Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Judaism: not just a religion

For over six months, the Judaism article has said:

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos)[2] is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

This was true

• a month ago[1]
• two months ago[2]
• three months ago[3]
• four [4]
• five months ago [5]
• more than six months ago[6].

This is what I below refer to as the consensus version. Note: no sources were provided

On November 9, User: Navnløs changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion." Note: She has not provided any sources to support her postion

On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:

• "The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam."

I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.

I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:

• Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam in that it refers both to a nationality and a religion. To understand Judaism one must understand why these two elements are inextricable. But in this regard Judaism is quite unlike Christianity or Islam
• I have now provided three sources. One is from a historian who says that Judaism during the Hellenic period referred to many things besides religion. Another is from a theologian who says that the observant Jew ("Halackic man," one who observes Jewish law) shoud not be characterized as the "religious man." The third is from a theologian who argues that Judaism is not a religion but a "civilization."

Since that time, user:A Sniper has accused me of violating WP:NOR[7]. Uer:Bus Stop simply rejects my sources.[8]

• I have since provided two more sources from the web

There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. I have tried to provide reliable sources, and Navanlos,A Sniper, or Bus Stop either disparage or ignore my sources, and refuse to provide any of their own. The page is now protected and I am hoping thoghtful discussion will suffice to resolve the matter. I see WP:RS as key to resolving this dispute and appreciate the comments on editors experienced in this kind of issue, who have time to read through the relevant section of the talk page. The discussion is here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now "Judaism is a religion"? That reminds me of "Northern Ireland is a country", a structurally very similar problem that's hopefully about to be solved soon:

• Some editors insist on applying a label in the first sentence.
• Editors who are closer to the topic reject the label as basically correct, but not sufficiently nuanced.
• Non-argument: "But all articles about X must be consistent!"
• Sourcing problems: It's much easier to find sources for the blunt application of label X (e.g. lists of Xs which include the topic among many others that fit better) than sources that explain what is special about this particular topic.
• Accusations of bad faith from both sides.

I imagine that this kind of situation must have occurred before in other articles. Any pointers? Hans Adler 12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of using Judaic sources themselves (rabbis, judaic theologians etc.) as RS in this case. I would see what is the academic consensus between uninvolved academics on the subject. Also, the fact that a religion traditions and cultural aspects encompass more than the religion itself has been argued for nearly every major religion, and it doesn't sound to me as a compelling argument to not call it what it is. It's a bit of a WP:SPADE argument, in my opinion.

Also, one of the sources provided actually endorses calling Judaism a religion. The Cohen source says: "...in this first ocurence of the term, Ioudaismos has not yet be reduced to designation of a religion, that seems to support that now it is, indeed, the designation of a religion. --Cyclopia^talk 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is how I present the Cohen position: that there was a time when Judaism was not considered a religion. The point remains that in its history it has been other things. If the article defines Judaism as a religion, then it has to exclude a huge chunk of Jewish history. In fact, the article itself claims a continuous tradition since Moses. If the article is going to include the period of time when, according to Coehn, Judaism was not a religion, doesn't the lead need language that is inclusive of both eras? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence is supposed to be mostly correct in most significant contexts. And Judaism throughout history seems to be very significant as a context. See also WP:RECENTISM. Hans Adler 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good concern, but I am not fully sure. I think the lead should give a concise wording referring to the most common usage of the subject now, and then historical details can be debated at length into the article. A compromise could be stating that "Judaism is a religion..." and later "Historically, the term also encompassed pre-religious traditions...", for example. --Cyclopia^talk 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You open up a can of worms on this, as with many other definitions, when you start to add, qualify, and trouble the simplest definition, which you can get in any dictionary.

'The profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews' Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd.ed. vol.8, p.291 sub.1

The problem with the original definition arises with the inclusion of Talmudic/Rabbinical qualifications. The Karaites, in the academic literature, for example, are interpreted as professors of Judaism, but they excluded the Rabbinical tradition. There are all sorts of sectarian exceptions historically that complicate things if one tries to enforce an inclusive definition. For that reason, something like 'the profession or practice of the Jewish religion' should suffice, with the main text then clarifying the varieties and complexities.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The OED is not a reliable source for anything more than common usage of a word. And with modern secular or atheist Jews practicing Judaism, the claim is far from clear cut. Collect (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, and the OED is authoritative for the way words are used in English (b)it does not deal with 'common usage', it deals with all historical usage of a term, its conceptual ramifications, the genealogy of usage, as established by the best scholarship. (c) the problem set us is to avoid creating problems. The long-standing definition is misleading because it makes the definition of Judaism dependent on rabbinical judaism. Historical usage speaks of pre-exilic Judaism, Hellenic Judaism, Palestinian Judaism, etc.etc.etc. If you want sources, and a very clear statement of what is understood by 'Judaism' look at Jacob Neusner's Judaism when Christianity began: a survey of belief and practice, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. The intro. shows the dangers of using that kind of misleading generalization. I.e. ‘We understand little or world history and culture if we assume a uniform Christianity or Islam or Judaism – and we miss the causes of much conflict within Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, respectively. If we study religion in the this-worldy frameworks of actual societies/,we are not well served to focus on generalizations of doctrine that characterize a given religion, viewed whole and autonomous.’pp.4-5. On page 1 he begins by asking 'what is Judaism?' and replies, as does the OED, with the simplest definition: Judaism is a religion. The OED definition slightly enlarges, and in doing so, allows for atheists implicitly, by referring to practices. My mentor embraced Judaism in his 70s, which for him, as an atheist, meant a set of practices, honouring which allowed him to identify himself within the traditions of his forefathers. He would have nothing to do with the world of rabbinical Judaism, which was as alien to him as Christianity. There are atheistic Christians, even a Christian theology of atheism, etc. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to "specialist usage" of course. Dictionaries are tertiary sources per WP for anything more than spelling and pronunciation. "Judaism", per scholarly works, clearly encompasses social, ethical, legal and religious practices and traditions. Quite a complex field, and just saying it is a "religion" is entirely too simplistic - but dictionaries generally supply simplistic definitions of complex topics. In any field of science, the dictionary is rarely accurate. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that the article on religious tradition which I personally think is most likely to be said to be parallel to Judaism, Hinduism, refers to it in the lead only in the religious context as well. Of course, over time any religion will accumulate aspects which do not appear to others to be inherently religious. I also agree with Nishidani here that the old form of the lede placed excess emphasis on one particular period of Judaism, the rabbinic one. The evidence that Judaism was always centered around rabbis is, at least to the best of my limited knowledge, weak. And, of course, the fact that atheists choose to take on practices which could be described as religious is more or less irrelevant. They could very easily take on such practices for purely cultural reasons, to identify themselves more closely with a particular social group. The fact that virtually every social tradition of more than a hundred years age in the west can be called "religious", and the fact that atheism itself, as a comparatively new way of thinking has no particular "traditions", makes it true that in many/most of these cases these individuals would be taking on "religious" practicies, although that may not be even remotely one of the reasons why the individual is adopting such practices. Basically, as said above, the OED calls it a religion, and similar social/philosophical groups are called in wikipedia "religions", so I think it would probably require sourcing of extraordinary quality to make a different statement in the Judaism article. I don't see sourcing of that type yet produced. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with using the term "Nationality"... Yes, there are sources that use the term, but most of the sources that talk about the "Jewish Nation" are from the 1800s... In other words, it is an archaic usage. That said, I do know that there are those who, today, talk about Judeism in terms of "ethnicity"... if this can be properly sourced, perhaps this would be a better term? Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking the page, I see that Slrubenstein has not read thoroughly at least one of the sources he cites, namely the work of Shaye Cohen, who certainly does not, in so far as I am familiar with his books, identify the historical world of Judaism in terms of ethnicity. The whole fallacy in the long argumentation there is to read 'Judaism' in terms of the rabbinical reading of Judaism, and Cohen in his work on the Maccabees identifies this as a serious bias which is not acceptable to historians, who have in their approach to Judaism, to take into account several centuries, from the post-exilic period down to the period following 70 CE., where rabbis did not define the complex varieties of Judaism that flourished in the Second Temple Period. No blame meant, for SlRibenstein, since this is an extremely common error.

To be brief:

‘The practices, ideas, and institutions that were elaborated during the second temple period (i.e. pre-Talmudic/pre-rabbinical period Judaism, Nishidani)formed and still form the basis of the religion known as “Judaism”.’ Shaye J.D.Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster John Knox Press, 1987 p.21.

Yes, but he is not saying all Second Temple institutions. In fact, isn't he arguing that most Second Temple institutions, practices and ideas play no role in what we today call Judaism? Also, can you tell me which of these institutions, practices, and ideas were not codified in the Mishnah and elaborated in the Gemorah? I just want to be clear i understand what you are claiming. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, historically the 2nd Temple period, according not only to Cohen, marked a tendency to change the blood principle of 'nationality' of the old tribal Israelite religion into a principle of 'religion', and introduced the principle of conversion to this end.

You cannot logically or historically define 'Judaism' as a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts, without implying that pre-Talmudic Jewish religion was not, 'stricto sensu, Judaism.

I am not sure what you mean to say here. Are you saying that the Judaism article should not include discussion of the pre-Talmudic period? Or are you saying that Judaism should not be defined as Talmudic? I have not argued either point, but I am curious if you wish to argue either of these. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, to reintroduce the rabbinical definition of ethnos makes the historical exceptions in the history of Judaism, where conversion was actively pursued, problematical.

What do you mean by "the rabbinical definition of ethnos?" I never used the phrase, so I am not sure what you mean by it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The other problem in the thread is the argument about 'practices and beliefs' as if this were peculiar to Judaism. All religions, in the classics of the sociology, are defined as systems combining belief and practices. Therefore, in defining Judaism as a religion, it is obvious, at least to those who remember Durkheim, that we are referring both to beliefs and practices.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani is correct about Cohen's argument - but i did not think I misrepresented him. I used him specifically to point out that there was a period (emphasis on was) when Judaism meant other things than religion. However, Cohen is not aguing that Judaism ceased to be a nation, nor is he saying that there was a change in some primordial blood-line basis for Judaism. His larger argument is that during the maccabean period Jewish identity was tied to territory so people who lived within the kingdom of Judea became Jews (like someone living in the US can become "naturalized" by learning the language and American history and customs). Blood becomes more important after the end of the kingdom, because Jews no longer have sovereignty over their territory and after 135 there are very few Jews left in Judea. But Nishidani is right that during this time becoming a Jew becomes a matter of religious practice rather than political affiliation. But it is wrong to sugest that Cohen believes Judaism to be a religion, period. That misses his point. His point is that during the second Temple period "Jewishness" meant different things in different contexts, it was a religion, it was a people (ethnos or ethnic group, in Barth's sense), a nation (in Gellner's sense). His larger argument, following Barth's approach to ethnicity and Gellner's approach to nation, is that the Greek word Ioudaismos refers to a social construction - it thus means whatever people want it to mean, as long as enough people agree, but for precisely this reason people can disagree over its meaning. He also points out that this is true today. he writes (page 8) that Jewishness today does mean "religion" to some - but means "peoplehood" to others and "nationhood" to others. Cohen is adamant that he is not arguing which of these views is the truth. His whole point is the uncertainty and indeterminacy. His larger argument is against essentialism and reductionism. And this is precisely why I cite him. My argument has never been that judaism is "not"" a religion, my argument has ben that Judaism means different things to different groups of Jews, and that the leading scholars today -like Cohen - recognize that this is true today and point out that this was true in the past as well. That is why we need some other wording that "religion," or a east we cannot use just the word "religion."

By the way, this may well be true for other nations/peoples/religions. Cohen certainly believes this is so for other groups. I leave it up to people editing the article on Hinduism or Christianity to see what the significant views from verifiable sources are for Hinduism or Christianity (or whomever else) and edit the article accordingly. I think it is obvious that the solution to these matters is the sam for all articles: to follow the significant views in reliable sources. Since i am just looking at the Judaism article, I am just reading books like Cohen's which is based on his research on Judaism.

I do not understand Nishidani's point about Durkheim, and suspect there is some miscommunication or misunderstanding. Nishidani, do I understand you correctly to be saying "SR is claiming that the jewish religion is different from other religions bcause it is based on beliefs and practices ... but SR is mistaken because all religions are based on beliefs and practices?" I agree with you that all religions are based on beliefs and practices and I cannot imagine why you think I do not believe this - can you show me the sentence or sentences whee I suggested otherwise? But if I intepret Nishidani correctly, I di not agree that "SR is claiming that the jewish religion is different from other religions bcause it is based on beliefs and practices." All I am claiming, like Cohen, is that Judaism means different things, including religion, ethnicity, and nationhood. Of course we could just say this in the introduction, but I was looking for a concise phrase that signifies all three of these things and whatever else other significant views have said (e.g. legal system, civilization). "Beliefs and practices" seems to do the job. "Beliefs and practices" can apply to religion, but it can also apply to nationhood, ethnicity, civilization and legal system. Can't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is regarding the Judaism article (and therefore more about the beliefs of the Jewish people and not Jews themselves) it serves to remember- you can be Jewish (a Jew) and not practice the Jewish religion, whether another religion or atheism. That is not true of any other religious group (if you convert from Catholicism to Judaism you are not a Catholic anymore, other way around you are still a Jew but also a Catholic). The problem is that Judaism is the only religion (still around) that takes its name as that of an ethnic group. You cant separate what is Jews do because it is the culture of the Jewish nation and ethnic group from what Jews do because it is their religion; the Jewish religion dates from a period where each nation/ethnic group had its own religion and religion was integrally tied to a national identity, there were no "transnational religions". It has long been proven genetically that Jews are separate ethnically and racially from "white Indo-Europeans" (as an aside- "Palestinians" and Jews are indistinguishable genetically whereas the English and Irish can be distinguished easily genetically).Camelbinky (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Camelbinky: Only on the genetical aspect, it became evident that unlike many people thought-Ashkenazi Jews, which by far constitute the largest Jewish group, are Middle Eastrens by the lion share of their genetical profile (with only very low genetic contribution from (probably) Eastren Europe non Jewish populations). However, they, as well as Sephardic Jews and most Mizrahi Jewish sub groups, are well distinguished from the Palestinian culster on many aspects: They don't share the same maternal heritage, not all Palestinian groups even share the same paternal heritage with Jews and it seem that the Palestinian genetic cluster was also markedly affected from other, diversed genetical lines.--Gilisa (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems as if there are problems in the DNA analysis since the historical record increasingly favors the Khazar theory, that the Ashkenazis are nearly all converts. Don't know what it will take for articles to be written to the academioc consensus, however. 86.169.183.36 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Map by individual

I originally raised this matter in the OR/Noticeboard. Apparently it was the wrong forum, so I am bringing it here with slight wording changes accordingly.

This relates to Banned Books Week [BBW], particularly to references to a map. An individual created the map. That map was then promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] as its own without attribution of authorship, giving the appearance the map was the work of the ALA, as evidenced in the LA Times. When an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] questioning the ALA for its policies regarding BBW, the ALA responded in a letter to the editor. The WSJ printed other responses. One was from the individual who created the map where he specifically disclaimed any connection to the ALA. This was published after the LA Times article, else the LA Times might have known the true authorship of the map. A web site in the External Links contains a link to a subpage that happens to be that map, so the map is available to anyone who clicks on the sublink from the ALA's page.

I say the map is not a reliable source for reasons given here:

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:

• [13]
• [14]

The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.

The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is not reliably sourced by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.

All guidance appreciated. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The map is reliable because the ALA endorses it. The ALA has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, regardless of the fact they are possibly stealing some guy's map. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That reasoning sounds flawed to me:

1. It would allow any large organization to promote anything, no matter how unreliably sourced, just because it is a large organization.
2. Further, the actual use of the unreliably sourced material was likely done by a single person in a single office, not by "The ALA [which] has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking."
3. Further, perhaps the "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" is itself a Point Of View, as this is a case where it is literally impossible to fact-check some unknown individual who only prints a map and nothing else, and nothing is known about him.
4. Further, how can there be a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" "regardless of the fact they are possibly stealing some guy's map"?

Comments anyone? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would want to know that the ALA vetted this map through the peer-review process first. The fact that they claim it as their own when it isn't gives reason NOT to assume they did anything right.--otherlleft 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the size that makes it reliable/unreliable. Scientology is quite large. It's not a reliable source. The reason the ALA is a reliable source for the map is because other, obviously reliable sources use the ALA without comment. Is there a reliable source that says that a lone ranger put the map on the ALA's banned books website? If so, please provide that. Reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, again, isn't PoV - it's based on reliable sources - which you provided - using the ALA as a source without reservation - per WP:RS. Stealing some guys map doesn't make you unreliable - it makes you a thief. If the stolen map is right, it's just taking credit. However, no reliable source has said the map is stolen, of course. Otherleft - that's not how we deal with Reliable Sources - by publishing the document, they take credit for it, and it attaches to them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Having now done more work, there is no allegation made by anyone, including the purported map author, that the ALA did anything wrong. They are publishing the map, and I see no comment by anyone at the ALA regarding the authorship by anyone. I suggest that this be closed up at this point, and perhaps LAEC be reminded of the purpose of Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Several issues: if the ALA or someone else has republished the map without the creator's permission... we might have a WP:COPYRIGHT issue (in that we should not use images that violate copyright laws). Is there is a noticeboard on that? We do need to use great caution when using maps (or any other image) as a source for information. They can easily be interpreted (or misinterpreted) in ways that constitue Original Research (note... the map itself is not OR... but what a wikipedia editor says about what the map shows can be OR.) Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The map itself is a google map. The ALA links to it from their website. The LATimes took a screenshot of the map. The map is not being used to source information except for the fact that the map is distributed by the ALA in connection with Banned Books Week - which the ALA is a damn reliable source for. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"However, no reliable source has said the map is stolen, of course." The map creator said he created the map, he said he is not affiliated with the ALA, and he said this in the document in the WSJ I linked. There is no way a stolen map is a reliable source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The map creator said he's not affiliated with the ALA. He dosen't say the ALA didn't have permission to link to the map. In fact, the only source ever saying this map is stolen is your original research here at wikipedia. It's not stolen. It's a resource that the ALA redistributes. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has edited the BBW page to add material related here, specifically citing this RSN. I think that shows a clear bias. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows a clear conclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you make a "clear conclusion" when the subject is still under discussion? If you have, and you may, then your continued discussion of the issue here is biased. Not in a bad way, just biased in favor of your conclusion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that my bias is that I think I'm right? GUILTY! Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The ALA is "redistributing" it without attribution. That's stealing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's linking. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The ALA did not just "link". Instead, it copied it wholesale. That's stealing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fabrication on your part, per [15]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That source is new to me, so thank you, but it makes the reliability of the map even worse, as now the author of the map himself calls into question the map's reliability:

Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.

Based on that quote from the author, and based generally on the new reference just provided by Hipocrite, the map is not a reliable sourced.

As to saying I am "fabricating," that is not only incorrect, but it the kind of behavior not welcome on Wikipedia. See WP:AGF. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just got carried away. Do not personally attack me further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A map itself, is a primary source, and as such, as Blueboar says above, interpretation of what the map says constitutes OR. Such a primary source should probably only be used as a supplement to a reliable, secondary source. Whether the map is accurate depends on who created it, and who is saying that it is. For that, and for Wikipedia purposes, the ALA would be considered reputable given its long standing reputation. Whether the map is stolen or not is a secondary issue and doesn't affect either the accuracy of the map or who has the map now. The Elgin Marbles are still the Elgin Marbles, whether stolen or whether they are in Greece. The issue per Wikipedia is, I would think, use of a primary source.(olive (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Something to note here... I just realized that we are talking about a map generated by google maps, and the copyright holder for the map (as is clearly indicated on all versions being discussed) is, in fact, Google. Has Google objected to the ALA using it? Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasons the map is not a reliable source in the author's own words

From following is from the map's author at [16], quoting now:

In August 2009, a friend of mine named Alita Edelman - about to begin her senior year at Smith College - spent a month volunteering at theAmerican Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFFE). ABFFE is a tiny organization that operates within the long shadow of theAmerican Library Association (ALA). Her job was to organize data on banned and challenged books across America. The ALA compiles these records, and every year releases a long list of what books were reported challenged where, by whom, and why.
....
So I created a Google Map for Banned Books. I issued a strident call on my blog for contributors. My dream was that librarians everywhere - from the New York Public Library to Podunk Public - would begin placing pushpins every time a parent held a copy of Harry Potter in front of their face, demanding that this instructional manual for witchcraft and wizardry be burned like its practitioners. Of course, that didn’t happen, because I’m just some guy on the Internet, and not a media mogul with millions of eager readers with too much time on their hands. Instead, Alita and I began the arduous task of translating the hundreds of ALA records onto the map.
....
Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.

So what can we do?

We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country. Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise.
....
So today, we’re launching the Mapping Banned Books Project We’ve created a new Google Map, one which is totally open to anyone to edit from the comfort of their local library and will rely upon concerned and active individuals to provide the critical data. The idea goes something like this: when a book is challenged at your local library, you get a copy of the formal documentation, scan it, and upload it. Then you drop a pushpin on the location of your library and provide a report of the book challenge, the reasons why it was challenged, and link to the documentation for verification. As more and more people begin to use the map, we’ll see more and more data, visualize new patterns, and learn new, wonderful, and terrifying things about the world around us.

It won’t be easy. The site is still under development, and we’re all busy people with too many things to do and not enough time. We’re going to have to get word out to all the people in big cities and rural towns who might be able to contribute to the cause. Such a massive undertaking won’t be easy, but here’s the good news: it’s easier than it’s ever been before, and we owe it to ourselves to give it an honest try.

Talk about soapbox, this map is an author-admitted soapbox, not a reliable source: "We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country." If this type of thing is allowed on Wikipedia, that would be very bad. But that's why Wikipedia has policies to prevent this sort of thing.

"Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise." So, according to the author, merely complying with library challenge forms is labeled as "censorious." A reliable source would not say that.

"The site is still under development...." The author himself admits the material is still under development.

The author even admits, "I’m just some guy on the Internet." Not a problem, but that is not a reliable source under Wiki standards.

This is not a reliable source, and the author so admits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Translating records: Several comments. First, if the ALA records are on a computer the owner should be able to provide some kind of API that would allow you to automatically take each record and put it on a computer generated map. Sometimes you need to fudge a bit, and say take unstructured addresses and see if google or US Census data can return a lat/long for you, but generally that part should automate ok. However, reliable records did exist before computers. "Some guy on the internest" may indeed have information which has been noted, used, and reviewed by others. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is this map being used?

In the process of this discussion, I have lost track of what this map is being used for. Could someone please remind me what statement in Wikipedia is being supported by citing this map? (this impacts whether it is reliable or not) Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The organization provides a map that shows where books were officially banned or challenged." Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

cite news |author=Carolyn Kellogg |title=It's Banned Books Week |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/09/banned-books-week.html |publisher=Los Angeles Times |date=2009-09-28 |accessdate=2009-10-22 --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, no books have been banned in the USA for about half a century. School districts removing inappropriate materials is not book banning. "Censorship occurs when government refuses to allow people to purchase material, not when it refuses to provide that material at no charge." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard, not the arguing about banned books noticeboard. Please don't argue about banned books here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So most of the above discussion is, in fact, irrelevant since we do not actually cite the map in any article... we are not actually using the map as a source. The cited source is the LA Times (which is considered reliable). The real issue here is not the reliability of the map, but the possibility that the LA Times may not be looking at the map critically. And that is a very different issue.

"The real issue here is not the reliability of the map, but the possibility that the LA Times may not be looking at the map critically. And that is a very different issue." Interesting comment. The date of LA Times publication comes before the date of the author's publication, so the LA Times could not have possibly been aware of the true authorship of the map under the circumstances. I'll bet dollars to donuts the LA Times would not have seen it as newsworthy if the true authorship were truly known--and that's likely why the ALA hid and still hides the true authorship. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the Neutral way to deal with this situation is to attribute the information, as in: "According to Carolyn Kellogg of the LA Times, 'The organization provides a map that shows where the books were officially banned or challenged.'" (or words to that effect). Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding all this correctly, the challenged fact is not whether the map is being provided (everyone agrees on that) but whether the map actually shows book "bannings", so perhaps the wording could be "The organization provides a map that it says shows where books were officially banned or challenged."--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize the issue wasn't about the map itself, as a source. I think the issue is quite simple, then. The LA Times is a reliable source, but reliable sources quite often get it wrong. For the sake of accuracy in an article, editors can together choose not to use the source, or if used, the source should be attributed in line as Blueboar is suggesting. Doing so creates a verifiable and encyclopedic entry although perhaps not a truthful or accurate statement.That's Wikipedia. verifiable not truth. (olive (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Hello, I'm the other editor who has been working on this article with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. I introduced the map with the LA Times citation. I didn't intend to imply that the map itself is reliable, but that the ALA is using the map to claim where book bans have taken place. I guess another question is, given the information that LAEC provided earlier about the map's author discussing how the map was created and information entered, is a disclaimer necessary? I personally don't think it should be, we already have sources in the article claiming that books aren't banned in the United States, which would automatically cast doubt on the map's legitimacy without requiring additional commentary in the text. -- Atama頭 23:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution and qualification is really about all wikipedia can do. Passing judgment and cherry picking what must and must not be right is a big problem. If you question methodology or one of those things that got by quality control from the RS, you may want to document that concern but once you start deleting stuff that just has to be wrong that could create problems. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairfax County Public Schools - No Conact Rule Controversy.

An editor keeps adding that the section is unreliable. On the talk page I commented as below. I do not believe the page needs to be tagged. I do not know how to take action against the editor to stop these actions. The section has been on the FCPS page for a long time and only now was "discovered" to have issues. I believe there is a bias as the editor seems to cover many issues associated with Fairfax County. I am not sure anyone here can do anything but I thought I would bring the issue to your attention.

Below is how I have responded.

This issue was important enough to be covered on CNN, Fox News, etc. It was in the Washington Post and the The Guardian in Britain. It was covered around the world - Australia, India, France. The Students name receives over 4400 hits in google if you do a search for it! The importance of the issue is the fact that the rule infringed on Constitutional rights. Not to mention human rights. To tell a person they can not hug another person or even shake hands is beyond the pale. You don't agree with this? What would the founding fathers have thought of this? That is why the article is in there. The FCPS never issued a statement saying this was NOT a policy. In fact a federal suit was about to be filed but the student changed schools instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You think it is a tiny issue that kids cant give hug or high five each other? The FCPS system refused to take any action on the matter at all. The matter is accurate. CNN covered it and so did the Washington Post. The section has been there since it happened. All of a sudden it is not accurate? I smell bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the same topic is discussed at Joyce Kilmer Middle School#No contact rule controversy, and I imagine both articles should be considered at the same time, although there is currently no ongoing dispute there. RossPatterson (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

probably (looks like cut/paste, at any rate). I added to the original discussion page some of the issues I see with the paragraph. (A couple of them could be expanded upon, but lacking an audience, there's little point). Tedickey (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

Can the Arutz Sheva site: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ be considered as WP:RS? (To quote from the article: "Arutz Sheva is seen as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement", ie. Israeli settlers on the West Bank). Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my quick answer after seeing the first news story on their ticker after clicking your link. No. An article with the title "Man Who Massacred Soldiers Surfed Islamic Websites"? No. All sorts of WP:POV WP:NPA WP:BLP WP:COI and who knows how many other things are running through the minds of the writers there. There are even instructions on the site about how you can submit your own writings[17], meaning it's quite possible that a lot of "stories" published there are original works of fiction. Ooh, and in the Arutz Sheva article it mentions this "publication" under the "Zionist media" category. Entirely unacceptable, sorry, and hardly better than a dolled-up blog. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a media source that explicitly identifies itself with a particular political tendency I'd guess not. Certainly it shouldn't be used for anything that's at all controversial. (Wasn't aware of the user submitted bit, very interesting;) Misarxist (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't even begin to think how to respond to your comment "who knows how many other things are running through the minds of the writers there".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I take half of it back. It's a bit complicated and would require gaming the system, but same end result. It's a tad fuzzy; If you are currently publishing any Arutz Sheva content with or without an express written agreement, please email us promptly at (email removed). I also get the impression it'd be possible to abuse ... (not at all typing the rest). I did also read on my last time through that they're "not responsible" for content at external websites they might link in articles or elsewhere. That's just all the more reason to affirm zero credibility and a miss on RS and shady activity on the submitted articles. Privacy policy apparently doesn't feel like even attempting to hide sales to 3rd party... All advertisers are carefully screened for suitability before we send any of their advertisements to our readership ... ...but we would not disclose anything that could be used to identify those individuals. Yay, that's comforting. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The complaints you raise are completely bogus. Its policies on third party links and advertisers are the same as all media outlets. And regarding it's status as an RS, you might as well reject Al Jazeera and essentially all other Arab and Iranian media as RS since they can be construed as mouthpieces of the state. Stop this witch hunt.ShamWow (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't read what you now point to as at all (let alone half) supporting your statement. They're clearly referring only to reprints of articles in their paper. Not the submission of articles to them. If that wasn't clear to you from what you quoted (it was to me), its certainly manifestly clear in context.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where the media comes from or what their "default" affiliation to anything is, but a bias at least means it should be looked into a bit more deeply-- even more so if it offers no alternate views of a subject (this being the COI concern). Well, at least media outlets that are listed on Wikipedia as being based upon a particular philosophy certainly could use it. It's just discouraging when one visits a media site and the first article (I saw) is factually incorrect and offers no evidence of how they came to that conclusion? Unacceptable. I do believe that no source is automatically given a free pass on reliability, though I'm thinking I'm not going to be believed on that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dathiesen called into question the Arutz Sheva headline that said "Man Who Massacred Soldiers Surfed Islamic Websites." The first paragraph of that article states: The New York Times has revealed that the man who massacred 13 soldiers at the Fort Hood Base in Texas surfed Islamic websites and even exchanged emails with participants in the websites. [18] As it turns out, the New York Times did report: "The officials said a continuing search of Major Hasan’s computer indicates that he had logged on to Web sites that celebrated radical Islamic ideologies and that he had exchanged e-mail messages with like-minded people, some possibly overseas." [19] I suppose you could accuse Arutz Sheva of bias for calling Nidal Malik Hasan "the man who massacred 13 soldiers" rather than the man accused of doing so, or criticize them for just identifying the web sites Hasan visited as being "Islamic" rather than "radical Islamic", but it's not like they were just making up the story out of whole cloth. They cited the New York Times, and the basic information they mentioned had indeed appeared in the NYT before the Arutz Sheva article was published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a news source just like any other. There is no reason to treat it as less reliable than the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, or the LA Times for that matter. What difference is there? "Fact-checkers"? Please. -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes. WP:V. Fact-checking literally meaning "to verify". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite some bias, they actually have a good track record for not publishing rubbish - there's nothing wrong with the story on the first page -- it tells a fact, that the Knesset refused a controversial speech. I would avoid using this source for opinions, but best I've seen -- and I have seen it here and there -- it is reliable for occurrences inside Israel. I would also tend to seek other sources when referring to the Arab world. I would, off-course, try to find corroboration where the material is contentious/controversial/exceptional claim. What is the content in question? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Value-free news reporting is a myth, often cultivated by those who represent the dominant view in order to delegitimize rival aspects. A7 is honest enough to account for their position. Any one wanting to question their status as a source should provide evidence of a lack of meticulousness, deception or the like (on a larger scale than can be shown for many leading news agencies). --Jonund (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased does not mean unreliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it warrants further review. In my original statement, the general concern is "if they're going to print and sensationalize something factually incorrect without any explanation as to how they reached that conclusion, who knows how much else is factually incorrect/invented?" ...And yes they SHOULD be caring about their external links and yes they SHOULD be fact-checking. That's what separates new media from blogging and generic hogwash opinion talkshows. In cases where media is pointed out as wrong, they admit their error and publish that they were incorrect. I won't say the site is never reliable and that each article would be worth looking at, so what article are we talking about from the original commenting request? Just saying, something not fact-checked that's public forum so long as you ask them first if you can write, and has no respect for its members by selling their personal info is not an encyclopedic-level reliable source. A middle school essay? Ok. Wikipedia? Not so much. Is there as specific article that brought this up in the first place, though? If it's on a non-controversial topic and walks through its statements (like with an interview or something), it's a lot more likely that at least would count as a verifiable source. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its worth noting that media retractions are rare and far in between on Isreali-Arab matters. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with a news source that seeks comments from its readers and, on occasion, publishes them. I believe its called "letters to the editor". More on point, I have no idea on where you've reached the assertion that they do not fact check themselves or that they don't have some history of credible reporting behind them. I do agree with you that we'd prefer sources that have some editorial process over self-published content but A7 clearly do have an editorial process and I have not seen this site host opinion pieces from fringe groups and masquerading them as news. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you name one major web site that does take responsibility for the content of external links? "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites." [20] "ABC News is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites." [21] "NYTimes.com contains links to other related World Wide Web Internet sites, resources, and sponsors of NYTimes.com. Since NYTimes.com is not responsible for the availability of these outside resources, or their contents, you should direct any concerns regarding any external link to the site administrator or Webmaster of such site." [22] Disclaiming responsibility for the content of external sites is standard procedure because the external site can change its content at any time without the knowledge of the linking site. Also, I don't see anything on this page inviting readers to submit articles to Arutz Sheva. Rather, that page states the policies under which the site allows its readers to repost excerpts from Arutz Sheva material on their own sites. I understand that Arutz Sheva may have problems with bias, but that is a reason to carefully scrutinize the use of Arutz Sheva as a source rather than to eliminate it entirely. After all, many other reliable sources have been accused of bias as well. Let's not misrepresent the site's policies when we judge its reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility? Well okay, I'll admit you've got me on that being part of my rationale, but there are two ways to look at it. In the literal sense and why every site has a disclaimer is that no one takes responsibility for outside link. What I had in mind was more "we didn't see where it came from" as more of a hole into reliability. My version may or may not fit here, but I admit my choice of words was pretty bad. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> ok, firstly, my question about Arutz Sheva being WP:RS stems from seeing this edit to Yavne. And to call Arutz Sheva "a news source just like any other" ...well, then we alo have to call, say, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ "a news source just like any other" then, don´t we? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I live in Israel and hence somewhat familiar with this newspaper, it have right wing declared agenda but when it comes to technical details, it's a reliable source like any other Israeli newspaper (it's weekly newspaper). It's right wing one and so, but we do cite politicaly bisaed sources. Infact it's funny to think that there are almost media sources that are unviased. BBC is clearly lfet wing media source however no one ever doubt its reports (even after they keep refusing to publish the conclusions of an internal revision committee that revised Israel's claims for biased reports against it), El Jazira was pointed as having Islamic agenda many times, Fox news is clearl Republican and anti Obama and so on. What I'm saying is that we have to have to distinguish between what is tasteless and what isn't. Form my experience they never just came up with details. Usually I read Haaretz, it have a declared left wing agenda and yet very reliable. But yet, political commentaries are by their nature biased, even when come directly from "The New York Times" or "Washington Post".--Gilisa (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And your conclusion ....is? As I said: if this newsource (associated with the Israeli settlers movement) is accepted as WP:RS, then, in all fairness, you have to accept http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ (associated with Hamas) also. From my outside-view-point: its both...or none. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. You've shared nothing about that newspaper but its website. Nor is it at issue. As I expect you know, WP:Otherstuffexists is the short answer for why we don't have to look at that website in any event in determining whether this paper is RS, saving us from asking you to detail in what ways that website is simiilar or dissimilar.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely totally incorrect. I found http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ on the web-site of The largest Palestinian solidarity organizations in Norway..it links to the web-site, while stating that the web-site is "Hamas-friendly"...now, AFAIK, there are (at least!) as many supporters of Hamas as there are supporters of Israeli settlers. Why should one "voice" be accepted as R.S. while the other not?? (My own POV: we can do without either. But to just accept one -and not the other- is to accept bias, IMO.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ provide adequate sources and it's not its commentary then we can theorticaly use it as a source. However, unlike this website, Arutz 7 is not one topic source, it's not only reporting on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the comparsion you made is clearly not a proportional one. Arutz 7 focus is actually against the Israeli left wing, and as I worte-that's ok because almost all media sources have certain color. What we should do, and it dpn't seem too much to ask, is to know to differentiate right from wrong. The Guardian have stong anti Israeli agenda, its reports were accused not once to verged with Anti Semiti when it comes to Israeli subjects, and yet no one (including me) suggested to disqualified it as a source. Not long time ago the "Daily Telegraph" reported that the Iranian president is Jewish (it was a blatant canard) -and even it's basically a tabloid, no one suggested to color it as unreliable. So, in principle, I don't believe that source could be disqualified a-priori based only on its generall agenda (unless it's all propaganda non factual source as the Der Stürmer/Pravda).--Gilisa (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As far as the provided diff, the editor used a wiki WTA ("terrorists"), but the information itself - i.e. that Yavne was the most northern city hit by a terrorist attack, is certainly reliable.
p.s. I agree that the comparison is invalid. The pro-Palestinian source even uses the ridiculous derogatory IOF terminology instead of IDF. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If Arutz Sheva (including its arm "Israel National News") is a reliable source then every organization that calls itself a news source should be regarded as a reliable source, because this is about as two-bit and unreliable as it gets. Most of its articles are reruns of what appeared elsewhere with its own extremist spin added. Plenty of times I've seen things there that are simply wrong according to respectable news outlets. If information is true and significant, it will appear somewhere reputable. If information doesn't appear anywhere else, it is highly suspect. So we don't need it. There are posters here who always argue that Jewish sources are reliable and always argue that Arab sources are unreliable; we can do better than that. Zero^talk 11:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Zero, that's a large generalization you made. No doubt that Arutz 7 have its own agenda, but to be honest, Haaretz also have it (many of its senior writers on political affairs, such as Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, are proclaimed extreme left wing, even pro Palestinians), Fox News have it, El Jazira have it, BBC have it. After all, it's a professional right wing news source -some of its reports are biased on the political aspect, but it never came with made up information. As I said before, many times media sources that are evaluated as reliable for granted turned to be badly mistaken and vice versa. It should be evaluated per report using our discretion. --Gilisa (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, applying discretion to individual reports is original research. We are supposed to report what the source said, provided it is a "reliable" source. You are quite right that even big organizations like the BBC have biases and make mistakes, but what is the use of the rules if we just allow any organization at all to be accepted? The right place to draw the line is not objectively clear, but in my opinion Arutz Sheva is well below it. A7 is the mouthpiece of a sector of the settler movement in Israel and what they claim should only be admissible as a claim made by that movement. Zero^talk 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil it, but A7 also had many times comprehensive interviews with high rank American and European officials, with high ranking commanders in the IDF and etc. You can't exclude it as a source, just ignoring the commenatry would be much appropriate. They don't have reputation of introducing false information, so they are very well above the standards-the same way FOX news is (which is actually the best comparison you have as they both have right wing agenda with some similarities).--Gilisa (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment This whole discussion is absurd and an attempt to discredit. Israel National News/ Arutz 7 is an accredited member of the Israeli media with high standards of journalism that certainly do not fall below that of the mass-market tabloids Yediot and Maariv (that are credible?). It's not a question of us calling something a news source as Zero0000 cries, but a lot to do with reporters having approved journalist status and free access to politicians on all sides of the spectrum, access to official government press conferences, and also presenting differing views in its opinion pages. --Shuki (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS - todays Front Page has a poll "What's the best solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict? 1. Two states for two peoples 2. Transfer of Palestinians to another Arab country 3. Maintain status quo 4. Give Palestinians Jordanian citizenship". At least one of those choices (perhaps 3 of them) would cause International outrage and another option (a state for all its people) has been excluded. 86.169.183.36 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is kind of interesting to read that groups which have goals which qualify as war crimes/ethnic cleansing (AFAIK) is being portrayed as "a group like any other". More specifically; I will strongly object to the comparison with FOX; although I´m no fan of FOX, it must be said that they to *not* state that they are spokespeople for a group which is based on an activity which is internationally considered as illegal. Namely settling on occupied territory. In any case; if Arutz 7 is accepted as RS, for balance; it is obvious that Hamas-associated newssources also must be accepted, IMO. (Personally; I could do without both). Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)  

I've spent some time looking through it, and I believe its RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

About two studies re-stated by The New York Times and Las Vegas Sun

The article Las Vegas, Nevada uses [23] and [24] to reference the statement "Las Vegas has one of the highest suicide and divorce rates of the U.S.[23][24] A research study that found Las Vegas residents are 40% less likely to commit suicide if they leave Las Vegas and visitors are twice as likely to commit suicide there as elsewhere was published in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper in 2008, breaking a long-time taboo on discussion of suicide in Las Vegas.[25]". But I think that [24] should not be uses as the source since when referencing official statistics Wikipedians should not use news reports as sources as they are mere re-statements. Please substitute official statistics and academic sources for journalistic sources.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a question, but if the question is "are the new york times and the las vegas sun reliable sources for what a study says," the answer is "yes, they are." Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

However, since journalists and reporters are usually gradated from department of journalism or mass media, they usually are not able to fully comprehend the topic a research paper belong to, therefore they make re-tellings unreliable. [25] is acceptable since this verifies the fact that finally one news media in Las Vegas is willing to discuss suicide there, but [24] is unacceptable since it is primarily a re-statement and can be verified by academic sources and official statistics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not how we operate here. Newspapers are reliable with respect to the content of studies. If there is any dispute to the accuracy of the newspaper account, that dispute will appear in other reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree with RekishiEJ to this extent: while the newspaper reports establish that these statistics are "notable" (and can be included), in such cases it would surely be even better to cite the study directly (when possible) as well as or instead of the newspaper reports about it? --Paularblaster (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More sources are better than fewer. Citing the study directly in addition to the newspapers would be nice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. On one hand WP should not be original research. On the other it should not just be a digest of what the newsmedia say. Original sources can be used to give more depth and accuracy, as in this case. Good work. Borock (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Corporal punishment in the home#New Zealand Study for a fairly recent example of when a newspaper summary was shown to be quite different from that of the actual research study. This does not, however, mean that we can't use newspapers as references in these cases. That a study or poll is referenced in a newspaper doesn't generally mean that we're not allowed use the newspaper as a citation, so long as the newspaper has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But it is always proper to look up the actual research paper itself. Gabbe (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We should cite the study itself as newspapers, even the high quality ones, are usually not very good in summarizing the results of academic studies. Unfortunately this is particularly true when it comes to empirical studies and the interpretation of statistical results. So yes, cite the study and maybe cite the newspaper for the convenience of the reader if the newspaper summary is reasonably accurate. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Politico; Also for Book reviews: New Engish Review and Pajamas Media

Is it appropriate for me to use the following two sources as book reviews for the book in question?

"The New English Review reviewed the book ... writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America."[25] Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book"."[26]

Also, is it acceptable to use as a RS this article by Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, a former national reporter for The New York Sun, in Politico? --Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The refs don't work without a ref section. You should probably do simple refs with just hard brackets. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PF. Done.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New English Review looks good. Looking quickly, I didn't find anything to make the pajama site look reliable. Is this information controversial? I see you've used attribution, which is good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This relates to possible inclusion in an article on the book Muslim Mafia, where as you can see from the AfD many additions are challenged. I wanted to get a sense here as to which if any of those three were appropriate for inclusion in that article, to forestall possible edit warring. As to Politico (and specifically the article by that author), do you have a view? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Politico is reliable, but it's not a slam dunk. It's like the Huff post, where there's a bit of disagreement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Politico is definitely a RS, but as mentioned above, it's not a slam dunk; but the same goes for every major news outlet. Regarding Josh Gerstein, he's a professional journalist: current White House correspondent and blogger for The Politico; former national reporter for The New York Sun; former producer/reporter for ABC News (job titles included White House correspondent and Beijing correspondent); his op-eds have been published in The New York Times and USA Today; former senior editor of the Harvard Crimson. APK because, he says, it's true 02:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Pajamas Media book review: Phyllis Chesler (note the spelling, and the blue link) is a professor emirita, and the author of 13 published books, including one that relates fairly closely to the topic addressed by the book in question. I'd say that in this instance, PJM qualifies as a reliable source for a book review. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it looks like they are all RSs in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The system works! You were all quite helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Funeral leaflet published on a personal website

Can this, at best a primary source, an apparent funeral leaflet (there is no evidence that it was ever published in a newspaper) created by persons unknown from material allegedly compiled by the deceased's son, and published on a personal website be considered a RS? --Martin (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, unless Darby is an expert in some way that I'm not seeing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Darby was for many years one of the leaders of the Liberal Party of New South Wales, but was suspended and now is a leader of the Christian Democratic Party. He is written about extensively in the book The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia.[27] The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he might meet WP:SPS for political issues, but I don't think that helps with obits. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that funeral notices are usually compiled by family members it not unconceivable that negative information is censored. For this reason we shouldn't consider funeral notices as reliable source. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Context is important... few sources are "always reliable" or "always unreliable". A self-published obituary or funeral notice is probably very reliable for non-controvercial information (date of birth for example), but not for anything more. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not self-published less reliable than self-published?

This is a PDF about Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights co-authored by Ray Murray, senior lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, with publications in scholarly journals on the subject of conflict resolution and "Contemporary Challenges to the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law". It's published by a rather obscure NGO based in the Israeli-occupied Golan. Does that count as a reliable source because it's "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" per WP:SPS? Or should it be considered unreliable since it's not actually self-published and may be influenced by the publisher's bias? Currently it's mostly used for the list of village names in the appendix, and for the fate of one village not included in that list. Huon (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar cases may come up again, so it would be good to get a variety of views. My instinct is to treat as self-published by an expert. The reason we do not treat it as equivalent to a book issued by an academic publisher or an article in a scholarly journal is not because of potential bias. It's because the safeguards of peer review and fact-checking are missing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that he is an expert on conflicts and humanitarian law, so my guess is that he wrote the part of the report that addresses these issues, but not necessarily the list of village names in the appendix. It is more likely that the coauthor or the NGO staff did that, and this guess is supported by the footnote in the report. So I wouldn't treat this as self-published. Ray Murray is an expert for law and conflict resolution, but not exactly an expert on Syrian or Israeli villages and history, at least according to your description and according to his previous publications listed on his webpage. In any case WP:SPS should be used only in expectional cases. It is not unusual for experts to both have a distinguished publication record and to be polemic, misleading or partisan in other publications (such as newspaper columns, blogposts etc). I am not saying that this is here the case, but given the controversial nature of everything related to the Mid East conflict I would be very cautious about any source that is not of a very high quality. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about this one. Given what passes for the copyright notice on this, final editorial control may rest with the organization rather than the individuals bylined; we don't know what the expert' final text looked like. There's a notorious example of a piece by Desmond Tutu on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which turns out to be republished by various organizations in heavily edited/distorted form, including a standard headline making a claim that wasn't in Tutu's actual text Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some additional information: First of all, it's Ray Murphy, not Murray - my mistake. And he seems aware of the publication and mentions it in his list of publications, downloadable under http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/documents/ray_publications_2009.doc . So it's probably not distorted beyond his recognition. Indeed he didn't write that list of names; it's supposed to be a translation of an Israeli military order. So the conclusion is that Murphy's NGO connections might have misrepresented that order, so the PDF is not a reliable source for that list of names? I'll try and ask the IDF for an official Israeli translation, but I don't think one exists. Huon (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[28]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [29] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [30] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This source is being discussed as a RS regarding the article Pre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights. See the talk there for opinions of involved editors, and the recent comments at an Afd debate on this article. Shlomke (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Court documents?

Are court documents and sworn written testimony acceptable as long as it is mentioned as such? For example, writing in WP "However, according to court transcripts, defendant Paulo Santos testified that he was not at the murder scene and produced a store receipt from a shop that was 2000 km away" This is not original research if no conclusions were made, just summarizing the source documents. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable but primary sources, and should be used with great care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you've prefaced the statement with the word "However" indicates that it is intended as a counter-argument. One shouldn't use primary sources to do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say in that case using it as a counter-argument would be ok, as it is stating that Paulo Santos is himself counter-arguing X and so using the word HOWEVER may in fact be the best use for that sentence.Camelbinky (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors cannot construct counter-arguments. Please see WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It isnt "constructing a counter-argument" it is attributing the actual statement and opinions of the defendant as they appear. The defendant himself is counter-arguing information/evidence presented against him. We do not put forth information as "the truth" when there is more than one "side" to the story, in that case we use attribution of the opinions. If one "side" says X, and one side says Y; and we can not realistically know which side is correct, we say "V says X, and W says Y", that isnt wp:SYNTH that is how Wikipedia functions. See- every discussion on the OR/N that has ever happened.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't mine court transcripts to build a defense for an individual. We're not defense lawyers here, we're Wikipedia editors. We summarize what reliable secondary sources have to say on topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue might be brought to WP:BLPN since there is more latitude in allowing defenses of individuals against accusations, including through primary sources which can be used carefully. I think you could leave out the "However" and just say what he or his attorneys or witnesses say. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Court documents do not demonstrate the notability of whatever you are gleaning from the document. If whatever information is in the document had any relevence to the article at all, another, obviously reliable source would have noted the court document. While the source is reliable, it is primary, and should not sole-source any questionable fact. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the source can show what he alleged was his alibi; it can't be used to say "this is a good alibi and proves he wasn't there." That's the big difference. Though it seems some WP:RS covering the trial might have mentioned the fact of that alibi also. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read Hipocrite's and my previous responses. There's no indication that this statement is notable, and one cannot mine court transcripts to build a defense for an individual. If reliable secondary sources did not see any need or reason for quoting the primary source on that specific point, then Wikipedia should not do so either. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Peregrine Fisher and CarolMooreDC, primary sources can be reliable but must be used with caution. You can say something like "Mr. A said X happened, but Mr. B said Y happened", and you can add fine detail to what's been covered in broad strokes by secondary sources. But it can't go beyond that, lest it stray into an original essay. It may also help if we knew whether this was a hypothetical or if this is a debate happening on someone's biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Squidfryerchef (which is pretty much what I said, I see PF and Carol get mentioned, cant I get some credit in your post too? ;-) ). To Jayjg- Wikipedians cant go and argue at the VPP that it is ok to use primary sources for spoilers/plots because "notability" only applies to article topics not to individual pieces of information and then say the opposite here. I dont know if your involved in the other non-related discussion, but if your one that agrees that pieces of information must have secondary sources to back them up then I ask you go there to support my claim that you cant have an entire plot section based solely on the primary source, "if it isnt notable enough to be covered by a secondary source, it shouldnt be in the article" is what I said and I was shot down. If you disagree with my statement at that other discussion but then want to use the exact same argument here, you'd be a hypocrite.Camelbinky (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect that testimony would count as the equivalent of a WP:SPS, and should be subject to the restrictions of WP:SELFPUB. It would also not be considered to have much 'prominence' per WP:DUE. WP:SECONDARY sources are always preferred. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Court transcripts and judgments should almost never be used as sources on wikipedia except to supplement what is already sourced to independent secondary sources, eg, if we are describing OJ Simpson's testimony based on what LA Times says, it would be okay to also add a supplementary link to the transcripts (if available); similarly Supreme Court judgments can be linked in articles that discuss them based on secondary sources. Except for such narrow common-sense exceptions, such sources should not be used, especially in BLPs. This is the case not only because of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR concerns, but because legal documents can be difficult for non-experts to interpret, and transcripts are easy to misinterpret and quote without context. Anyway, is there a specific article and source that you have concerns about ? We may be able to provide a more specific answer if we know the context. Abecedare (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as Hrafn and Abecedare have said; court transcripts should almost never be used as sources on Wikipedia, for the many valid policy reasons raised above. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-described guide to "alternative opinion"

Basically, the situation is that an editor has added a very explosive passage that was taken from a film review titled "Ridley Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer's latest is racist crap" that was posted (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/down_the_tubes-38345929.html?rating=&rating=) on the Philadelphia Weekly website. This passage from the Philadelphia Weekly film review also contains personal insults, racial epithets and all sorts of charges of racism vis-a-vis the movie Black Hawk Down over which there is a disagreement on content. Here it is for reference:

"As these interchangeable models of Aryan handsomeness valiantly blast away at hordes of shrieking monsters, Black Hawk Down begins to resemble Starship Troopers, only without all the klutzy satirical aspirations--and with black people instead of alien bugs.

That's where we run into the real trouble. I have no idea if Ridley Scott is a racist (though judging from Cuba Gooding Jr.'s scenes in Pearl Harbor I'm certain Jerry Bruckheimer is), but Black Hawk Down often plays like Birth of a Nation: The Next Generation. Scott has reduced the complexities of a notorious foreign policy blunder to what happens when a bunch of clean-cut white boys venture into the wrong side of town and get roughed up by some giant, scary niggers.

Then, later on in the movie, we get to watch the good guys blast all those dirty black bastards straight into oblivion--much to the audible, hollering delight of the capacity crowd at the screening I attended.

Pearl Harbor may have turned tragedy into a porn film, but Black Hawk Down is strictly snuff. Racist snuff, at that. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Although I believe the editor who added that passage above to the Wikipedia article ultimately meant well and was simply trying to expose what he felt was racism in the film, I think the passage is problematic because the Philadelphia Weekly describes itself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Philadelphia Weekly is your local guide to Philly's alternative news, reviews, opinion&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) as "your local guide to Philly's alternative news, reviews, opinion, ..." According to Wikipedia's WP:QS policy on questionable sources, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." WP:PROFANITY also states that "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

Since the Philadelphia Weekly article contains offensive terms and admits that it is an authority on "alternative opinion" on Philadelphia, and since this film review heavily relies on personal opinions (including the passage at hand), I believe this article is indeed a questionable source and therefore ought to be avoided as it is making contentious claims about a third party. I would like to know whether this is indeed the case, and if not, whether a simple sentence to the effect that the author of that article takes exception to what he feels are racist moments in the movie wouldn't perhaps work better? This is what I've tried to add in the past as a compromise, but other editors have insisted on including the full passage -- personal insults, racial epithet and all. This is also despite the fact that much more authoritative film reviews by critics with the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly are also cited in the article as taking exception to what their respective authors believe is the racist treatment of the film's plot, yet these more reliable sources aren't quoted from extensively let alone in the form of personal insults and racial slurs. 74.12.221.125 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a WP:RS, this is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Devoting this much space to a local magazine's opinion is too much weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely seems like a weight issue. 74.12.221.125 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge. The Philadelphia Weekly is an alternative newsweekly in the tradition of the Village Voice. Using it as a source in general is not a problem, although I agree with you that quoting four paragraphs filled with personal insults and racial epithets is excessive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Metropolitan90; that's basically what I was trying to say. Had this been a passage on fishing or weight loss, something mundane like that, instead of flippant accusations of any living person(s) being "racist", the n-word, an "idiot", etc. or describing a mainstream Hollywood film as "snuff" with little to no qualification whatsoever, I don't think anyone would've had issues with the source. 74.12.222.75 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and fixed the weight issue. Let's hope the edit isn't reverted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Harold W. Clark on George McCready Price

Is Harold W. Clark a RS for extensive information on George McCready Price? The former was a protege, co-religionist/fellow YEC and successor at Pacific Union College of the latter.

Ronald L. Numbers does cite Clark (as well as Price himself and numerous other Adventist sources -- Numbers tends to cite multiple sources per footnote, dozens per page & hundreds per chapter) for a small amount of material on Price in The Creationists, but this appears to be mainly for uncontroversial information: parentage & early childhood, bibliography, and similar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it may depend on the nature of the information that you are musing about. Certainly, for some information (such as the non-controversial info you point to) you can even accept it from someone with a direct COI--even the person himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The information in question is about the circumstances under which he gained his qualifications (generally at sectarian insitutions he was teaching at), his teaching (at PUC) & his writing career. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

At least the details of where he taught and when should be available from third WP:RS, to fact check. Other stuff is opinion and should be labeled as his. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reopening the question of source Career360 on the page on IIPM

Hi editors, A few weeks back I had raised the validity question on a source called Career360 that has been used blatantly throughout the article on IIPM by a single purpose account editor. The problem is that the source has given points of view that are neither widely held, and in many cases, go totally against the widely held information in top newspapers. Therefore, I wish to raise a question on the validity of the source of Career360 being used in IIPM. Please note, I have raised this question earlier and backed off on the argument series at that time as I did not find wide responses but only from one handful of people (although some past views were helpful). Here, I am reproducing a discussion on validity of the source. I take as an example just one paragraph in the whole article to show how blatantly the source of Career360 is being used by a single purpose account editor. Please go through and comment here. Thanks.

The ACADEMICS section Students who complete the IIPM certificate courses become eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium, which describes itself as an independent, privately held organization.[14][15]. According to NVAO, the accreditation agency for Netherlands and Belgium, IMI is not recognized as a higher education institution in Belgium, and the degrees it awards are not recognized as being credible.[16]

The line conjectures that NVAO, an agency, says IMI is not recognised. However, the reference that is given (namely, reference number 16, of Career360) is one that has been put up by me earlier to be a source that can not be verifiable -- 1. Because, it has been set up this year by the owner of a big media group (Outlook) which has in the past has had huge past conflicts of interest with IIPM (IIPM accused Outlook of giving wrong lower rankings; Outlook, in turn, accused IIPM of fudging data and took it out of rankings). 2. More importantly, the source in their report claims they've received an email from NVAO. But neither is the email identifiable (the source has given XXXX wherever they mention names or their sources), and this source is not widely verifiable. That is, NVAO should have said this to various sources for this reference to be allowed out here. This is perchance the only (or max two or three) of the web sites that purport to claim an NVAO point of view. 3. The source mentions Flanders as Belgium. Flanders is only the French speaking part of Belgium; in other terms, the Norther part of Belgium with parts of the capital city. The English speaking and bi-lingual part of Belgium is deliberately excluded. And the Flander region in specific details refers to the community of Flemings only. Therefore clearly a wrong line. 4. The editor in question has written that NVAO purportedly says IMI's degrees are not credible. A clear conjecture even if you were to depend upon the line inside the unreferenced article, which simply says that IMI cannot offer recognised degrees.

I bring another paragraph within the ACADEMICS section

According to IIPM, only 70 percent of its students opt for the placement process, and it claims that almost all of these 70 percent students get jobs through it.[14] However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman, which is IIPM's own sister organization[19]. As per the website, more than 600 companies have visited IIPM campuses across the country, and some students have gotten foreign offers too. However, several companies such as Standard Chartered, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, which are mentioned in IIPM advertisements, told the magazine Careers360 that they have never participated in IIPM's campus recruitment process. [16]

The single purpose account editor says that 'However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman.' The reference he/she gives clearly doesn't mention that at all, and simply says that across India, many institutions like 'Indian Institute of Planning and Management invites companies to the campus, but also offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.'. I clearly notice how words have been engineered radically to give a negative twist by one singular editor. Instead of the single purpose account editor giving top newspaper references more easily available that mention IIPM has had 100% placements, he/she again refers to the reference of Career360 or IIPM's website (that anyway should be used less for such things as placements). Clearly, the soruce of Career360 should be cut down because a single source purporting statements that are not widely referenced (max by 2 or 3 self referencing tabloids, and not at all by respected newspapers). But beyond this, I also mention other points . The source of Career 360 is used like a garnishing throughout the article. And even through the paragraph of ACADEMICS in question. Clearly, the single purpose account editor in question has used the source with a very biased point of view and without the support of other sources. There are no other sources used, although a random search on Google news search shows to me some top newspapers quoting that IIPM placements are very very good. Or that GOTA is brilliantly being done. Of course, the argument can be that why don't we put sources that say these things. We should. Provided single purpose accounts are brought into a discussion mode on whether they'll have a problem if such widely referenced sources are put (as it seems they have deleted valid references, merged valid sections like Gota, and worked widely towards giving a biased point of view to the article, at the same time rejected the idea of tagging the article for questioning the article's point of view, validity of sources etc). I refer to another line on placements added by the single purpose account editor in the paragraph called ACADEMICS.

It has also been reported that IIPM now has seven international placement offices.[17][20][21] However, according to an investigation by Careers360, jobs that IIPM students get abroad in places like the gulf countries come with severe restrictions and moderate pay.[16]

My argument cannot be clearer out here. While valid references are quoted, again the Career360 source is quoted without any other newspaper source confirming that. Therefore, out here, my request is that editors should a. Divide the paragraph ACADEMICS into more paragraphs with more headings (if I am allowed to go ahead, I will do that). b. Add more widely sourced valid references rather than a single source purporing a not widely held point of view (again, if I am allowed, I will do that). c. Encourage the single purpose account to maintain a neutral point of view rather than starting with a point of view that simply is disruptive. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who are interested in commenting on this question may want to review the prior discussion on this source started by this user in August. Note that Wifione has also requested that no comments be made here by editors currently involved in the article (i.e., the people who disagreed in the last submission to this space that was decided against Wifione's position). I'm not going to directly comment on the source, but I do want to provide some context for others. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think requesting current editors to not comment would not be right out here. So I take back my request, which I think was a little over the line... I think it's perfectly ok for editors to comment. And at this juncture, after seeing some logical reasoning of WeisheitSuchen on my talk board, I think I should apologise for calling unnamed editors spas. But would look forward to everybody's comments. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I would also like editors commenting out here to note that while a few weeks back, I had raised the question of whether Career360 is a valid source, this time, I'm also necessarily showing how it is now being used as almost a singular source of reporting across the article for negative points of view. Therefore, my question is on how can a single source --- whose claims are not widely held (not a fringe theory, but almost) ---- be used so many times throughout the article, wherein there are other sources much more credible and for too many more years in publication which report other points of view? Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 07:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If other reliable sources have different point-of-views than the Career360 article(s), simply quote them both with attribution and let the reader decide what to believe. That is the essence of WP:NPOV. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Career 360 is a minority view held by only a handful of sources. Minority views should not be included in the articles on Wikipedia. It is not enough to include opposing views. It is required that minority views are deleted or relegated to a spacing that is worth minority views. For information, the Career 360 source is used 7 times out of the total 40 odd sources used within the article. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't comment, but I've taken some more time to familiarize myself with the history now. If it's a "handful of sources" then it's likely not a "fringe theory" as you have claimed. The POV of Careers 360 is basically that IIPM's advertising hasn't been entirely truthful. There's an entire article on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy which explains the accusations, the response, and the media coverage. It's notable enough for an article; at a minimum that makes it a significant minority, perhaps even the majority view. Abecedare is entirely correct: the way to achieve NPOV is to add alternative viewpoints. Achieve balance by adding, not subtracting. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(deindent)
The Career360 article is one of the most recent and most in-depth independent source we have on the subject (can anyone point to any other such source ?). As such it is not surprising that one of the best sources would be used multiple times in an article. Also the Career360 findings are certainly not a "minority view" but well in line with claims discussed in IIPM Advertising Controversy and finding by the University Grants Commission; therefore there are no WP:REDFLAG concerns. Finally, as Wifione notes, the Career360 article is cited only 6-7 times, out of a total of 60-70 citations, so there are no undue weight either.
Wifione, if you still have concerns about how the source is used in the article, I would suggest that you start an WP:RFC and invite outside opinion on the article talk page, since this noticeboard is not the right venue for such detailed analysis, once a source has been determined to be reliable. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks Abecedare. Let me go through the points. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Career 360 seems to be like a consultant/placement agency whoa re using this page for publicity purposes. I vote for all their links to be removed and if possible blacklisted. If it was Times education, it would have been different, but not this.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with Rsrikanth05 - it is editorial content, not advertising, and appears to be a magazine with journalistic standards.Martinlc (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Martinlc, you're right; this is a magazine meets the typical requirements for a reliable source. Here's a summary by Abecedare from the end of the previous discussion:

1. it has a reputable publisher, Maheshwar Peri, 2. reputable editor, B Ramesh Sarma, who also happens to have penned the article being cited, and 3. it is marketed and distributed by Outlook Group, which not only published Outlook (magazine) but has also distributed Newsweek, Marie Claire etc in India. 4. Finally the claims made by the magazine article are similar in nature to the ones made by other media and governmental agencies (as summarized in IIPM article and in IIPM Advertising Controversy), so there are no WP:REDFLAG issues either.

As long as we paraphrase the magazine claims accurately and neutrally, and attribute them to the source, I don't see any problem with reliability. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, your suggestion of removal and blacklisting seems quite drastic. Can you go into more detail of why you feel the page should be blacklisted in spite of the above points? I don't think simply saying it is used for publicity warrants that kind of response, especially when consensus has been that it's a reliable source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The arguments made by wifione here are all addressing the content of the article and not the reliability of the source. All this stuff written by wifione constitutes original research. There is no real reason provided why Careers360 is not WP:RS. It is a magazine available on news stands, and run by reputed publishers. These posts by wifione read more like rants against me, and do not, I think, belong on the RS notice board. Yet another example of forum-shopping gone wrong. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of those editors not familiar with the Indian publication scene, this blog post by Vir Sanghvi, one of the most respected names in Indian journalism, gives some context. http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=340

Note that I am giving a link to the article only to provide some context. I know Sanghvi's blog does not qualify as RS so should not and will not be used as a source. Just providing context. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source?

Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source? User:Ryulong thinks it's not a reliable source because "The Kentucky Kernel is the University of Kentucky student newspaper", but I think it's a reliable source as it's a award wining newspaper with readership of more than 30,000. The source in question is this news article from The Kentucky Kernel being used as a source for info that Mighty Morphin Power Rangers‎ will be remastered for its 2010 rebroadcast, this is the second news article that Ryulong says is not reliable source for that info, the first was this news article from TVShowsOnDVD.com. Powergate92Talk 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get to the general question. The cited source is not a news article, but an opinion column, written by a college freshman with no demonstrable expertise on the subject matter. In the absence of any evidence that the publisher fact-checks its opinion columns to this level of detail, I wouldn't treat this opinion piece as a reliable source on this point (or most of its other factual assertions). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hullaballoo. I do believe college papers can be reliable sources in appropriate circumstances, but this proposed use of an opinion column isn't one of them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. College newspapers may be reliable under certain circumstances, but not in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say, go ahead and use it. Wikipedians are always complaining about pop culture articles lacking secondary sources. Here someone finds a source that is published through an outlet with an editorial process, and is a critical and not a trivial mention, and people say to take it out? Yes, a college newspaper is still normally an RS, and is probably a good choice for pop culture relevant to that demographic. After some quick Googling, I'd also say that it's a good secondary-source validation of something that's been all over the blogs, and is partially confirmed by this press release from Bandai.[31] I also wouldn't have too much of a problem with TVShowsOnDVD.com. Our own article about the site shows they are pretty notable in their field, have ties with studios, and it shouldn't be too hard to show that the authors know a little something about movies. We shouldn't be requiring academic sources for non-academic topics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would consider TVShowsOnDvd.com a reliable source. It is owned by the same company as TVGuide.com. [32] It is also used as a source for mainstream media (see [33], for example). I would not use the Kentucky Kernel for this purpose (to report on the remastering/re-airing of a television series) because that's the sort of news item that the writer would most likely have gotten from a published source, which should be tracked down instead. It's unlikely that ABC/Disney gives exclusive scoops about its programming to a freshman college journalist in Kentucky, as opposed to providing such information to Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and mainstream media. If the Kentucky Kernel is the only publication that can be found reporting on a scheduled network television broadcast, I would not necessarily assume that the Kentucky Kernel is the only publication that got the story right. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be better sources, but a large college newspaper is reliable for non-controversial, non-BLP, type info. So, yes, it is reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The TVShowsOnDVD.com article does not explicitly say that the show is to be remastered, he merely got the information from a third party who said it is "remastered". And The Kentucky Kernel article is an opinion column written by a freshman student at UKentucky. There is no way that these two pieces, which trivially mention what is only a rumor in the Power Rangers online communities (where they likely got the information) should not be taken as a reliable source. Neither article focuses on the remastering. The TVShowsOnDVD.com article discusses the DVD release of the current show, and mentions "remastered" in one sentence but the content of the Promo DVD being described is the toys. The Kentucky Kernel article has about as much coverage, and then goes into the rest of the opinion piece. There is still nothing out there (to anyone's standards) that states that this TV show will be remastered at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The TVShowsOnDVD.com article is not "discusses the DVD release of the current show" it discusses a Promo DVD that has "some other bonus features on board, including "Rangers Moves", "Rangers Lessons" and a Sneak Peek of January's return to ABC Saturday Mornings of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...which has been described as a return (rebroadcast) of the original 1993 series...remastered and with a new logo." What do you mean "the content of the Promo DVD being described is the toys" if you look at the photos in the article you will see that the DVD says "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Sneak Peek" and "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Coming Soon To Saturday Mornings On ABC". TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable source, like Metropolitan90 said "It is owned by the same company as TVGuide.com. It is also used as a source for mainstream media". I don't think a website owned by the same company as TV Guide that is used as a source for mainstream media would get there info from a unreliable source. Powergate92Talk 06:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not focus on the fact that is remastered. All we have is information that there is going to be a rebroadcast, which we have other better reliable sources to state. Sources that do not come from someone telling someone else and that person posts it on TVShowsOnDVD.com. Sources that do not come from a college freshman writing an opinion piece.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blockland - world map of servers

http://blockland.kalphiter.com/stats/world.php

Is this a good thing to put in the "external links"?

It's a map of the world showing every Blockland server, their location, and title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalphiter (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:ELN might be a more appropriate location to ask that question. Gabbe (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Aubane Historical Society - Not Reliable Source?

It should be noted that the proposer, (and closer) of this 'enquiry', (User talk:99.135.170.179) has been the subject of a sock-puppet investigation, with a result that he has been rangeblocked for three months; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. The basis on which this discussion took place (WP:AGF) is therefore seriously undermined and the decision should be revisited. RashersTierney (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If the current editors at the talkpage of the article in question are in agreement on how to proceed, there's really no need to bring it up again at RSN. --Elonka 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aubane have been 'tagged' as an unreliable source in the archived discussion. The issue goes far beyond the Irish Bulletin article. From the posts of the IP, it appears that his intention from the beginning had more to do with 'achieving' that Not Reliable Source tag than genuinely seeking NPOV advice on sources. RashersTierney (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Elonka's summary is correct for all articles due to SELF and VANITY on the part of the publisher. Any specialist author publishing in a SELF or VANITY mode causes such a work to be tainted by their avoidance of academic peer review. Works published by the Aubane Historical Society are not RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The key point is really whether or not AHS is being used to source information that is "contentious". If no one is challenging the information, then the sourcing is probably not an issue. WP:V only kicks in for "information that is challenged or likely to be challenged." --Elonka 00:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) I didn't comment on the first discussion, but agree with the original conclusion that the Aubane Historical Society should not be a considered a reliable source as a general rule. We seek sources with a reputation of accuracy and with fact checking. There are just too many external critiques of exactly these characteristics of their publications. Here are more; the source/publisher of the "review" is listed, followed by what they had to say about AHS publications.

• Elizabeth Bowen: the enforced return, Neil Corcoran Oxford University Press.[34] p. 184 "Very badly edited and its transcriptions are not always reliable". p. 185-6 There is some faint praise "The AHS's polemic is ignorant in some respects... but it is not altogether unintelligent and it is not unscrupulous"
• Elizabeth Bowen: the shadow across the page, Maud Ellmann Edinburgh University Press p. 35 [35] "Ill-edited edition"; "This edition, which contains a vitriolic attack on Bowen's disloyalty to Ireland, is full of errata".
• The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making It Up in Ireland Oxford University Press. "A mystifyingly crude version was produced in 1993 by the editor of the shadowy Aubane Historical Society's eccentric North Cork Anthology"
• That neutral island: a cultural history of Ireland during the Second World War Clair Wills, Belknap Press p. 431 [36] "with numerous typographical errors and an extremely partial attack on Bowen".

--Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aubane Historical Society's publications do not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed that none of the posting editors above has made any mention of the particular concern that I raised: that the initiating editor was clearly (in light of subsequent investigation) pursuing a hidden agenda. The point raised by Elonka, that issues of sources being reliable only arises if it is "contentious" is naive in the extreme. We now have an officially endorsed version of Irish history on Wikipedia. Any point ref'd to an Aubane publication can now be deemed non-RS, without further discussion, with the default being that it must be corroborated 'by a peer reviewed publication' or removed. The points raised by Slp1 above relate to a single book - generalised to reflect on everything printed by Aubane (before and since the Bowen critique) and repeated almost verbatim. What we have here amounts to censorship. RashersTierney (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the initiating editor was irrelevant to the analysis made by WP:RS/N editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP and the POV sources he contributed, informed the entire discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That the initiating editor had a agenda is/was irrelevant. It was obvious to all and sundry right from the start, as is/was the agenda of those seeking to defend Aubane, by reopening the discussion amongst other things. And of course, claiming censorship is a red-flag of this sort of thing! People come here to get the opinion of uninvolved editors about whether a publisher can be seen as a reliable source. Those of us who respond look at a bunch of policy-based factors, and comment. We're used to filtering out the agendas and focussing on the question at hand. I think it is clear that there are just too many questions about the editorial oversight given by the AHS, and that a consensus has developed. Consensus can change, and AHS's ideas, if notable and significant, can always be included and cited to them using attribution. But for citing information/facts... no, find some other better citations from non-polemic sources that have more of a reputation for fact-checking. Oh, and the reviews are discussing two books, not one.--Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be crystal clear, I am not seeking to defend Aubane as a reliable source in all cases. Many of their publications are polemical, even idiosyncratic, but not all. What I am requesting is that not everything published by them is rubber-stamped as unreliable without any further examination. That is my understanding of how things stand at present RashersTierney (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that reliability inheres in the Publisher, not in the Author. The publisher's problem is not POV; but that the Publisher is not conducted on a commercial for profit or academic basis. The publisher publishes for polemical reasons, and is additionally known to be of poor quality. The publisher publishes its members works (SELF & VANITY). It lacks the editorial supervision of authors that commercial presses and academic presses have. Thus all works published are tainted. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo's analysis, though as we've discussed, an exception can and would be made if the author of the work was considered an "established expert" per WP:SPS. In general, I would strongly recommend focusing your research energies on material from other, more reliable, more esteemed publishers --Slp1 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Rest assured, I am not in the habit of tolerating, much less promoting poor historical sources. I fully agree with your view that established experts have a right to have their reputations stand on their own merit. Thanks for replies. RashersTierney (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting silly. Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan for example are the authors of a book published by Aubane. Aubane is not and never has been cited. Now as to the book by Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.

He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?

Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).

Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.

As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).

Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.

So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We will get nowhere discussing this source in the abstract. We already had a needlessly drawn-out discussion about a particular case. The consensus of those who regularly contribute to this board is that Aubane is not a good source for historical articles. We should try and find better sources. But policy makes it clear that there can be exceptions. For example, when authors' scholarly credentials are independently established their Aubane-published sources could be considered. But it depends on various factors (how well established is the scholar's reputation, are they writing in their own area of expertise, are the claims made controversial, etc.) and these need to be discussed in context. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Were is this consensus? I'll ask a simple question and all I ask is for a simple answer. If the author is considered to be a WP:RS it makes no difference who the publisher is? Yes or No will do. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do cite publishers... or at least the publisher is part of the citation. More importantly, the publisher is one of the things we look at when determining reliability. Both WR:RS#Self-published sources and WP:SELFPUB have cautions about using self-published sources.

That said, you are correct in saying that the author is more important than the publisher in cases like this. If it is clear that the author of a self-published book pass the bar set by those policy statements, then it does not matter whether the publisher is a vanity press... If the authors have been published elsewhere, we can consider them "acknowledged experts" and cite their self-published books.

Applying WP:V and WP:RS to the issue... when a source is published by Aubane, use caution. Look a bit deeper... see who the author is and what else the author has published. Our policies do not "ban" self-published sources... but they do limit them. So you need to determine if the specific source and author pass those limitations. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Blueboar thanks for that! Could you explain one thing for me though? Take Fr Brian P Murphy osb for example, if he has one of his books say John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995) and one published by Aubane like A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1 are you saying only the one published by Aubane is considered self-published? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll risk answering here in lieu of Blueboar. Yes, Murphy's book published by Irish Academic Press is a reliable source, by virtue of its publisher. And yes, his book published by Aubane would fall into the category self-published because Aubane is does not appear to exert adequate editorial control for our purposes. So, as with any self-published material, a Murphy book published by Aubane would need to be evaluated on its merits, including, for example only, whether is it written in an area of Murphy's published expertise, whether is being used to source extraordinary claims, or to cite facts about living persons. --Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Murphy's 'Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda' is cited in Kenneally's The Paper Wall (ISBN 9781905172580) 'Sources and Bibliography p234. RashersTierney (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good. But as I said, one would need to look at what was being proposed nonetheless. After all, as noted above, being cited in scholarly works is not always a sign that the work is respected.! And I think it is clear that facts about a living person, for example, or other controversial material should not be sourced to a Murphy book published by Aubane, even if the book has been cited by others for other things.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The question of refs to living persons doesn't arise in this case. The subject is history dating from the 1919-22 period. Unfortunately, from a verification perspective, none can now add to our knowledge, or clarify controversial points. RashersTierney (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just modified my post above slightly, in the meantime, because controversial material does need to be carefully sourced here on WP. So a question with two parts. What exactly are you trying to source from which Aubane book? --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire question arose from a disingenuous query here by an IP, since identified as disruptive and blocked from further editing. The IP's intent was to have Murphy's book listed as 'non-reliable' and so not to be ref'd at Irish Bulletin. The same ed. is responsible for the current unusual restrictions at that article. RashersTierney (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But a quick look suggests that Aubane material is being discussed at least one other article. And a BLP angle of some sort is being discussed there. As I'm sure you understand, it's not reasonable to ask editors here to opine without the specifics of the issue/question being discussed. --Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for link. I was not aware of that discussion, but have been away and otherwise distracted for the last few days. At the Irish Bulletin article, there is no outstanding controversial issue, apart from a 'fact tag' left by the IP (whether or not there was a short hiatus in political office). Murphy had been the ref'd source. It was challenged mala fides by the IP. RashersTierney (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 how do we know Irish Academic Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Aubane have published and restored some origional source material from both the National Archives at Kew in England and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin, Ireland. They include for example The Administration of Ireland 1920 by Major C. J. C. Street (Athol, 2001), Ireland by Lionel Curtis (Athol, 2002) and The Men I Killed by F. P. Crozier (Athol, 200) in addition to Sean Moylan in His Own Words by Sean Moylan (Aubane, 2004) which was the first of the Witness Statements from the years 1916-1921 to ever to published. So again the question remains how can these be considered self published? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They're PRIMARY material published by a VANITY press which is criticised by historians for poor veracity. Wikipedia is not a historian equipped for complex hermeneutical analysis of compromised texts. Asked and answered. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You really should provide some supporting evidence for your comments. Which "historians" have criticized Aubane as a publisher? Your conclusions have already been rejected here and in the previous discussion in relation to the Authors. Now I asked a reasonable question and would like a reasonable answer. Are the books re-published by Aubane which were located in the National Archives at Kew and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks considered a WP:RS? For example, would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would require WP:OR to verify that the books are in fact identical to the originals. Why should re-published books be needed on Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered, please read the archives. thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo you were asked and you answered. Having read the archives your conclusions did not really get any support, and there are still some questions still outstanding. Questions like why would we need WP:OR to verify that the books published by Aubane are identical to the originals. Anyone interested in Irish History would know why the books I cited above would be needed. For example, Frank Percy Crozier really should have an article, while Cecil Street, Lionel Curtis and Sean Moylan do have articles they need to be expanded. Now apart from the reproductions were else could editors source them? Now would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? Valid questions. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I listed above multiple reviews of Aubane works and its lack of editorial quality and control. Archival material published by them has been found to be "full of errata", for example. Please read the archives again. Clarendon Press appears to be a printing company, not a publisher, so I really don't understand your point, but no, not a reliable source. And to be honest, I am beginning to find this whole discussion becoming more and more "I didn't hear that-esque", and thus disruptive. I realize that the opinions of independent editors don't suit, but continuing to dispute things like this just isn't productive or useful.--Slp1 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided multiple reviews of Aubane works and its lack of editorial quality and control. You have offered an opinion by an author, that's it. Now as to Clarendon Press it has published some books by noted authors, some of which lack of editorial quality and control. Now I've raised a number of questions above and they have not been addressed, but I have not called it disruptive. Now you have given your opinion, and I'd welcome others. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside - we need to be careful with Clarendon Press, because it's also been used as an imprint by the eminently reliable Oxford University Press. The printer under discussion appears to be unrelated. Barnabypage (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

acclaimedmusic.net

I was looking at an article for a song and noticed this website used as a reference. I did a search and see that there's no article on the site itself, but it is used on quite a bit of album and song articles.

After looking around the site, it does not seem like it should be used as a wp:rs. It compiles lists of critic rankings, etc., but there's no fact-checking. One thing that I was particularly curious about is if it links directly to a verifiable source (ex. rollingstone.com). Nope. Take this page for example. It links a Q Magazine's list to an indirect source that reprints the list. There's a real question of verifiability here.

It's a good site, but it certainly doesn't look like it should be a wp:rs. Seems like there should be an effort to remove all references to this site.

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the personal website of Henrik Franzon; i.e. a WP:SPS. It does not qualify as a WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, look like a mass removal of it would be nice. As far as I know, this would have to be done manually. Am I correct? Thanks. -- --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose someone could write a bot to do so, and get it approved, but that would take weeks, if it happened at all. So, manually is the way. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thainidan News & Article on Tom Cruise and Chesley Sullenberger

Resolved

Is ThaiIndian News a reliable news source for this article? Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thaindian News is a portal for Indians living in Thailand. Since Tom Cruise wanting to make a movie about Chesley Sullenberger has nothing to do with India or Thailand, it appears that this story must have been picked up by Thaindian News from wire services. As it is, the article credits the information to the U.S. television show Entertainment Tonight. However, this article from E! Online, published the same day, says that Cruise has no plans to make a movie about Sullenberger and that Cruise gave no such interview to Entertainment Tonight. Consequently, I would not advise using the Thaindian News article about the proposed film unless the Cruise interview can be authenticated. For that matter, even if it can be authenticated, I am not sure that Cruise's desire to make such a movie would be worth mentioning (either in his article or in Sullenberger's) until the plans for the film become more concrete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your latter point, which is why I agree with the editor who removed the material from Sullenberger article. Such things also violate WP:Crystal. But that editor also cited the reliability of the source, so I just wanted to check on that for future reference. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Starpulse

Is this site reliable for biographical information on celebrities, like dates of birth? Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. With millions of pages, I don't think they have much editorial control. They might have articles that are reliable, but I don't think that's one of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator) & Huffington Post article

There's a quote from the Huffington Post that's being disputed by an editor.

In the "Banned from the UK" section, there's a quote from the Huffington Post that suggests the Savage was a hypocrite for expecting his First Amendment right to be upheld while not respecting the same rights for others. The section, as it is before expected reverts, is here and the section in the talk page is here. Zsero, the editor, does not agree with the conclusions cited in the published articles and feels that we should not include them. Here's a sample from his/her objection:

"Quoting the commentators would be valid if they were representative of some significant body of opinion, not just one or two ratbags either too thick to understand the difference between this and censorship, or too dishonest to acknowledge that difference."

I believe the Huffington Post qualifies as a reliable source, and the article quoted is very specific to a public incident where Savage was thrown off of an NPR talk show for shouting down a caller. Comments please. Mattnad (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattnad seems not to understand that the difference between "reliable" and other sources is in the fact-checking and editing that the former are claimed to perform. By definition opinions cannot be fact-checked, and indeed no "reliable source" does fact-check them, though they may check factual claims contained in opinion columns. It is conceivable that a fact-checker at HuffPo (if HuffPo actually employs any such) might have verified that this conversation actually took place, and was being reported accurately; but nobody could or did "check" that Savage was displaying any "hypocrisy" in refusing to talk to the caller. (In fact the HuffPo writer actually misrepresented the facts, claiming that Savage had hung up on the show, when in fact it was the host who terminated the interview and dismissed Savage; so not even the facts were checked here. But that's irrelevant, since we're discussing the writer's opinion, not his reporting of the facts.)

The bottom line is that an opinion is not somehow better or more noteworthy simply because it appeared in a "reliable source". Sam Sedeai's opinion is no more notable than mine. And in this case, his allegation of "hypocrisy" is either stupid or dishonest; it has no place in a Wikipedia article, unless it is notable, e.g. if a lot of pundits expressed that opinion, and Sedeai is merely being cited as a representative example. But that isn't the case. Two ratbags sounding off does not make a notable opinion worthy of inclusion in a WP biography of their target. -- Zsero (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be undeniably and indisputably RS. Is there some argument being put forth that it is not, distinct from BLP issues? What is that argument? Dlabtot (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO wikipedia has far too many obnoxious mere opinions posing as facts in WP:Biographies of living people. Only if it said by the most notable people, including someone with political import, or if it raises a stink which becomes central to a person's life, should such opinions be included. (And I'm not Michael Savage fan, FYI.) Any one else want to bring this general issue (probably again) to WP:BLP?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sources like the Huffington Post exist primarily to throw shit their opponents and are notable for opinion and even then only marginally so. WVBluefield (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well one could state that more so than some living persons (e.g., Ringo Starr), Micheal Savage takes strong positions that elicit commentary (like his public statements and legal actions around being banned in the UK). Savage is a controversial talk show host, makes money being that way, and so it's no surprise that his BLP has a large controversy section. But this is all BLP discussion, and not WP:RS. Zsero's objection was RS, although I'd expect him to change the forum for his complaints to WP:BLP if this group does not agree with him.Mattnad (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To me this is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Throughout his career, Savage has problably had thousands and thousands of exchanges with callers. What makes this particular one is notable, I don't know. This call is a minor detail. As for Sam Sedaei's opintion, again, I'm not sure that it's really very notable. I would recommend just removing the paragraph and stick to a broad overview of what the UK banning dispute is about. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not trying to make Savage look good/bad. 12.165.250.13 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no need to editorialize in the article, which is plainly what the huffpo article serves as. We have a problem w/ sites like huffpo being treated as reliable sources because they tend to write very opinionated, unbalanced articles and pass them off as news/facts. You can reply that RS doesn't consider that (which is true on face), but I feel we have a responsibility to our readers to present information free from slant. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And then to achieve WP:NPOV, another editor cites another highly opinionated questionable source which takes an opposing opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But that results in TERRIBLE articles, and it creates a game with no end. If I can include the savage piece, then at best I have to go find some equally "reliable" opinion piece to say that he was right to throw those callers off. More likely I won't be able to balance the comment specifically so I'll have to make the rest of the article more positive. then the next time each side has an incentive to add another "he said, which gets responded to with "she said". Even if both sides perfectly balance it out (a pretty utopian assumption), the resulting prose is god awful and the articles end up looking like a competing series of claims and counterclaims. Instead they should look like a broad, neutral and reasonable look at a subject. They should be written by the best sources, not half by character assassins and the other half by hagiographers. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was bemoaning these types of edits. Should we have some sort of policy or guideline that says when discussing serious topics (say global warming) that the opinions of political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore should be avoided? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I'd like you to point out some instances where "very opinionated, unbalanced articles" were "pass(ed) off as news/facts". It sounds like a damning charge but I think it is unsupported by evidence. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't be bothered. Either you know offhand of multiple cases where Fox or Huffpo has priviledged ideology over news or you aren't paying attention to political news. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"you can't be bothered"? LOL! Your are unable support your assertions with evidence because your assertions are false and no such evidence exists. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Being opinionated doesn't effect reliability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Peddling opinion journalism as fact impacts reliability. If you want to be literal, then fine, the use of opinion journalism doesn't impact WP:RS. But in this case we are sourcing a statement made by a columnist that Savage should not the irony in his demand for free speech because of some caller he shouted off a radio show. I'm sure all the relevant facts in the anecdote are correct. Savage is complaining about the barring on free speech grounds. Savage has probably shouted down numerous callers (or stopped them from talking or screened their calls, etc). But the connection of the two in order to demonstrate the buffoonishness of the subject is what appears on the article. Its a connection that wouldn't be made by a respectable news organization and shouldn't be given credence by an encyclopedia. Its also the stock in trade of opinion journalism. So yeah, we can give sites like that our blessing and then expect every editor to bounce around a dozen noticeboards with different answers. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Peddling opinion journalism as fact impacts reliability, however, no evidence exists that this is actually an issue. It's simply an unsupported assertion that you have made. In other words, your opinion. Which, ironically enough, you are attempting to pass off as fact. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mayfair (magazine)

User:Nick Cooper insists that it is appropriate to use primary sourcing (ie, simply identifying the magazine issues themselves) to document claims that various mostly notable models appeared in a British softcore porn magazine. The issues are mostly decades old, and not available online in any form, and the basis for the claims isn't at all clear, and may be OR (in a related discussion, NC claims that one reason an at best unreliably sourced claim that a notable actress was also a teenage nude model is OK to include because he's looked at the pictures and is sure of the identity.) I believe that for primary sources to be acceptable under WP:RS/WP:V, at a minimum they must be reasonably accessible, online or otherwise, and that 1980s/1990s softcore porn magazines fall so far beyond that standard as to require no substantial discussion. Note that pretty much the same central issue was just discussed and resolved at Talk:List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex, where secondary sourcing was required, and the films themselves were not acceptable (primary) sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to say you shouldn't look at a film, especially fiction, and decide how the film was made and who is in the shot based on how it looks. It is well-known that special effects and stand-ins are used heavily in film, especially fiction. An editor looking at an image in a magazine that says nothing about the name of a model, and deciding that the editor recognizes the model, is equally unacceptable. It is a different thing to say that a clear statement in a magazine can't be used unless the magazine is readily available. Most magazines are available somewhere even if they are out of print. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as the magazine is available somewhere, perhaps at some expense, and there is no real doubt about the identity of the persons - as Jc3s5h notes, they must be named in the magazine - it should be OK, not OR.John Z (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the "notable actress" HW refers to appeared in the magazine in question under her verified real/birth name of Tina Reid, rather than the pseudonym of "Louise Germaine" she subsequently acted under years later. Despite the Tina Reid in the magazine being described as coming from the same home town (Margate in Kent) as "Louise Germaine," HW has suggested that that the link could not be made as it may not be the same person. This is despite the fact that I have also provided a citation to a national newspaper that clearly states that "Germaine" was indeed a "teenage model," as HW puts it. The fact that they are visually clearly the same person is merely the final confirmation on top of other clear evidence that they are. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Using an opinion piece to make a statement of fact

I'm currently dealing with an editor who wants to use an opinion piece penned by a Cato Institute member for the National Review to make an unattributed statement of fact in an article, using words that don't even appear in the cited op-ed. This seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:V (and thereby WP:RS), but I would appreciate some outside views on how the issue should be tackled. Please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit#National Review. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the talk page, your argument has nought to do with RS but with how to paraphrase a rather clear sentence from the Guardian. The instance is whether not responding to FOI requests is the same as "refusing" ro respond to them. Not really a matter for RS/N to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BYU Studies

I am engaged in a discussion at Talk:Kirtland Safety Society about the use of BYU Studies as a source. My claim is that it should be noted inline when a source makes a claim that supports Joseph Smith and the source is published by the church. I am asking for help here regarding whether:

• That's just silly, the source can stand on its own
• Use of the source should include an inline note that it was published by a LDS-funded journal
• The source should be used sparingly, as it is a WP:SPS

My claim is that BYU Studies is a WP:SPS for the following reasons:

• The explicitly stated mission of the journal is "We want to share these publications to help promote faith, continued learning, and further interest in our LDS history with those in the world who have a positive interest in this work." [37] (emphasis mine)
• The submission guidelines are explicitly religious, not just scholarly. [38] They cite LDS scripture by chapter and verse. They also say: "BYU Studies strives to publish articles that openly reflect a Latter-day Saint point of view and are obviously relevant to subjects of general interest to Latter-day Saints, while conforming to high scholarly standards." (emphasis mine)
• The staff of the journal and its Church history editors are employed by BYU [39]. BYU staff are subject to dismissal for contradicting Church doctrine, see Academic freedom at Brigham Young University
  • Richard E. Bennett
  • Brian Q. Cannon
  • Kathryn M. Daynes
  • Steven C. Harper
  • Steven Sorensen appears to be dead
  • Frederick G. Williams

A thought experiment I propose is to imagine if we would be willing to use a source that made the same statements regarding its partiality, but with the opposite polarity. If a university journal had the explicit purpose of attacking or debunking Mormonism, while claiming to also be scholarly, would we not be very cautious about using it as a source?

The counterpoints to this offered on Talk:Kirtland Safety Society include that the journal is a university journal that is peer reviewed and that at least one of the authors who wrote the one of articles in question is a credible history scholar. (The others may be as well, they have not been discussed)

I claim that the existence of pockets deep enough to support universities and their attendant journals should not exempt any organization from WP:SPS, especially when the journals admit being POV on certain issues.

Thoughts? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This looks like a very insular publication. Unless the journal is widely (and not just as an example for weird claims) cited in the wider academic literature, I would reject this as a RS. Looking at Google Scholar, the most frequently cited article from BYU Studies has 11 citations, and many have none at all - that means the journal has essentially no impact. BTW, I suggest you move the question (and my reply) over to WP:RSN, where it is more apropos. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a history journal from Brigham Young University (a major US University) qualifies as an SPS... some articles from the journal might qualify as "religiously biased" (meaning they are written with a distinct religious POV which would influence what the journal article says). However, even then, having a bias does not mean the source is automatically unreliable... it simply means that we have to take the bias into account. Giving in text attribution and phrasing what we write as a statement of religious belief/opinion and not as a pure statement of fact is one solution to this potential bias.

That said... a lot depends on the exact nature of what is being discussed. In this case (looking quickly at the article history) it seems that the source isn't discussing things that are likely to be influenced by the religious bias of the author (it is being used to support statements about US banking rules in the 1800s, for example).

In short, I don't think we can call everything that is published in a journal affiliated with a major university "self published" (or even "biased"), simply because the university is affiliated with a specific religious faith. We have to be more selective. It depends on the topic that the source is discussing. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Google Scholar link to find articles from BYU Studies: [40] WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. BYU Studies is covered by Web of Science, in the Arts and Humanities Citation index section, and therefore counts as a major reputable journal--as do the major academic journals associated with other denominations and denominational universities. It is not self-published in the usual sense, any more than other such journals are. The material published there represents the views of the author of the article, as in all academic journals. It also reflects the editorial policy of the journal, which can be found at [41]. The key passage is "BYU Studies strives to publish articles that openly reflect a Latter-day Saint point of view and are obviously relevant to subjects of general interest to Latter-day Saints, while conforming to high scholarly standards." Otherwise. I have nothing much to add to what Blueboar says--I understand the situation exactly as he does. It is reliable within its limits, as are other academic journals. I would not accept it as definitive for whether a particular LDS doctrine has an historical basis or not. I would accept it as a RS for details of LDS history. including the bank. Incidentally,everything published more than 2 years ago in it is open access, so people who wish to judge the scholarly nature of the specific articles can go to the journal site and read them for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that, for the LDS Church, history and doctrine are all tied up together. This is especially true of events that may paint Smith in a negative light. Actions that might be interpreted as fraud are often the focus of both those who oppose and those who support the Church. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is more a concern about a source with a particular bias. A bias towards a certain point of view could be argued about any particular source of basic information... particularly when it is a source that tends to do original research. Yes, history, doctrine, and philosophies will be tied together and a certain bias in favor of the LDS Church will be found with this particular publication. That doesn't imply that all such sources ought to be instantly discarded as invalid sources, other than the bias of that source ought to be taken into account. At least in this case it is obvious what the bias is regarding. Sources cited for historical or religious Wikipedia articles have had far worse bias than even this, and yet are consistently used as a verifiable and "legitimate" reference. Attacking a source of this nature because it doesn't fit your particular bias isn't necessarily a good act either. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be getting personal. Let's try to keep the discussion focused on Wikipedia policy, rather than accusations of personal bias or moral judgments of "good acts". Let's focus on "good policy" and "good articles" instead. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that bias isn't really a WP:RS issue... but one for WP:NPOV (the exception is when the bias is extreme... which is not the case here). The key is whether there are non-LDS sources that present a contrary view of the history in question. If there are, then the solution is to present the different views neutrally, with in text attribution to make it clear who says what. But, if no non-LDS sources contradict the BYU source, then we can accept what the BYU source says as being accepted by historians in general... dispite the potentially pro-Mormon bias of the source. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with treating it as a normal source. Everyone has a slant -- you just have to evaluate what's being taken from the source. People compelled to study the Church in detail are generally not neutral; they are compelled by either their faith or skepticism in the Church's claims and history. Personal motivation of its authors is not enough to disqualify a source; everyone has their reasons for doing something, few dedicate years and years to research just because they feel like it was missing, or something, it's usually a personal emotionally informed endeavor, even in hard sciences.

As such, BYU Studies is a reliable and reasonable source as long as it is deployed correctly. An incorrect deployment may be citing BYU Studies to indicate something absolutist and not conventionally or widely proven, like "The LDS Church is the only true church on earth [citation to BYU Studies]". That would be inappropriate. However, "evidence x and y of ancient Semitic inhabitants in Mesoamerica was found in x year [citation to BYU Studies]" is appropriate, because it's an independently verifiable claim published by an accepted scholarly journal. That the journal's management does not choose to publish stories that may negatively affect one's beliefs in the Church's teachings does not automatically disqualify articles that are deemed "faith-promoting", so long as there is solid research behind those articles, which in all cases of which I am aware, there is. Most other journals will refuse certain scholarly articles if said articles are not aligned with the journal's mission or audience; it's not a condemnation of either their published or rejected articles, it's just a simple "not for us, thanks".

So keep BYU Studies cool with no extra stipulations, and just like everything else, make sure it's being cited appropriately and there's no problem. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

CRNJapan

The question has been brought back up again, regarding whether CRNJapan can be considered a reliable source. The previous discussion which did not receive sufficient opinions to say it is or is not, can be found here.

It is the opinion of this editor that it may fall dangerously close to falling under WP:SPS. However it also appears that the information maybe from experts regarding its subject matter, and maybe a useful source for someone who is interested in the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A clarification on Primary Sources with regard to raw data

Hi, I want to modify an already existing article called: Shell Account, and add a table to it that compares various free shell providers. The table looks something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vivek.m1234/Shell_Account

Now according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

It says: "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. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

It says accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonably educated... so, if I go to a shell providers web-site and they say 20MB disk space.. can I then take that value and tabulate it?? Or do I HAVE to find a secondary source who says.. "Widget ISP provides 20 MB disk space"?????? The way I see it, anybody (in that field: someone who uses UNIX, and is reasonably educated about UNIX), who goes to a shell provider, can easily verify if he's getting 20MB or not.

There are similar tabulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions and they have taken data from the Distro web-site.

Offhand, that may be ok depending on how much effort you need to get the info as you can tabulate and aggregate and organize to make lists or articles- if the topic otherwise passes notability and everyone who makes one of these publishes a size, it may pass for presumed notability( surely someone would care about this number as each vendor publishes one). A problem with primary sources is cherry picking observations that no one else ever made for the sake of advancing a new idea. The problem may occur with new observations, "making this the most powerful of the choices", as these quickly become a way to promote original research. The idea is to relate the state of knowledge that exists already, not modify that beyond making it available to others. If you had to go get each shell and measure the the disk space and no one published it, that would likely be original research since no one prior to you noticed this attribute or even thought anyone would care by publishing it. This result, beside being harder to verify, let's you put forth a new thesis ( someone cares about size )that couldn't have been shown to be of note to anyone previously. Maybe, you could find review articles on the topic lamenting the lack of this information but then you would have to question if practioners in the field found it easier to complain than measure why did wiki get to scoop the story etc etc etc. If you let people make new observations here, without any review, you end up with things like Bart Simpson's book report ( you need to find the simpsons episode) which is just a collection of observations or questionable relevance to anything. This is not to trivialize or make fun of seeminglingly obvious observations, indeed that is how nobel prizes are won often just stating the obvious or that the obvious is wrong, but wikipedia lacks merit review so it is a bad place to try this. I'm quite sympathetic as I have run into this myself and maybe some more probing of the issue here would be worthwhile.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't be doing any R&D to gather the data. It's plastered all over their web site (which I'll cite). I'm just presenting what they put up in a more readable manner. Worth a shot anyhow. User:Vivek.m1234

Four seperate sources, two different locations: What exactly should be done?

When I did the article Hawaii overprint note, I had two sources that couldn't agree on where the returned banknotes were first burnt (just what type of facility it was), so I added a note in hopes of if someone were to question the passage, at least I covered my butt over the matter in one aspect. User:W Nowicki comes in later, and reverts my passage to link directly to Oahu Cemetery and eliminates my note mark. I cried foul, seeing that he eliminated the Honolulu Advertiser reference mark for that passage alone, and not elsewhere in the article, which still exists as an inline citation elsewhere.

After some "discussion" here and there, I took the matter to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics board to get advice on how to handle the situation. I also noticed in his Oahu Cemetery article he not only used the Honolulu Advertiser link, but a book reference that specifically states Nu'uanu Cemetery, not Oahu Cemetery in relation to a passage on the notes. Now there are four sources (Two from his (not counting the Honolulu Advertiser linkage), and two from mine) that say two different locations. To further add to the confusion, someone chimed in about the close proximity of several business with similar names as mentioned in the newspaper and book passages. And the Wikiproject hasn't been helpful.

I'm loathe to just default to Oahu Cemetery given the two sources that say otherwise. That would in effect, smack of original research. Can I get an opinion on how to handle four sources that seem to be cut in half on locations? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Give both locations, note that sources vary, and cite a source for each location. Goodraise 07:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor. The contradiction isn't a problem - in fact it's more of a problem if you choose one location over the other because then you are discounting verifiable references. Lots of well sourced articles have conflicting information that come from different sources - especially on science articles where you can usually find a paper or article to directly contradict another one. Embrace the chaos, man. Betty Logan (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to ignore this issue but I guess it is a common problem- no one here is trying to settle an argument, just document what everyone thinks or thought. If you need an answer or will go insane, then you will be limited in what you can do. Finding an answer when the data is not compelling is a big problem- you end up with many confident conclusions that are worse then dealing with the ambiguous data if you try to act on them. One example I can think of that may be familiar from TV is that of trying to describe a crime scene- while you are making your own observations ( which is generally considered original research here), you are trying to just describe exactly what the sources are telling you ( in this case physical things rather than the words of others ) without making your own additions ( " that evil butler must have done this to the nice people") that are likely to be premature. Being able to look at data, even if that "data" in this case is the work of others, without any biases is the first step in finding duable useful conclusions from later synthesis and original research. This doesn't mean you can ignore prominent speculation or the working hypotheses of others but you don't need to evaluate on merit or morals. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure these aren't two names for the same place? --NE2 13:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Same place. [42] Oahu Cemetery is in the Nu'uanu valley and was called "Nu'uanu Cemetery." [43] Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Collect (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To defend my reputation, I did not do a "revert" as claimed above, but added a wikilink to Oahu Cemetery, an article that describes with several verifiable sources that both names are used for the same place. My thinking was that someone who cared out more details could follow that wikilink. At the time is was established it was the only civic cemetery on Oahu (see the journal article cited there), but now there are several. It was 239.x who reverted what I thought was an improvement. Note the Oahu Cemetery article passed review of the DYK editors. I also proposed a compromise that stated the possibility that there were two descriptions of the same place. Peace. W Nowicki (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted a note mark which contained two sources with the conflicting information and converted it to one reference mark that would "support" your location claim and "ignored" the other mark, despite it being integrated and laced thru the article in support of other facts. Someone would have noticed this and questioned it (which I did). And DYK has it's own problems as it is.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If they're the same location, what's the conflict? --NE2 02:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

    • It's a bit confusing because several cemeteries run into each other along Nuuanu Ave: Oahu Cemetery at 2162 Nuuanu Avenue (on the left side of Nuuanu Ave, facing uphill), Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary at 2233 Nuuanu Ave (one block mauka on the other side of Nuuanu Ave), Honolulu Memorial Park at 22 Craigside Place (across Nuuanu Ave from Oahu Cemetery), and the Royal Mausoleum State Monument at 2261 Nuuanu Ave (at the mauka end of Nuuanu Memorial Park). Oahu Cemetery had the first crematorium on Oahu, designed by Oliver G. Traphagen in 1906. (other information related to Wikicommon's picture uploads unrelated to discussion redacted) Joel (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Some of the references in both Hawaii overprint note and Oahu Cemetery note Oahu cemetery, others note Nuuanu Cemetery/Mortuary. Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability forbids "ignoring" the Nuuanu cemetery/mortuary mentions and "converting it" to Oahu cemetery because there is a location called Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary. Since the sources are unclear on the location name given the existence of the other place, I just did the note mark in Hawaii overprint note to explain the discrepancy. I feel that the location confusion needs to be mentioned in passing just in case someone else decides to check and questions the sources (in Hawaii overprint note, Oahu cemetery is another matter). Is this a reasonable idea, or do you want me to violate Wikipedia:Original Research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability just because?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To clear something up, I never meant to cast any aspersions on 293's character. It is totally reasonable that somone interested primarily in a Numismatic event would not delve into the geographical details. I did not realize there were multiple names for the same location either until looking up the famous people buried there, and searching on maps and the GNIS. For example, many books about Alexander Cartwright say "Oahu Cemetery" some call it "Nuuanu Cemetery" and some use both names. There is no evidence all those authors are in a vast conspiracy, or that all these people were chopped in two. According to several sources, the "Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary" opened in 1949, a modern addition to the 1844 cemetery according to verifiable sources, so I thought it misleading to imply it could somehow be involved in an event that took place in 1942. A phone book from 1941 confirms that Oahu Cemetery cremtory was the only one listed in the area known as Nuuanu and on Nuuanu avenue at the time. Also note the article cited for the source for this "conflict" never mentions any other crematory by name. It just says the money was taken to a "Nuuanu mortuary" first (good way to discourage theft?) and burned at the crematory "there". The article does not say "Nuuanu Memorial Park" (the 1949 addition). It seemed that a future reader who did know the area (not me) might think that the author was trying to push a point of view that there is a "conflict" here when the sources do not indicate any conflict. The official place names datbase of USGS lists: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Oʻahu Cemetery at 21.32N 157.85W, and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Nuʻuanu as a locale centered at 21.33N and 157.85W (these are the old USGS coordinates, you can look up the addresses on Acme mapper to get ones that match google maps). Since the Oahu cemetery is within the "locle" officially known as "Nuuanu" there is no conflict indicated by any source.

What all the sources indicate is several string names describing the same place. For example, if one person says something happened at "Chicago Airport" and another at "O'hare field" would it make sense to put in a Wikilink to O'Hare International Airport or would that be considered "Original"? Certainly someone not familiar with the midwest U.S. might notice different text strings, but that is why one adds wikilinks, to give more in-depth discussions if readers care, right?

Also as for the DYK, evidently the DYK editors wanted a more interesting sounding hook, so they added the "$20 million" figure to the hook I proposed. By the time I found out, it had already appeared in the middle of the night. Presumably they thought too that someone interested in the details would click through and find out that Oahu cemetery actually had a minor role in buring the money, it has an interesting (in my opinion) history. Two other additions are on the NRHP for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for some information regarding a paywalled source

Resolved

Hi, could someone please clarify if the content of this is in fact the same as this. Thanks! :) Unomi (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that, up to the horizontal line below the "References" section, the content of the second link is a copy of the first. (We should cite the Nature version in articles, though, as it's clearly the original.) — æk^Talk 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Unomi (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FAIR Wiki as a reliable source?

I'm challening the use of Fair Wiki as an RS for edits at View of the Hebrews [44] (for some reason the editor then removed the reference) and at Angel Moroni [45]. The editor adding it says, on my talk page, that I've been "very judgemental" and that:

• Whilst the source is a wiki, it is not a public wiki and the wiki mode is for display purposes only and so it can be easily added to by the small band of authors. Editing access is completely restricted publicly and you can't sign up for it.
• The work on the wiki is that of an official professional foundation [46]
• The foundation has made books [47]
• The organisation is 100% independant of the LDS Church [48]

However, I'm not convinced. See the FAIR wiki page for the Angel Moroni edit [49]. I'm not allowed to see who has edited it, some of the references are to articles on Wikipedia, and if it was here we'd call it original research. The other cite, now removed, is [50] - a bit better, but is it a RS? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia references used on that article are used to demonstrate sources of the criticism, as shown in the respective wikipedia articles by the citated critical theories which they contain. Wikipedia is not used to establish the apologist theories that the Wiki publishes. Routerone (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: Does FAIR have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? If the books published by FAIR meet RS, is their wiki held to the same editorial standards? Goodraise 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks should go to Routeone for reverting his edit at Angel Moroni pending the outcome of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I made that edit because I didn't feel like starting an edit war and getting blocked for what would have been a blatant violation of WP:3RR. Now in regards to your question Goodraise, it is worth noting that FAIR has a broad exsistence beyond being a wiki, publishing books, brochures and papers. If you're interested in examining this you should look here [51]. All the FAIR wiki is (which was used as the sources in these articles) was a wiki built around the research created by FAIR, which has undergone since 1997. Hence the wiki work is not made up on the spot. A full topical list of all the resources they built their work around is listed here [52]. It is worth noting that whilst they defend the church, the apologetic claims that they publish on their website are not of their own research (proven here), but rather collectively gathered and compiled from a number of apologetic and critical sources in relation to the church. Hence due to this, I wouldn't say they are violating WP:OR, as the wiki is just a privately edited collection of Apologetic research, )also taking some criticism into consideration) thus they are not actually making the information themselves. Routerone (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To sum this up:

• The wiki is a privately edited attachment from the main site
• Whilst unknown, the workers of the wiki have compiled thousands of independent resources to provide apologetical information and challenge critical challenges (though some are taken into account), through established work and not opinion.
• The purpose of the website is to spread information, not create it.

Routerone (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But the material is anonymous, and that alone makes it iffy.

also

• Our objective is to defend the faith against those who would attempt to destroy it.

That does not sound very neutral to me.

Moreover (and has been pointed out this site uses Wikipedia as a referance, and that is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven, in relation to your point. The information used from wikipedia comes from citated statements and therefore has some scholary standing regardless if its on wikipedia or not. In relation to "Our objective is to defend the faith against those who would attempt to destroy it"- that subjectively means they are targeting work against the church that has not been conducted fairly and is inaccurate/exaggerated/bias to some extent. However that doesn't mean they throw all criticism down the pan completely, because they don't. They look to potray both sides of the argument and use published apologetic research in order to dissaprove claims against the church. All it is doing is giving a "fair" analysis on the subjects of LDS, rather than let poor quality misunderstood criticism completely destroy it. Routerone (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida frowns upon the use of sites that use as wikipedia as a source. Also the site does not use inline citations, as such it cannot be determined either what is being sourced, or what the source is being used to back up. So it cannot be demonstrated that the site uses only the sources from Wikipedia that are properly sourced, only that it sourcs the wikipedia page (not the individual citation).

• Some of us are scholars, while others are simply hobbyists.

So not all the material is writen by scholars, or even experts. Its a closed Wiki, but still a Wiki. Now there is this.

• The articles that go up on FAIR have gone through a process of peer review where other FAIR members have looked at and evaluated the articles.

But the key thing here is who are the members, and how rigerous is it. Given that they admit that many of their 100 members are jusy hobbyists it cannot be shown that this is a profesioinal peer review system. Some of this peer review must use wikipedia {afterall they use it as a source).

This might be of interest [[53]] of note is that "References to interviews, conversations, letters, e-mail, or other correspondence are best treated as part of the text" material that would not be considerd RS on wikipedia is RS on this wiki. This also would make (given the example used) it im posible to verfify some of the sources they allow. In fact there seems to be no restiction on the type of sources you can use.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the concerns about this source, I would place FAIR in the category of "a valuable resource, but not a reliable source"... meaning it can help readers gain an accurate (if biased) overview of the material and point them to other sources, but it should not be used as a source itself. I would suggest that it be used as an External Link but not as a citation. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Goodraise 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I realise that this isn't actually an issue for here, but this source was being used with the statement that "Apologists have established the argument" - not exactly the wording that we should have there anyway. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli accreditation of Caribbean-based medical school

This question centers around the Saint James School of Medicine article. On their website they indicate they are accredited by the Ministry of Health of Israel. They have a link to a letter that seems to authentically be from the Israeli MoH indicating that the school is accredited and students eligible for a license in Israel. In addition, this Indian website seems to indicate that the school is accredited by the Israeli MoH. I am coming here to inquire if this is enough to be considered a WP:RS and thus included in the accreditation section of the article. The relevant link on the article talk page is here. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Indian website mentions the Ministry of Education, not Health, and so does not support their website's claims. I don't think it's an RS anyway. The letter is a primary source. A good RS for accreditation would be a website or publication of the accrediting body rather than the accredited body. Martinlc (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The accrediation is only for licensure examinations (in different from accrediation for license which is given only to graduates of EU, USA, Israeli and faculties in few other countries) in Israel it's very far from accrediation, the exam material is comprehensive and about 70% of those who take it fail and have to take it again. About few months ago an Israeli TV report intrviewed few Israeli MDs who earned their diploma at Buenos Aires university and successfully passed this exam, they have called for its cancellation and complained that it's not a reasonable exam as it include all of what they have learned during their entire years of studies and that you can't expect one to take it successfully without a very long time of preparation before. So, this accrediation realy don't mean much.--Gilisa (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

TV.com and IMDB

(moved from WT:Reliable sources by Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm preparing to do a GA review for an article which has a number of citations from TV.com. As far as I know, TV.com is a reliable source of (very) general information about tv shows, episodes, actors and so forth, and is used as a reference for a number of articles on tv show subjects and related. Just now as I was making some reference checks I realized that TV.com is something of a wiki itself; that is, there is an "edit" button (requires sign up) which allows users to add their own material. Now according to their submission guidelines, all content is moderated. The guidelines, however, make it seem as though fact checking is only a minimal part of the moderation process, and that only obviously incorrect/nonsense submissions will be automatically caught.

I don't know if that has been discussed before. (If it has, could someone please point me in that direction?) Would a source such as TV.com, or IMDB.com (which has the same edit-with-moderation set-up) fall under WP:SPS?

Thanks in advance. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The search archive box at the top finds past discussions. This [54] discussion sheds some light on TV.com IMDb has been discussed countless times you will find, generally considered reliable for casting and credits details supplied by professional bodies, but not much else. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor to both TV.com and IMDb.com, I can confirm that these sites are "moderated" but not really fact-checked. The moderators are basically there to prevent errors and blatant misinformation, but are not really confirming all facts (if any at all). I've added info that I know to be true because of my work in the TV industry, but for which "reliable sources" do not exist (as we know them at Wikipedia), and I've never had anything rejected. So really, these sites cannot be considered reliable sources, and are often removed from/dismissed in articles going through quality assessments; I think WP:TV actually cites them as unreliable. I would argue that any "basic" info for which you might use these sites as sources could be found in any reliable online review or TVGuide.com listing.— TAnthony^Talk 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate

There are some complaints that RealClimate.org is not a reliable source. Two objections have been raised.

1) The first objection is that it is a blog. However, it is not just any blog. It's run by Gavin A. Schmidt, an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. Schmidt currently works for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He's been published by over 60 peer-reviewed academic journals, including the highly prestigious Nature journal. A list of publications can be found on his NASA bibliography here. His biography can be found here. The blog itself has been named one of the best science and technology web sites by Scientific American[55]. Time Magazine has also praised the site[56]. The Telegraph has also named RealClimate.org one of the "new 100 most useful sites".[57]

2) The second objection is that it is an involved party in the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It's involvement is actually pretty limited. Someone tried to upload a zip file to the site. We are using the blog's response to the incident as a source. It's been cited in two places. In both cases, we are using in-text and in-line attribution:

According to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server."

The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows: The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction....

The article in question is Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The article is constantly changing, but this edit here appears to summarize its role nicely.

Discussions on the talk page can be found here, here and here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first objection policy states [58] that "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:

• When they have been cited by reliable third-party sources in the relevant field.
• 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.
• ...."

So in light of all the above this objection is groundless as all the editorial body of RealClimate.org are established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

The second one is trickier because it is wide open for interpretation. But my opinion is that this is just a statement of facts as reported by the victim and if clearly attributed in the article then any WP:COI objection becomes groundless.--LexCorp (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since RealClimate is one of the parties in this incident, its statement about how it sees the facts of the case is in principle worth including. However, this sourcing is not ideal. Was its statement about the hacking not repeated in any independent source? I would have thought that RealClimate would have put it in a press release and that it would have been picked up in at least one newspaper. An analogy would be the recent injunction about The Guardian. The Guardian is a reliable source but since it was a party to the event, it would be better to use an independent source, for example Private Eye which covered that event in full. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement was made in a comment by one of RealClimate's founders, Gavin Schmidt. It doesn't seem to have been picked up by the media, though it has been cited in a number of blogs. However, the rationale for including this citation is set out in WP:SELFPUB, specifically that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (emphasis in the original). The five conditions set out in WP:SELFPUB are all met in this instance. RealClimate is the most authoritative source for describing events that affect RealClimate (and indeed the only conceivable source for something that has happened behind the scenes). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK with it for now on the basis you give. Similarly UEA is absolutely fine as a source for its own stance. But try as hard as possible to write up the article mainly from mainstream secondary news sources. Present already are reports from the BBC, NYT, Washington Post, (London) Times, Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Newsweek. Between them these excellent news outlets should cover the bulk of what is notable. I'm not so clear about the status of Reuters and AP (primary?) and would appreciate more views. I'm also not clear why reports dating back to August this year are cited, even if the publications are reliable. Unless these earlier reports are explicitly picked up by later reports, then we are running close to WP:SYN. Come back here as often as you like for further advice, and I hope you will get multiple responses. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the WP:SYN issue but unfortunately just about every content policy is being systematically violated by certain editors. I've just, for instance, removed an entire paragraph of accusations of criminal wrongdoing sourced to a blog in blatant defiance of WP:BLP. It's repeatedly been added and removed. The situation is not going to improve unless editors start being sanctioned for ignoring BLP and other policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Although not directly related to the CRU hacking incident, RealClimate is currently used as a source, more often than not a critical one, in many BLP’s of climate sceptics. It would be good to get some feedback here about this apparent violation of BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries

An article up for deletion relies heavily on obituaries as sources. I believe that obituaries should be treated as opinion pieces as they are not reports of events at the time they happened but personal recollections about someone's life and not necessarily researched in the same way as newspaper reports of events. Is there a current consensus about reliance on obituaries and how many are too many as sources in an article?—Ash (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think it depends very much on the source of the obituaries. Many obits in reputable newspapers, for example, are as well-researched as any news article (often perhaps more so, given the greater time available for their composition). Barnabypage (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as an example consider this obituary in The Guardian for Peter Catchpole which was written by his son. Considering the author it surely would be treated as a primary source and would be debatable if used as a single source for particular information an article?

A perfect example of why we d not lump all obituaries together - this is from The Guardian's Other Lives series, which is explicitly intended for personal recollections. As such I agree that it should be treated with caution (though not automatically excluded from consideration as a reliable source). By contrast I would regard the same newspaper's main obituaries as reliable sources unless there was special reason to think otherwise. Barnabypage (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Absoutley agree with Barnaby. I can't see any reason why obits in UK (former) broadsheet should not be regarded as being reliable (i.e. Times, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent), with the exception of those in The Guardian contributed under the "Other Lives" heading which are submitted by friends and family of the deceased, rahter than written by newspaper staff, or commissioned form particular experts in some cases. Guardian and Indy generally name the contributor, so it's easy enough totell what their credentials are. Times and Telegraph obits are normally published anonymously in the newspaper, but for The Telegraph in particular are often later published as collections in book form, were more details of contributors are given. These books also set out in their foreword the principles on which the obits are written which gives me further confidence in them as sources. David Underdown (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the consensus seems to be obits are reliable sources if from the normal authoritative newspapers. For the other part of my question; is there any consensus on limiting the number of obituaries in a biography article?—Ash (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be any limit provided they are all from reliable sources. I suppose if the article is entirely relying on one or two obituaries from very minor publications that might raise a red flag as to notability of the subject...but that's about all. (And I mean it would suggest that notability might warrant scrutiny, not that the subject is necessarily non-notable.) Barnabypage (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they're regarded as reliable sources, why should there be? Generally the more sources the better, different papers seems to focus on slightly different aspects of the subject's life, so including more gives a more rounded picture. Obviously, if more scholarly sources are available, they should probably be preferred, but for a recent death these will often not be available (yet). Futher to the general reliability question, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles often list obits among their sources, and we generally regard that as a reliable source, so even if writing an article on someone who has an ODNB article, it may also be reasonable to source to the obit directly, as this will often be more verifiable by a greater number of Wikipedia editors than the ODNB itself.

In some respects, more obits gives an indication of greater notability - more papers regard that person as worthy of an obit, usually each paper tends to print maybe only 3 or 4 obits each day after all. In the same way as different papers may empahsize different aspects of the life, they also tend to focus on slightly different groups of people. The Telegraph is more likely do an obit on a less prominent military figure comapred with the Guardian, which is more likely to cover a trade union official, for example. David Underdown (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This question is related to the difference in the meaning of the word "obituary" in the UK and in North America. In the UK, the word "obituary" refers only to articles prepared by the news department under editorial supervision. (This is specifically why the Guardian death notices written by families are listed under "Other Lives" and not simply "Obituaries".) In the US and Canada, the word "obituary" usually refers to both news articles and family death notices. This creates confusion when American or Canadian editors assume a Times obituary is a family death notice and therefore not a reliable source. You really have to go to the article itself and see who wrote it: as others above point out, if the writer of the obituary is a member of the news department, their name may or may not be given: if it's a family member or an expert hired to write the obituary, the name will be given. --NellieBly (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NellieBly, what is your authority for the statement that "In the US and Canada, the word 'obituary' usually refers to both news articles and family death notices"? In American newspapers I have come across, family-sponsored death notices are published under the heading "Death Notices", not "Obituaries". ^Bongo_matic 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And in response to the original query, full-length obituaries in reliable publications provide some of the very best sources for biographical articles—they tend to be well-researched and more comprehensive than specific event reporting, and are definitive in establishing notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Barnabypage and Bongomatic. Obituaries published by reliable newspapers are typically well researched. They are often better than contemporary news articles, as the obituary allows events to be evaluated with the passage of time and placed into broader context. I also share Bongo's thoughts on US newspaper: in major US newspapers, family submitted notices typically appear in a separate "Death Notices" section, whereas "Obituaries" are articles prepared by the paper with editorial oversight. Cbl62 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view obituaries should be treated as *editorial* even if published in a RS, since they are heavily biased towards praising the deceased individual. They can be considered RS for specific facts, yet I have seen them too commonly used as a source for introducing POV about the deceased into articles ("He was a loving father, and a great person"). Marokwitz (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

De mortuis nil nisi bonum is not always the case in the US. Most obits do not editorialize, and, in the case of famous people, rehash past controversies willingly. Paid notices tend to say "he collected butterlies" etc. (anecdote alert) New editors for a newspaper who print all the dirt on a dead person can get fired. Do not simply pull typeset from the "morgue." Collect (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The key here is to recognize that every biographical source will have some sort of bias, slanting (even if only slightly) towards either praising or damning the subject. Having a bias does not mean a source is unreliabile. Yes, obits tend to be biased towards praising the subject (do not speak ill of the dead)... but that is not a reason to avoid them. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

YeshivaWorldNews

Some users are trying to use http://www.yeshivaworldnews.com as a reliable source. This site is not a RS in any way shape or form. For 99% of their entries, they borrow from other sources and the other 1% that is their own postings, they do not post any sources for their entries. The site is anonymous, there is no reliability or accountability. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The site is similar to a blog than a news source. I can't see any reason why this should be a RS. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the message on the website "This domain may be for sale. Buy this Domain" rather gives the game away. Also Special:LinkSearch shows there are no links to the site (except above). Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this post is intended to refer to Yeshiva World News, located at http://theyeshivaworld.com ? The Wikipedia article about that site has been discussed and kept at AfD; it does seem to have been used from time to time by mainstream outlets for news from the Orthodox/Hasidic world.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I put in the wrong site. The site may have been cited but it is not a reliable news source. It is an anonymous site, which 99% of the time just copies and pastes from other sources. Their 1% of original stories are not fact checked in any way. Using YWN as a RS is a very bad mistake. Having the site on Wikipedia is one thing, but it is quite another to use it as a Reliable Source of news. Yossiea ^(talk) 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I have read about this news source, I don't think this question should be addressed categorically and in the abstract. At least in a few cases, it appears to me that this has been viewed as a reliable source for some purposes, but there may well be other purposes for which it is not. Instead I would think the question should be discussed in the context of the specific issue for which the cite is proposed to be used. (It may also be unnecessary to address the issue: for example, in the instance where the content from YWN is also mentioned in another RS.) IMO, the issue might be more appropriately discussed on the talk page of the relevant article, or at least with notice to the editors there that the discussion has been brought here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi: Yeshiva World News (YWN) is in Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism where it belongs. It is a privately run blog that culls news stories from other sources. It has a few of its unknown contributors, but it relies on news stories it posts from the general media that the YWN blog-owner thinks will be of interest to his audience of Haredi Jews. From time to time, the YWN blog publishes some press releases from organizations like the Agudath Israel of America that do NOT have their own web sites or blogs because they oppose them, so they may quietly hand off announcements to blogs like YWN acting as a VERY unofficial proxy. There is also the similar Vosizneias (VIN) blog, somewhat more pro-Hasidic, but VIN is not favored by the Agudath Israel crowd that favors YWN instead if they have to. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So if it's a blog, and an anonymous one at that I do not think we should be using YWN as a RS. If they use another source, that source should be the RS and if they use their own sources, it can't be RS because it is not verifiable. Yossiea ^(talk)

I also see YWN in the same light that IZAK put it. It is a private blog, with anonymous contributors, and should not at all be considered a RS for WP. The same goes for Vosizneias, and all other private news sites/blogs. If the Agudath Israel of America gave one of these sites something to post, I would not use them as a source. If the "Aguda" published a statement about something in a newspaper like Hamodia, that would be a RS. Shlomke (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gisborne Herald and The Local

The New Zealand Gisborne Herald offers a news and interview article with a music personality. The Swedish English language paper The Local offers a news report of an event.Both small circulation publications with editorial staffs. They look like their articles are, per WP:V, based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But an editor claims one is not "notable" and therefore not usable but the other is. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not require that sources be "notable"... we require that they be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The new argument (without relevant wikilinks) is that one of the two is not "high quality" enough for wikipedia: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example The New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain" "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." Thoughts??

Whether they are reliable sources I would question using them because if a story has only been covered by them then it cannot be notable, unless it is local coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One is a lengthy interview with a controversial music figure/political writer, with some summary political commentary, so he is the story. The other is local coverage of a local speaking event by that individual, and some local groups' pros and cons about his speaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject has no connection with those countries. If the story was notable it would have been covered by other newspapers, like the English broadsheets. If they did not consider it newsworthy then the article should not mention it. See WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The key word is "prominence". The Four Deuces (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What statements are these articles being used to support, and in which articles? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, apparently this relates to the article Gilad Atzmon, the subject of the Gisborne Herald and Local articles. But the issues involved in this RSN discussion are still unclear to me. Do the Herald and the Local portray Atzmon's views in a way that differs significantly from how they are portrayed in more prominent reliable sources? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The two sources are used to show that the subject is anti-semitic, which is not found in other sources. In the NZ case he is quoted out-of-context (which is implied OR/SYN) and in the second case he is called anti-semitic in a headline and this is backed up by an opinion from the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as these go as sources, and bearing in mind that they are proposed for a BLP, then I can find no fault with either. In each case the papers are behaving as respectable local papers should. In the Gisborne Herald, Atzmon is given space to present his views. What he says there is not inconsistent with what he has said elsewhere, and it is very unlikely that he was misrepresented. Obviously if he made any complaint about inaccuracy in this interview then this source should not be touched with a bargepole. In the The Local, the story starts with a complaint against an invitation for Atzmon to speak, and then there is a response from those who invited him. Nothing here is at odds with what other sources report about Atzmon's views and the responses to them. If we are looking for reportage in the UK broadsheets, then there is the possibility of using comments by David Aaronovitch, a respected commentator for The Times. I believe there have also been statements by Michael Rosen, whose views are notable, even though he may not have made them in a high-quality source. Caveats about weight still apply. This BLP has been dogged with POV problems. I would advise brevity both in the exposition of Atzmon's views and in the summary of criticism of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

An interview is a primary source: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Also quoting what a group in Sweden says about someone living in the UK makes no sense. When writing an article one should use the major sources and report what they say. Searching for obscure sources that state what one wants to say goes against neutrality. Why do you think that the editors are using these obscure souces instead of mainstream sources? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that an interview given to a newspaper is a primary source - it's something that we could do with more comment on. The nearest example in WP:PRIMARY is "an account written by a witness". But an interview is written up by the journalist, not by the interviewee. I also don't understand your line of argument in "what a group in Sweden says about someone living in the UK". If the article subject visits Sweden and people there object, then that might be notable. I completely agree with you that we should be looking for the major sources, but it seems to me that this article has to do three things: 1) report on the subject's artistic endeavours, 2) report what his stated political views are and 3) report on how they have been received. Of these, 1) is the most important. 2) and 3) must be brief, to the point and balanced. Both the sources raised here can be assumed verifiable. There may well be preferable sources, but that discussion needs to go back to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you just looking for sources to indicate that Atzmon has been called anti-Semitic? If so, try the Jerusalem Post, Hürriyet, and The Jewish Chronicle. Or are you trying to find sources for Wikipedia to state outright that he is anti-Semitic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>To answer the question above: Do the Herald and the Local portray Atzmon's views in a way that differs significantly from how they are portrayed in more prominent reliable sources? The answer, No. The Scotsman and The Guardian both have similar interviews which mention accusations against him. And an Observer news story mentions another specific incident of an accusation. Note that it early was established that we should not use quotes from the article out of context of what the author said, though that also is being violated by a POV editor. Finally one of sources mentioned was used in past but after an OTRs an admin deleted it an a lot of other material as being too much of an attack article; and recently people felt that the whole section was too long so not every single attack/criticism explored. Those other two sources are new. So to me the issue is just if those two article are of equal merit as WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Herald does, the Local does not. The Herald is the only newspaper on the net that alleges that Atzmon has been accused of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism and Israel, rather than his statements on Judaism. To answer your question Metropolitan90, the Herald and Scottsman articles are being used to attempt to portray the allegations of antisemitism against Atzmon as a result of his statements about Zionism and Israel, rather than his statements regarding Jews and Judaism. The Scottsman and The Guardian do both have interviews with Atzmon, however both refer to the controversy surrounding his Anti-Jewish statements, not his anti Israel ones, as the Gisborne Herald alleges. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/mar/06/gilad-atzmon-israel-jazz-interview, http://living.scotsman.com/features/39I-thought-music-could-heal.3804991.jp Similarly, if Carolmooredc remembers correctly, the article was locked with all of these quotes inside. Her statement that "an admin deleted it an alot of other material as being too much of an attack article" is factually wrong, as one can see by looking at the diffs. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=284054107&oldid=284053969 It was locked for violation of BLP, but certainly not for being an "attack article" and nothing was deleted. Similarly the statement that "recently people felt that the whole section was too long so not every single attack/criticism explored." is an interesting take on the truth, it's referring to the two editors from the BLP noticeboard who tried to edit the section before the above editor completely removed their contributions, replacing them with a section several times longer, though slightly shorter than her original edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642088&oldid=321461856 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088 Drsmoo (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually one has a problem with multiple accusations of antisemitism for any and all reasons. But Drsmoo is so absurdly opposed to admitting that a number of reliable sources mention that Atzmon is accused of antisemtism for criticisms of Zionism (6 in the article), it is absurd. I think it's a game to get me to focus on the accusations and not on Drsmoo's hatred of Atzmon (illustrated by these two hostile diffs he refused to remove and an admin had to: (1, 2). CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source that states that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism for his staements on Zionism, than it should be included. You can also include the opinion of a notable person who believes Atzmon's statements about Israel/Zionism are antisemitic. And yes, you should be focusing on the article, rather than focusing on my opinions as an editor (personal attacks if you will) Drsmoo (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done that at least 8 times, 2 examples being Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Do_sources_say_criticism_of_Zionism_led_to_charges_of_antisemitism.3F on the talk page and in User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Drsmoo.27s_issues_and_response informal mediation and you just deny it and no else bothers to opine. Obviously once again the issues are being obsfucated here. So pardon my frustration. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see the difference between responding to your arguments, and explaining what the issue is and "obfuscating"? Drsmoo (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your hostility towards the subject (esp. in your talk page edits which an admin just had to revert because you refused to) and anyone trying to do an NPOV edit of the article is so severe that I have cataloged various editors' complaints about you at Wikiquette Alerts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be sensible to move the discussion away from "here's a source, can we use it" back to the quality of the article, its structure and balance. The basic structure is in place, with the music first, followed by writing, and then views. That's good. It might be possible to merge the writing section with the views section, but there are also reasons not to. There is still some work to be done on the music section, with far too many red links. This is quite typical of music biogs, when you take material from sources that want to give credit to every musician involved. It's not necessary to do that in WP. We just need to know about major collaborations that the Atzmon's been involved with. Those will usually be with notable musicians - when they're not, consider whether the musician becomes notable simply by the fact of collaboration with Atzmon. The writing section is OK for now, I think. Views is the problematic bit. Ideally you would set out Atzmon's viewpoints as quoted in RS, weaving in criticism as it was expressed of those particular points. That's not so easy as with some BLPs. For example of a politician you get the format Day 1 major speech-Day 2 favourable comments in some of the press, denunciations in other bits of the press. That's not happening in this case, probably because Atzmon is less prominent as a political figure, therefore his views are not widely reported, and those who wish to take issue with them only do so at the moment of an invitation or if they carry out investigative journalism to track down statements in minor sources. That leaves this BLP with a problem for weaving between the statements and criticism. As it stands I don't think it sets out Atzmon's views clearly. It does include some major criticism. What it must definitely not do - and go to BLPN for more advice on this if needed, is to draw its exposition of the subject's views from the critical sources. Keep referring back to GA and FA on controversial people to see how they handle the difficulties. Best of luck, all. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible remarks. Note that as early as April 2009 I argued (Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_2#Using_3_recent_WP:RS_interviews_in_NPOV_way_without_WP:OR) for using primarily neutral interviewer sources to make points and NOT just using quotes from hostile critics AND cherry picked quotes from the more neutral interviews to make an editor's WP:OR points. Several editors agreed in subsequent threads. And yet that is what Drsmoo keeps reverting back to - using quotes from Gibson to make his points, even while denying completely that what Gibson says about Atzmon is relevant! And no one else will bother to contest his doing so any more, perhaps because of the Wikiquette Alerts|persistent behavioral issues I complained about to wikietiquette. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Any help with editing the article, itsmejudith, would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Version with Non-WP:OR use of WP:RS in politics section

Since ItsMeJudith opened up other issues in the politics section, I decided to ppost here a diff to the revised version of this section correcting what I believe are WP:RS violations, among others. See this diff which I explained with this edit summary: More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section; use quotes in context of what Secondary Sources say, not editor's WP:OR; per various talk page and noticeboard comments. It is based on comments I have gotten in various places that deals with the WP:OR issue (cherry picked use of Atzmon quotes out of context of what the secondary source said about those comments). Specifically new paragraph two and new paragraph four. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RS query

Resolved

Related to Hawaii hotspot. Is this considered reliable? It's an online university. Edyg said that she'll "leave this one to the community" to decide so I'm taking it here. ResMar 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Open University has a good reputation and its learning materials can generally be considered reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a Conflict of Interest in that I reviewed Hawaii hotspot at WP:FAC and have agreed to fix a bunch of citation formatting issues. The Open University materials in use in the article are Tertiary Textbook equivalents; and is a reliable source as used. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much! ResMar^Hohoho 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove

There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AUSTRALIAN DOCTOR WHO FANDOM

Which fans were responsible for the formation of the Supreme Council of Time Lords in 1983?

Who was the editor of Time Loop, the Australian Doctor Who fanzine?

What was Paul Kennedy's involvement in the Australian Doctor Who fan movement?

Chewy6202 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reliable sources board is not a forum for asking for sources. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

US Naval Ship's Cruise Books

I am a veteran of the US Army and US Navy.

My time in the Fleet was served aboard the USS Ranger (CV-61). During my time as ships company, as opposed to being part of any of its airwings, I did one WESTPAC. This cruise was the Ranger's 30th Anniversary cruise (Pearl) and began on 14 July 1987 with us casting off sometime between 0900 and 1000, I cannot remember that detail and looking it up is not an easy task. From that cruise, during which we relieved the USS Miday and her battle group, and airwing, we became the second US Carrier to take up station in support of Operation Ernest Will. I have my copy of our ships cruise book, which documents many things from the Captain's words at the front about what we had been through, ports of call. The information also includes which airwings were deployed aboard Ranger and their Commanders and XOs, and all personnel.

There is no copy of it online that I have found, yet. Ancestry.com is working to place as many cruise books on its site that it can, and so far as quite a few, but they do not have any from the USS Ranger (CV-61) at this time.

I want to know if a ships cruise book is considered, currently as a valid and reliable source. And if not, a clear explanation as to why not.

Thanks,

FosterBDAV (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the criteria of Reliable Sources is that it must be published.--LexCorp (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this published material by any official department of the U.S. military or more like an in-ship job done by a group of sailor?--LexCorp (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this falls in between "published by the Navy" and "an in-ship job done by a group of sailors" ... In many ways, cruise books are analagous to a high school's year book. I think they would qualify as Self-published by the ship, but they are "officially" self-published. Editing these books is an official duty assinged to members of the crew (on smaller ships this editing duty will usually be a secondary assignment, while larger ships it will be a primary assignment handled by media specialists from the Navy's PR division).

To me the question is one of Verifiability... whether such materials are published in the sense of "made available to the public". Is there an archive of cruise books somewhere, one that a member of the public could access if they wanted to verify what was contained in the cruise book? Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ::Cruise books like many other documents will be RS for some things and not for others. Certainly they will be more useful if there are one or more copies available in a public facility such as a library or museum, otherwise verifiability becomes a challenge. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Incidentally most of the Rangers cruise books are a available on auction sites, prices seem to vary wildly. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Verifiability (of content, not just so other editors can check) is definitely an issue even when dealing with more formal U.S military documents. If I am not mistaken cruise books are documents to familiarise new personnel with the ship, building camaraderie and boosting moral, thus some may even argue they are a kind of in-house propaganda. Either way, it seems to me that even if they are deemed as reliable sources, they could only be used as primary sources. Thus one will have to say something akin to "According to the 1991 edition of the ship's Cruise book such and such event took place and such and such people were present". No very encyclopaedic at all--LexCorp (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, cruise books are not used to familiarize new personnel, they are more like high school yearbooks, with pictures of the crew, ports visited during the cruise, and overviews of significant events in which the ship was involved during the period. Cruisebooks for aircraft carriers will also include all of the aircraft squadrons and any other personnel not ordinarily assigned to the ship but aboard for the cruise, such as SEAOPDET personnel, EOD detachments, and the flag staff for the admiral. They certainly aren't propaganda, but they aren't reliable sources either. Anything which would be included in a cruisebook should be available *somewhere* in a reliable source. Most likely, however, they won't be available on the web. Since the Ranger was stationed at NAS North Island in 1987, the San Diego Union-Tribune should have some material available, although it's likely to be behind a pay firewall or not in the online archives. I'm not sure if any site has (hard-copy or microfilm) archives of the old North Islander newspaper, but I'm pretty sure that similar information would have appeared in that newspaper, the base newspaper, and it should qualify as a reliable source. Horologium (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• My suspicion is no. We never made cruise books, but the collections which were made by yeomen or support staff/groups were always avowedly unofficial. What wikipedia is looking for are published sources, military documents are used for convenience and necessity where those documents are official, describe some important facts and are verifiable by our readers (this doesn't necessarily mean web-available or free). Protonk (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)