comment. Fourdeuces, Hypocrite and WVBluefield appear to be correct. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct how? Is the dispute notable and was it covered in RSes? Yes and Yes. Was the Church's position covered in RSes? Yes (but not their point-by-point rebuttal). That answers Fourdeuces and Hypocrite. Do the pages used as sources accuse Plimer of plagiarism, per WVBluefield's comment? No, they do not. So Simonm223, you appear not to have concentrated on the issue adequately, and I can say the same for all of you here, actually. The original question remains effectively unanswered. ► RATEL ◄ 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Self-published sources: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This church should not expect to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their grievances. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The church is not a RS, so lets wrap this up. 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. If either the book itself was discussed in the media, or if it was part of the lawsuit which was discussed in secondary sources, then the church's side of the story is a valid primary source for this article. That said, we should watch for undue weight and we can't have a blow-by-blow description of every point the church took issue with, but it would not be improper to write the church published a reply criticizing the scientific arguments in the book, with a cite linking to the church's criticism. This lets interested readers see the church's side of the story for themselves, while it keeps the actual criticism out of our page, giving BLP a wide berth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Someone with some common sense! It's becoming a rarity on wikipedia lately. ► RATEL ◄ 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, that is not how the source is being used though. You would need to look at Ian_Plimer#Book:_Telling_Lies_for_God to see this in context. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question:

Book: Telling Lies for God In his book Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism (1994), Plimer attacked the creationists in Australia, in specific the Queensland-based Creation Science Foundation (now called Christian Ministries International or CMI), arguing that claims of a Biblical global flood are untenable. In the book he also attacked numerous tenets of the Christian religion. In response, the CMI claimed Plimer makes numerous scientific errors in the book, and issued a page-by-page rebuttal.

As you can see, this is a balanced edit that does not breach BLP guidelines (which were created to protect WP from libel charges and not to suppress opposing opinions.) ► RATEL ◄ 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the talk page discussions on this, but what you have in the box is close to acceptable. I don't know about using the church to support "In the book he also attacked numerous tenets of the Christian religion." The rest looks good. They are reliable for what they say, and iff other normal RSs verify that there is a conflict between the two, then what you have there is OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So how exactly are we supposed to interpret Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons then? Don't get me wrong, I don't care much for writing about Plimer's attacks on creationism either. If the issue is it's not fair to let Plimer's attacks stand without response then remove discussion of Plimer's attacks as well. But which part of "never" have I misunderstood here? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why that says that, but it isn't always followed. Probably like a lot of rules on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, it says "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used". The material in question isn't about the author, it's about the church, but it's in the article about the author. I think that's the difference. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not correct. The contentious page "Ian Plimer's Bloopers" is completely about Ian Plimer and how he's made so many mistakes. Should we just believe creationists who have a known conflict of interest and presumably unparalleled capacity for self-delusion as far as convincing themselves that science is compatible with the Biblical theory of creation? This material is certainly only available in this questionable source. WP:SOURCES explicitly gives creation journals as an example of a source that is never reliable. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean the churches page, I mean our page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but still, I don't think it's appropriate at all to link to this website in a BLP. Here are some quotes about the subject to be found at this website: "Plimer has an unparalleled talent for packing many mistakes into a small amount of text." "The above examples are only a few of the many mistakes in Lies. To respond to most of them would take over 100 A4 pages." (Let's see those 100 A4 pages please?) How can we justify linking a BLP to this page without verification that any of it is even correct from reliable sources? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is the policy at WP:EL: "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." Alex Harvey (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But this is not about an EL, it's about inline sourcing for a statement. What you have grasp is that one cannot reasonably write a book attacking a religion and then expect the response to your attack to be excluded from citation in your biography. That is censorship and biased editing. I don't like the Church either, but I will not silence them. ► RATEL ◄ 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To respond to a few positions above:

• The church response isn't "third-party" material. The church is an actor in the events described in the biography. A third-party selfpub would be if we were trying to quote an outside person who blogged about it.
• The part of SPS that applies here is that the church is a primary source for facts about itself. This article is also partially an article about the church.
• WP:EL isn't a policy, only a style guideline, and that blurb about BLP doesn't have a long history on that page. At any rate, the church response would be primary material in a matter already covered by secondary sources, and would be appropriate to link to.
• The argument about excluding all Creationist material doesn't apply. It might be a questionable source for science, but it is a reliable primary source for its own opinions.
• To avoid attaching undue weight to the church's response, a simple wording that such a response was made would be appropriate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, this is incorrect. See WP:BLP#External links, "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[3]" Whether we like it or not, the BLP policy has priority here. To respond to Ratel, you would need to read it again and see the bit that says "if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the actual subject of an article is a dispute over something written about a person. To interpret BLP as you are would precude WP from covering a wide range of matters, particularly political subjects. The area of EL you're describing is to discourage linking to "attack sites", blogs that demonize a person, and so on. This is a situation where what we're debating linking to is itself an actor in the dispute we're covering. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, but the fact would remain that the present wording, whilst giving an appearance of being balanced, isn't. As the creationists themselves admit, most reviews of Plimer's book were favourable. Their website states, "It should also be noted that many Australian sceptics, academics, and sadly, clergy have reviewed Lies favourably." Also, they say, "Peter Hollingworth, Anglican Archbishop of Queensland (and who was later disgraced as the first Governor General who had to resign), wrote the foreword to the book, and the skeptic Ken Smith, a professing Baptist, praised it to the skies." And then read through these so-called "bloopers" and you can see that many of the objections are just nonsense. "Plimer is wrong—pi (π) is not 3.14159 either—that is also an approximation. Pi is an irrational number, that is, no matter how many decimal places you use, it would still be an approximation." This is just petty, tit for tat, nonsense. Obviously, Plimer knows that pi is an irrational number, and this is quite beside the point he is making. The present weighting of the article is to give the impression that "Plimer wrote a book attacking creationism; those creationists responded showing that he made thousands of errors." Alex Harvey (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Due weight is tricky. I agree that not much text should be given to the church. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree what's written in the box should be toned down a notch. Also if there were positive secondary-source reviews of the book then undue weight demands they be mentioned as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And this is going to be difficult since Plimer's book was published back in the early days of the internet, and all of the reviews have disappeared. What remains are the creationist attacks on Plimer, and of course, environmentalist attacks on Plimer, with the environmentalists cynically siding with creationists in order to discredit the climate change skepticism. I can't see how this creationist site can be described as anything other than an "attack site", and I can't see any way it can be seen as a reliable source for anything in a BLP. It is very explicitly ruled out above. If someone can propose a toned down wording, I suppose the Plimer biography has far bigger problems and I'll be best focusing on those. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we get other opinions here? I don't agree with the view that the SPS is being used as a source only for facts about itself (the church) and not about the subject (Plimer). In a sense, it is correct; in another sense the source itself is clearly about Plimer. If we let this through, a loophole is opened that potentially allows any bit of internet hearsay to be included so long as that hearsay gets attributed as the view of its author. The point made above is, if none of the reliable sources have mentioned the church's response at their website, it doesn't have weight, and can't be included. On the other hand, if reliable sources have mentioned it, we should refer to those sources. We have four editors expressing that view above, and two disagreeing. Whilst I think those two have made valid points, I don't think the issue is resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely unreliable for any alleged scientific errors Plimer might have made in his book. A church's area of expertise is religion, not science. If Plimer's book contains any errors, find a real source like Nature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No loophole is being opened up. The crucial distinction here is that the church is a party involved in a dispute with the author. Allowing the church's response, with a very minimal weight, in no way allows opinions from third parties to be cited with only attribution. My own opinion is that we may wish to avoid the term scientific errors when we mention the church's rebuttal, because the church is not an RS for science and we don't want to make the rebuttal to be more than what it is. Something like "the church published a rebuttal criticizing the arguments made in the book" is weight enough. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of Self-published sources on Simón Díaz

The article about Venezuelan composer Simón Díaz currently uses the artist's official webpage as a source for various information. I and user User:Dreadstar currently disagree, and would like to hear some outside opinion, about either his self-published web-site is being used in a manner that violates what is stated on WP:SELFPUB.

On my part, I believe the current use is indeed inappropriate, because the information it's being used to source is (while probably true), non-trivial and overly positive to the subjects account. As an example of a contentious issue, the article stated that Mr. Díaz have "recorded over 70 records and CD’s", what I believe (and User:Dreadstar disagrees) to be an unduly self-serving statement (to use the wording at WP:SELFPUB.

Also, while WP:SELFPUB expressly forbids the use of self-published material to source information about third-parts, the article names many performers as having recorded songs by Simón Díaz (the exact list is: Mercedes Sosa, Joan Manuel Serrat, Susana Baca, Danny Rivera, Franco De Vita, Soledad Bravo José Luis Rodríguez, Plácido Domingo, Ray Conniff, Julio Iglesias, Celia Cruz, Rubén Blades, Gilberto Santa Rosa, Ivan Lins, Joyce, Cheo Feliciano, Juan Gabriel, Maria Dolores Pradera, Martirio, Tania Libertad, Ry Cooder and Devendra Banhart).

The article used to be a lot worse when I found it, but I've been working on that and User:Dreadstar is helping a lot. We just disagree over the suitability of keeping these kind of self-published information on the article and would like to hear opinions. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on "while WP:SELFPUB expressly forbids" - selfpub is not such a hard-and-fast rule that "expressly forbids" anything. As WP:COMMONSENSE states, " Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution."

In this case while the list of artists from the self-published source may ‘technically' violate WP:SELFPUB, I don't think there's any doubt those artists did indeed sing those songs, which even the editor above admits is "probably true", we can use common sense to allow us to use this non-defamatory, ordinary, uncontroversial content - after all, we sometimes use self-pub sites to identify spouses, children, and other technically "third-party" individuals, so even though I've found sources for each instance, I still think the selfpub site would have been perfectly fine for the "70 records recorded" and the "list of artists" sourced from that site. It’s just commonsense that a person with Diaz’s history wouldn’t make up a list of artists that performed his songs, or exaggerate the number of records he's recorded.

So, I'll see your “SELFPUB-expressly-forbids” and trump it with an WP:IAR... :) Dreadstar ☥ 02:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the point is mostly moot since I've found third-party published sources to back most, if not all the disputed material. I've found reliable sources for the 70 records figure, as well as a list of artists he's performed with, adding individual sources for the ones not on that particular list. The guy wrote Bamboleo, which is a widely covered song, just look at the list of stars that have sung that one song - and that's not Diaz's only hit.

Even without these new sources, the content sourced by his WP:SELFPUB website is in no way "unduly self-serving" nor does it violate any of the criteria specified by WP:SELFPUB. Considering the verifiable sources and history of Dias, the sourced content is very modest; after all, he's not claiming to be bigger than Elvis or to have written all the songs the Beatles sang, or that he's the King of all media...claims like those would be unduly self-serving comments - but not what's currently sourced. Diaz's WP:SELFPUB website is perfectly fine for that content. Dreadstar ☥ 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to claim to be "bigger than Elvis" to be over the top. Your criteria is unacceptable. --Damiens.rf 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the point I was making is that the selfpub site isn't making any fantastical or controversial claims about Diaz, for instance, it's entirely credible to believe that Placido Domingo, Julio Iglesias, and many of the other performers on that list sang the international smash hit song written by Diaz, Bamboleo. And 70 records recorded in a 50 year span by an obviously (and sourced!) well-known, grammy winning, composer and performer who was awarded the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement award, and the subject of an A&E Mundo documentary biography, is in no way "overly positive" or "unduly self-serving", that's absurd. Dreadstar ☥ 06:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Schutterij

I noticed Schutterij yesterday when it graced the main page. This is an interesting article, without any sources. Not even one. I checked out the Dutch version of the article, and it too has no sources. Does anyone have a good resource that could be added to this article to bring it up to snuff? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[85] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... fine... :-) Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

UFC 108

Is [[86]] a reliable source for the naming scheme of this UFC event? No where else on the internet is the event called "Silva vs. Belfort" Thanks. (pinchet (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

I've done some searching of my own and found a more reliable source with this name. http://www.sherdog.com/events/UFC-108-Silva-vs-Belfort-11471 Consider this resolved. (pinchet (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Can this be used as a reliable source to establish notability?

Can this reference be used to as a reliable source in order to establish notability? The article it is being used on is Joel Warady. The video clip is from an undated news report about US vs foreign products. An individual looking to be Mr Warady gives an extremely brief statement, but this individual goes uncredited and unnamed. So- can this be used as a reliable source in order to establish notability for Mr Warady? Basket of Puppies 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not RS for notability: SELF published. Not RS: SELF published. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is Searchlight Magazine a reliable source for the English Defence League and other articles about the Far right in the United Kingdom? Searchlight maintains an international network of researchers and journalists, which operates across Europe, North America and Australia and reports on the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionably.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a political watchdog group, so use qualification and attribution. i.e. According to the xyz publication Searchlight, lmnop happened. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only "political" with a small p, and is respected across the mainstream political spectrum. So attribution would keep you on the safe side, but if following Squidfryer's route, I don't know what xyz would be. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Political with a small P? given that they exsist to monitor fascists and neo-Nazi organisations I would say they are very political, and indead have been called (by the BBC) anti-fascist gives an idication that they cannot be considerd exaclty neutral. Indead they say that "Searchlight the international anti fascist magazine, 25 years fighting racism". In other words they have an agenda.Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they obviously have an agenda, but it covers a broad swathe of mainstream politics. Very political, yes, very political with a small p. Not aligned to any one party. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know that much about the work so I can't say if they unquestionably have a food amount of people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing (WP:RS). Quotes from Searchlight have been cherry picked to show the English Defence League in the worst way possible while ignoring other aspects that are less inflammatory or not filling in the complete context. This makes the way it is being used a concern. I also have concerns with bias due to the "25 years fighting racism and fascism" mentioned on the website. Even though they might have the moral high ground, they do not follow the same principles of neutrality that Wikipedia does so articles here may not be as juicy to read.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be linked to the Communist Party in the UK. Not sure if that makes it more reliable or not.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in 1975 the founder was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. According to our article, the magazine also has links with MI5, which should be enough to balance perceptions. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable.Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is aligned against a political philosphy, and thus can be viewed as biased against those whome it accuses of subscribing to that philosphy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. If they are describing the group as subscribing to fascist ideology certainly we would source them as the source of the statements however that does not make them unreliable as a source of information. As Itsmejudith points out they are tied to MI5 as well as the Communist Party so they're probably balanced. For statements such as such-and-such a group is on the far-right or such and such a group has political motives definately WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I didn't say they are tied to both MI5 and the CPGB. The party that their founder was in was dissolved in 1991, so I don't think the organisation currently has any links there! And I don't know if they are really tied to MI5, but the point is that the magazine is respected across all the political mainstream. It has been criticised by the far left and is of course detested by the far right. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's founder, Maurice Ludmer, left the Communist Party on the late 60s as it wasn't anti-racist enough (according to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography). It's current management doesn't seem to belong to the CP either. We can use it as a source in the normal way, giving correct attribution and not cherry picking, comments which would apply to the most rigorous of scientific journals as well. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How many scientific Journels use disafected ex-party members as sources of information? How rigerous are thier editoiarial policies, are they as rigourous as the better scientific journels? Do they in fact check facts beofre publishing them? Its editor (up untill 1998) was a meber of the Communist Party of Great Britain. This make sinteresting readin (but is a bit iffy) http://www.searchlightarchive.com/s_a_brief_biographies.html if this is true then who is Nick Lowles? Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And why should we think that anti-Semitic diatribe is accurate? And what your comments about scientific journals have to do with my disapproval of cherry picking is something I don't understand. Which editor was a member of the CP (which in the UK at least is no longer ultra-left). Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"we can use it as a source in the normal way", does it apply the same rigerous standerd as a scientific journel? If not then we cannot use it in the same way as "the most rigorous of scientific journals". Gerry Gable was a never of the CP, though he also left (in 1972), but nonetheless this indicates distict far left tendancies (see the BBC litagation contoversy of 1984). I think I sadi its a bit iffy, but it does raise the question who is Nick Lowles. We know nothing about him, appart from he edits Searchlight. Which does raise the issue of editorial oversight, we do not know who he is so we cannot say what he does.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How does an editor leaving the CP 35 years ago show current far-left tendencies? And what I mean by the normal way is to clearly attribute it and to not cherry pick. We might even name the author of any quoted article. Unless you are suggesting that we shouldn't, for instance, quote a Nick Lowles Guardian article, I don't see exactly what you are suggesting here. Dougweller (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It shows that it has historical links to the far left, and that we know nothing about it current editor, so cannot say he has no links to the far left (other then giving speaches at far left meetings, perhaps we should apply thier relibale methods here?). What I am saying is do they exercise the same editorial controls asa a scientific journel of the highest order? Do they enjoy a reputation for fact checking? Or do they have a habit of reporting hersay and rumour? Do they rely on questionable and biased sources themsleves (such as those with an axe to grind)? These are the questions that need answering.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

While they are obviously not a scientific journal with a double blind referee process etc. etc. they are are long standing and respected research group, frequently quoted by the main line press in the UK. Agree with Doug. --Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States

Is Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States a reliable source for Christopher Columbus (and for U.S. history articles in general)? An editor said that anything citing "People's History" is "highly suspect", but he didn't explain why. Zinn is a well-known professional historian, and his work is well cited, so I don't see why this would be the case, but I just wanted to settle it here. There is a lot of very interesting historical information in People's History that is not discussed very much in more "mainstream" texts, and I'd like to know if I can use it for a source for other historical articles. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would say that Zinn can be used, but should be attributed. His views are definitely in the minority. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Zinn's People's History is reliable. But go out and find a specialist work dealing specifically with the issue at hand instead of relying on a generalist survey monograph. I'd dispute the minority. The field of US history has an atypical methodologically conservative bent, and even them some of the best cultural and social history is published in the premier US journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Zinn himself admits he's "biased". Near the beginning of the final chapter:

This makes it a biased account, one that leans in a certain direction. I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction — so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements — that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission.

I'd say it can be included, but agree with Blueboar that it should be attributed. Reading A People's History without the background would leave you with a skewed and incomplete picture.--Work permit (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hayden White, amongst others, have outlined a variety of acceptable standard practices in historiography where the bias present in a text is accepted and brought forward rather than concealed and repressed. Zinn's People's History lies firmly within this acceptable disciplinary practice. For historians, such as Zinn, "Bias" includes the selective decision to focus a study on A instead of B, or aspects of A instead of the totality of A. It would help if the quote listed what "This" Zinn was referring to. It appears from the second sentence that he is discussion selection bias rather than corrupt historical practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of Zinn. He admits to a point of view which is why I would say use should be attributed. In other words, 'Zinn argues the history of the European invasion of Indian lands in America is one of conquest, slavery, and death rather then a matter-of-fact The history of the European invasion of Indian lands in America is one of conquest, slavery, and death--Work permit (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the use of Zinn on Columbus, McCrank notes that Zinn offers no citations for his information and allegations--Work permit (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Zinn certainly should be identified when he is cited. His work is probably more important outside the academy than inside, though it could be argued that revisionist social history owes a large debt to him. I will also agree that his scholarship leaves room to be desired. IMO some mention of views like Zinn's belongs in the Columbus article, but we should probably not lean to heavily on Peoples for specific facts. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Zinn wrote in order to present his opinion of American history. While his opinion is noteworthy, the facts should be obtained from more mainstream historians, even though his facts are probably accurate. Assuming his facts are correct, that should not be a problem. I see that the issue is whether Columbus started slavery or whether it existed before. You have to read about modern slavery to see how it differed from slavery in more primitive societies. Google "John Locke" and "Slavery". The Four Deuces (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify Columbus didn't start slavery in the Americas, but he did start European slavery in the Americas. Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• So it sounds like the consensus is that his work can be used, but should be attributed, and backed up with another source wherever possible. So cite any facts with something from a different author, and as far as any interpretation of the event make sure to say something like "Historian Howard Zinn says ...". Is this correct? Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • That's a good rule on any topic where secondary sources that would normally be regarded as reliable (textbooks, newspapers and so on) disagree. It's certainly the right one here. JQ (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Zinn’s “history” is a purely polemic work and has been found lacking as a purely historical work. It does seem to have a large following and could be cited for opinions of the author only. WVBluefield (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of where it has been found lacking? Does the fact that it has been found lacking in one place mean that the entire work should be considered lacking? Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Zinn on Columbus, see my comment above: McCrank notes that Zinn offers no citations for his information and allegations. More generally: Although Zinn's books have been popular—particularly among young college students eager to hear an alternative to the sanitized versions of history taught in many high schools—they have not been favorably reviewed by most scholars. His most famous book, A People's History of the United States, is often dismissed as a fairly unsophisticated record of relentless exploitation of the downtrodden. [87]--Work permit (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The more interesting quote from that link from an RS perspective is, "Bruce Kuklick, meanwhile, considers the book a radical textbook and asserts that, as such, “its comprehension of issues is stunted; its understanding of materials is unnuanced,” just as they are in most textbooks.". Quoting any generalist monography on a specific topic is weak. We don't even need to attack Zinn's historiography to say that other sources should be located. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a large literature in feminist and marxist history and political economy about the Enclosure of the Americas driving international development of early capitalism. Sadly, I can't think of the work that I'd like to reference. But that ought to be down the track of the article, and more specialist than Zinn. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, Work Permit -- OK, I see what he/she meant now -- thanks for clearing that up.Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it is RS. Charges of bias are irrelevant. All sources are biased. That's why we have a neutral point of view policy. Dlabtot (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Since his book is not cited the way that a conventional American history book would be and since he freely merges his personal interpretations/opinions in everything he writes, material taken from his book should be cited to him specifically. E.g. Historian Howard Zinn has written... The Squicks (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  Scholars in English academic style normally don't need their occupation attached to their claims, nor their title (unless their possess a mandatory honorific, such as Popes or Lamas in relation to Theology), nor their first name. (I've said this in relation to a variety of scholars). Neutral: Zinn writes, " ". Controversial opinion, Unlike most other historiography, Zinn believes, " ". Debated minority, Zinn and others find, " ". Debated majority, The general historiographical opinion follows Zinn in that, " ". Simply academic agreement requires no specific attribution. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Zinn's book does not support the statements that you attribute to him. Compare the text in the article[88] with Zinn's book.[89] He does not say "Columbus himself was responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans" or that he "was the founder of the practice of slavery in the Americas". The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Howard Zinn is one of the most eminent living American historians. A People's History of the United States, besides winning the 1980 National Book Award and the French Prix des Amis du Monde Diplomatique, is widely cited and was even used as an American history textbook by several professors at my university in New York. The alleged "bias" has to do with Zinn's focus, rather than his presentation of facts (which isn't disputed). However, I must agree with The Four Deuces that the whatever content is sourced from it must be faithfully represented. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Zinn cites his sources including the young priest Bartolome de las Casas who traveled to the new world with Columbus and kept a diary. Zinn's account comes from the priest's diary and from Columbus's diary and nine other historians. The priest's diary was republished in 1971 as History of the Indies (Harper & Row). Among nine sources Zinn cites for the Columbus history, Zinn also credits Francis Jennings' The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. University of North Carolina Press, 1975.Skywriter (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dog bite fatalities

Dog bite statistics in the Pit bull article is being sourced to this(scribd mirror). Quality of the "study" is poor.( see Talk:Pit_Bull#Clifton_report_methodology and Talk:Pit_bull/archive3#Clifton_Study). The author of the study is an editor of the independent newspaper Animal People and he states that clearly in the study itself, but there is no indication that it was published by Animal People. Even if it was, it's RS status would be arguable. User:Astro$01 is saying that Dogbitelaw meets the RS standard as a self-published source(also arguable) and seems to think this reliability extends to third party material it publishes.(see Talk:Pit_Bull#Section_break) It is not a publisher, it just host the document. There is actually a case for inclusion in that some news articles do quote the study, but if it merits inclusion at all, the text should reflect the quality of the source. Right now, the limitations of the study is downplayed and somewhat crude attempts by other editors to make it more explicit have been reverted. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike Royko

Mike Royko was a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist whose syndicated columns were carried by hundreds of newspapers. He was particularly known for his work on Chicago politics. His biography of Mayor Richard J. Daley is, according to Wikipedia, "a principal book about Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago under his mayoralty".

Royko also wrote about the LaRouche movement. In the 1970s he wrote about a group that was distributing almost pornographic posters of mayoral candidate Jane Byrne and uncovered them as a front for Lyndon LaRouche. In response, according to Royko, members of the movement left a note on the door of his assistant threatening to kill her cat. He wrote about this in four different columns over a three year-period, and also referred to a widely reported case in 1980 when a reported covering LaRouche had three of his pet cats killed on successive days. Here are excerpts from the columns:

• To fully appreciate LaRouche and his followers, you have to have had dealings with them. Which I have. A few years ago, something that called itself Citizens for Chicago took a frenzied dislike to Jane Byrne and began selling posters of her that bordered on the pornographic. I became curious and looked into Citizens for Chicago. Its leader lied and lied, but I established that it was one of the many LaRouche front organizations. When I wrote a column exposing it, their response was to distribute handbills and posters claiming that I had undergone a sex change operation. That didn't bother me, since I had evidence to the contrary. But they somehow tracked down the address of my assistant, a female reporter. They managed to get into her high-rise building and find her apartment. And on the doorknob they left one of their handbills. On it was drawn a bull's-eye. And there was a message. "A warning," they said. "We will kill your cat." So let us hope that the primary is the last election this crowd wins. If not, no cat will be safe.
  • 2 WINNERS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune : Mar 20, 1986. pg. 3
• Letters, calls, complaints and great thoughts from readers: Dorothy Sullivan, Chicago: Were you serious or just kidding us when you said some LaRouche people once threatened to kill your assistant's cat? If you were kidding, that is nothing to joke about. Just the thought of cruelty to helpless animals is enough to make me sick. But if you were serious and it actually happened, then these LaRouche people are even sicker and more dangerous than I had thought. Comment: Yes, they did threaten to kill my assistant's cat because they didn't like what I had written about them, but they never followed up on the threat. However, cat-killing is not unknown to the LaRouchites. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a newspaperman in New Hampshire, who wrote a series of articles about the LaRouchites, found a dead cat on his front porch each day the articles appeared. Fortunately, the series eventually ended, so cats can still be found in that state.
  • LAROUCHITES KEEP FUR FLYING; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune : Mar 31, 1986. pg. 3
• The best way to understand the LaRouchites--how they think and operate --is to get them mad at you. In that sense, I've been fortunate because they've been mad at me for years. [..] Long before their fluke victories in the Illinois primary made them well known, I was writing about their sleazy attacks on public figures--labeling certain female politicians as prostitutes and their husbands as pimps--and the way they conned people into giving them money. Their response was to threaten to murder a cat belonging to a reporter who worked for me. They never followed through on the threat, possibly because they discovered that the cat had not been declawed. Of course, they are capable of cat-killing, as they demonstrated in New Hampshire, where a reporter wrote a series of articles on their lunacy. Every day that an article appeared, a dead cat was dropped on his doorstep.
  • LAROUCHITES TEST POSITIVE FOR FLEECE; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune : Jul 25, 1986. pg. 3
• But what I dislike most about the LaRouchies is that they have bumped off cats. I'm not a great cat lover, although I provide food and shelter for two of them. However, I think it is cowardly to murder them. And that's what LaRouchies did. When a reporter in New England wrote about some of their antics, they killed several of his cats. The killings didn't stop until his articles did. Later, when I wrote something about them, they sent a cat death threat to the young female reporter who was my assistant. I figured that anybody who threatens cats is basically a coward and a wimp. So I phoned the LaRouchie office here and said that if they threatened harm to any more cats, I would come there with some large, violent friends and we would break their furniture, their legs, and maybe a few fingers and noses, and jump up and down on their chests. They shouted and sputtered that those would be criminal acts. I agreed but said we'd do it anyway and take a chance on getting a cat-loving jury. And that was the last I heard from the creeps. I don't know which prison LaRouche and his associates will be sent to. But I hope that this column finds its way to his fellow inmates. They should know that they have a cat-killer in their midst. And I hope any cat-lovers among them do whatever they feel is appropriate.
  • LaRouche getting what he deserves; Mike Royko.. Chicago Tribune : Jan 30, 1989. pg. 3

When the 1989 column was printed LaRouche sued to prevent its publication in newspapers near the prison where he was confined, claiming that it was an incitement to violence against him, but the judge rejected the suit as moot since it had already been printed in local newspapers. The suit brought further attention to the matter.

• Jailed political extremist Lyndon LaRouche has filed a lawsuit to stop distribution of a newspaper column that he says could incite other inmates to harm him because it calls him a "cat killer," a lawyer said. The column by Mike Royko, syndicated through the Chicago Tribune, contends that LaRouche followers have killed cats of LaRouche opponents - a claim LaRouche followers deny. "I hope that this column finds its way to his fellow inmates," Royko wrote in the column, printed Monday in the Chicago Tribune and distributed to about 500 newspapers. "They should know that they have a cat-killer in their midst. And I hope any cat-lovers among them do whatever they feel is appropriate."
  • LAROUCHE SUIT TRIES TO STOP ROYKO COLUMN Associated Press. Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Fla.: Feb 4, 1989. pg. A.3

LaRouche was known for filing libel suits frequently, but there's no evidence that Royko was sued or even that a retraction or correction was requested. So this widely disseminated claim was never disputed.

The other day I added this text to LaRouche movement:

• After writing about a LaRouche front group called "Citizens for Chicago", his assistant found a note attached to her apartment door that had a bullseye and a threat to kill her cat.

Another editor deleted the information, with the edit summary: "remove rumors, anonymous allegations, and innuendo per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP" [90]

The question here is whether the text is properly sourced, and whether it violates any other Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Royko discussion

Unquestionably well sourced. These are all significant publishers of an exceptionally high profile. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Were the Royko columns published as Op Ed or News? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Royko was a columnist and non-fiction author, his work would not easily be classified as purely one or the other. He is exceptionally reputable and highly reliable. His work is considered a core reading for any student of urban politics and history. Note the academic citations here:[91]. -99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While interesting, it doesn't answer the question I asked. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the news archive, the Royko columns were printed in the news section. And the AP report was definitely news.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RS: News published by commercial newspapers. (Thanks Will). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Will states that the columns in question were presented in the paper as "news." However, the articles on the lawsuit do not refer to them as articles, but rather as "columns." I'd like to see some documentation that they were in fact news articles. Also, the dispute in question concerns the fact that Royko is not claiming to have factual knowledge that "LaRouche activists kill cats" -- it is strictly innuendo. So it is not being reported as "news," but rather opinion, and this runs afoul of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a reliable source, and it doesn't matter which page it was printed on. There's nothing in the sourcing policy, WP:V, that rules out material not published on news pages. If in doubt, use in-text attribution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• On another note, can we avoid naming sub-sections generically? The software has no way to disambiguate "discussion" in one section from another. Protonk (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

News can come in columns. Jack Anderson's column, for example, or Victor Riesel, or Herb Caen, or Patt Morrison, or Penman & Greenwood. Just because a seasoned journalist has a regular column doesn't mean he's not reporting truthful information. The behavior described by Royko is not an isolated incident, and so this isn't an extraordinary claim. The LaRouche movement sued the man who mentioned rumors of animal abuse in Leesburg, so it had the ability and propensity to sue when it felt libeled. Even when LaRouche sued to have Royko's article squelched he didn't dispute the truth of the assertion.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::This sort of thing leaves no room for imprecision. It is incorrect to say that "The behavior described by Royko is not an isolated incident," because there is no actual evidence that the "behavior" ever took place. It would be correct to say that the allegations are not isolated, but my reading of WP:NOTSCANDAL is that we ought not to write extensive articles on smoke, when there is no evidence of fire. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that anything happened? We rely on reliable sources to tell us. Royko is a reliable source and he has written repeatedly about this. When asked if it really happened he confirmed it. If you think that the articles related to LaRouche shold be limited to what has been proven in a court of law then the articles would be quite short and you can guess what they would say. But that isn't the standard. See WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It was far more common in the 70s than it is now for reporters to be given columns. Nowadays it's true that many newspapers only publish columns in the op-ed pages, but back then the most well-respected newsmen and newswomen were published under a column byline. It was a perk of the job: first you wrote anonymously, then you wrote under a byline, and then if you were proven to be reliable enough you wrote under a column byline. Given the time frame, Royko writing under a column byline makes it more likely that he is a reliable source, not less. --NellieBly (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with that last remark. While not all columnists were fundamentally reporters, the reporter/columnists were the cream of the crop of reporters. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)