Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Gokturk Source

I was pointed here due to a dispute on the Gokturk page. The flag is unsourced, and a certain user keeps reverting my edits to remove the unsourced flag. The only site given is this one: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2003/11/07/yazar/dundar.html I cannot read Turkish, so I was wondering if someone who can read it could verify that this is a credible source. Rcduggan (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not read turkish either, but from the format it seems to be a personal website/blog ... as such it would not be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dsmurat has posted a second source: http://www.cankaya.gov.tr/eng_html/gunes.htm

However, it is just a picture of a few flags, which do not prove the flag was actually used. Therefore it still does not belong. Rcduggan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What a source says

Is it possible to ask here for help about what a source says if one editor says it says green and the other says it says yellow? (If you see what I mean). I have tried 3PO but they can't help and the Psychology Project is pretty moribund. Fainites barley 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we might help. What's the source? --Haemo (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hooray! One minute and I'll go and get it. Fainites barley 11:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Its Michael Rutter, "Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect" (1995). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36: 549-571.


Question - do the "4 main changes that have taken place over the years" listed on p551 refer in the article to changes in attachment theory or differences between attachment theory and maternal deprivation, or is it hopelessly ambivalent and therefore useless as a source. (I realise it might seem like a small point but its one that has been repeatedly put in a number of articles, to the exclusion of other information, so help in resolving this point would be much appreciated.) Fainites barley 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Rutter is assuming that attachment theory is the continuation under another name and with conceptual development of maternal deprivation theory? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry? You've lost me slightly there. Do you mean maternal deprivation is the original concept and then attachment theory is the theoretical development? Fainites barley 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about the dodgy grammar. I'm saying that in Rutter's view attachment theory is the logical development of the maternal deprivation thesis. As a parallel: "natural history" underwent changes and in that process it morphed into "biology". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. Sorry to sound anal, but the specific 4 elements he describes as "4 main changes" - are they changes to attachment theory between 1969 and 1995, or changes from maternal deprivation to attachment theory (bearing in mind that there is no mention of monotropy, or imprinting in 'maternal deprivation'). Fainites barley 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for missing your post. They are changes to what he believes to be a single theoretical approach originally called "maternal deprivation" later called "attachment theory". That is my reading of the material. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you would like another opinion (not that the one already given is not correct, but just to give a bit more consensus to any emerging view), I'd be happy to give it the once over if a copy of the paper could be sent to me: I used to subscribe to that journal, but stopped and donated my copies to an overseas institution when I retired, and I worked as a research advisor and consultant within Child Psychiatry and Psychology for many years, which involved critically reading sources like that (I can provide some back up to show this if required). My email address works if that is convenient.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! Fainites barley 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion: are all Chinese sources to be branded unreliable?

This matter occurred in the course of discussion at Talk:Amdo. The discussion concerned two sources:

  • Li, Shifa. (2004) 青海史话 (History of Qinghai). China Wenlian Press. ISBN: 7-5059-2905-4

Both of these are Chinese language sources. The first is a history article about the Qiang people published in the Qinghai portal of the website of the Xinhua News Agency, China's official news agency.

The second is an academic book written by a historian.

In the course of discussion, another user asserted that, quote: "Both of these sources are published in China. Since only things that conform with PRC policy are allowed in China, it's meaningless." This seems to be arguing that all sources published in China are "meaningless" - but I think he meant to say they are unreliable due to China's media policy?

I don't see how this stands. That sources published in a certain country might lean towards a certain point of view make them potentially biased, not unreliable. WP:NPOV would mean that any alternative views should also be presented. So, for example, knowing that US sources tend to be pro-American does not mean we exclude all American sources. This is especialy so, as here, where the topic is about history and geography, not modern politics.

Even if you argue that a government mouthpiece is inherenly unreliable (which I do not think it is) -- there seems to be no reason to assume, prima facie, that an academic work is inherently unreliable simply because of the country of its publication?

Your opinions would be appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement that they are "meaningless" is obviously untrue: they may be biased; they may not have a WP:NPOV, they may be censured; they may not be true, or they may be unreliable; but they are certainly not "meaningless". The blanket condemnation of all particular sources should only happen as a result of careful study and critical thinking about them. This statement does not appear to have arisen out of any process of critical enquiry as far as one can see, and, although one could ask the editor who made the assertion for any reasoned sources that allow one to come to that conclusion, I think one can simplify the matter by recognising it as being at great risk of being itself WP:BIASed and not displaying a WP:NPOV. Instead, let each source be individually assessed using the normal criteria one would use for Wikipedia, and evaluated in terms of reliability based on the specific evidence that emerges by the same kind of criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Ruling out everything published in China is patently absurd. Every source, about everything, published everywhere, needs to be assessed individually on its own merits. Badgerpatrol (talk)
  • Press freedom indices should be a factor in evaluating articles that impinge on political issues and history is politicized. From that perspective I can understand reservations on the use of Xinhua, although see below too.
  • Are there any specific laws that would entail prosecution if the authors published an opinion other than what they do publish? If so this would obviously disqualify them. For example under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code reporters can be sued and jailed for suggesting that the Turkish state had commited acts of genocide, are there similar laws on the relevant issue in China? Why is this particular issue contentious?
  • For the academic works what is the world ranking of the university to which the author is attached? Are there EL sources on this subject from equal or better institutions? If so why aren't these used instead? If there aren't then FL sources may be used.
  • Since the material has been challenged the original chinese language text and an english translation should be provided as per WP:VUE but otherwise the source can still be used.
  • In any event you can always report on the fact that "Xinhua said this and that" and let it speak for itself. By qualifying who said what you are reporting a fact.Xenovatis (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that not all Chinese sources are unreliable all the time. BXenovatis asks why is this particular issue contentious. I note that the Qiang people are thought to be 'related' to Tibetans. Someone with more knowledge of this subject would need to comment, but I would think there could easily be a political dimension to this that needs considering.--Slp1 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And indeed the questioning of the sources occur on Amdo, "a traditional province of Tibet" according to WP. I would sincerely question the appropriateness of these references, given the situation. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand... if phrased as an opinion, to reflect the Chinese POV, they could well be quite appropriate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree: if appropriate phrasing is used, any political bias present in any direction in any sources can be taken into account without compromising the NPOV of the article. However, care must be taken to evaluate the source so as not to attribute bias unfairly.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, and I agree with the general consensus in principle. Normally, if it is a statement about recent history, I would not use a Chinese source as fact. However, the statement in question says "Amdo was traditionally inhabited by the Qiang people." In context, this statement is about the situation before the 3rd century AD. The following sentence says "From the 3rd century AD, the area was controlled by the Tuyuhun Kingdom", a statement that is not challenged -- nor should it be, as it is a historical fact with no significant objections.

Now, the way in which the objecting user has framed the issue, I think, is that the issue becomes political because the first statement says that the primary inhabitants of the area were not Tibetan at the time. However, I don't see how this is controversial, because as the content of the article reveals, the Tibetans did not assimilate the indigenous Qiangs for another three centuries.

So my question as to sources is: does it matter whether the issue is controversial? There seems to me no reliable sources that object to the content of that statement.

However, from this discussion I think I understand better why these sources might be seen as unreliable (note: I don't think NPOV comes into it since no contrary view points have been documented) -- so I might see if I can dig up any English-language sources on the matter. Thanks --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The objecting editor was certainly engaging in excessive hyperbole. Since there's a dispute, you may as well check other, independent sources to verify, but unless there are conflicting statements from other sources, it does seem a little bit... silly for a fairly uncontroversial point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenacious D - Reliability check

I am working on finishing off the Tenacious D article in order to get it promoted to FA, and have a couple of queries relating to reliability.

  • Is EveryHit.com reliable for chart information?
  • Is Box Office Mojo reliable for box office results information (particularly here)?
  • Is moviehole.net reliable? I have an interview that alone has some particularly useful info here Also, the same interview has been mirrored in a variety of sites (here, here, here and here). Are any of these reliable?
  • Is LiveDaily reliable? This in particular.

I know thats a lot, but I'm trying to be thorough. Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer for the rest, but yes, Box Office Mojo is considered a reliable source, and is one of the preferred ones for getting box office information for film articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You can usully find a clue by searching around in the website. For example: "everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection." Click around in each site looking for information about ownership, fact-checking, editorial oversight. If you can't find it, the burden is on you at FAC to demonstrate what makes the site reliable and why it's being used. For example, where do you find anything establishing reliability for moviehole.net? I can't find anything, so we shouldn't use them. Etecetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the help so far. I've struck out the stuff that is done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of "Dean Swift"

An editor has recently questioned to reliability of a 1910 work called Dean Swift written by Sophie Smith. Her work was published by Metheun, a company that produced textbooks, histories, religious works, and a large "literature" collection. The work has an extensive Bibliography of five printed pages, which uses 94 sources, including a contemporary history (Lecky's Leaders of Irish Public Opinions) which another scholar, A. Goodwin states:"nor does it [his paper] challenge the accepted accounts of Lecky" (Goodwin, A.. "Woods Halfpence". The English Historical Review LI (1936): pp. 647-674.) Goodwin's work was the starting point for analyzing Swift's Drapier's Letters in the historic context for many later scholars and his work is very mainstream. She also uses many primary sources used by Goodwin and by later scholars, such as Ferguson and Ehrenpreis. Although she states that she "cannot vouch for [the primary source's] authenticity", no one can. However, part of history is accepting primary accounts until there is proof against it, and then rationalizing the account itself. Hence why historians try to use primary accounts from both sides. Regardless, this was a wide spread and popular work. It had 4 reprints and is included in many academic facilities according to "worldcat". Please respond so we can settle this matter. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems, then, to have been a serious biography from a leading publisher. The most striking thing about it is that it is very out of date. If there is more recent scholarship that contradicts its findings then that must be an important consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For future reference - Its inclusion was from it being the only biography that looks through Swift's history as Dean, as opposed to Ferguson (Swift as Irish), or Ehrenpreis (Swift as a political writer). It is limitedly used on The Drapier's Letters 5 times out of over 100 citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it used for anything controversial? Are you sure that there is no more recent work (could be a scholarly article rather than a book) that covers the same ground? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have argued that Sophie Smith's work is not the most reliable source because modern literary critical methods and historiographical methods have changed since 1910. What would be considered legitimate primary source material and the methods of interpreting that material have changed substantially in the last 100 years. The standard biography of Swift is Ehrenpreis, something that this editor has admitted. This issue has received a lot of discussion, albeit in a fragmented way, at Talk:The Drapier's Letters#Questions on sources). Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are the statements sourced to this work that I feel could be challenged and deserve sourcing to a more reputable source:
  • The Drapier's Letters are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are a politically important part of Swift's writings along with Gulliver's Travels (1726), A Tale of a Tub (1704), and A Modest Proposal (1729). Above all, the Drapier's Letters are a primary reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, for he was one of the earliest writers to defy England's control over the Irish nation.
  • Jonathan Swift, then Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, was already known for his concern for the Irish people and for writing several political pamphlets. One of these, Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture (1720), had so inflamed the English authorities that the printer, John Harding, was prosecuted, although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that the Irish use the materials they produce rather than export them to England
  • Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the Letters. Instead, his first three letters emphasize how Wood was the mastermind behind the patent. Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of treason from being leveled against him in response to the third and fourth letters.
  • Some residents of Dublin placed banners and signs in the city to recognize Swift's deeds as the Drapier, and images from the letters, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting Goliath, became themes in popular literature. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Those comments are all in regard to the research Smith performed in finding out Swift's parish's reaction to his actions and deeds. She is the only one that I have found that have done more than just allude to the actions of the people in regard to Swift, but actually quotes and documents primary sources that are reacting to the people's involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If Smith is the only writer to mention this material, that raises even further questions of its validity. If no modern literary critic or historian repeats this information or endorses Smith's claims, that makes me even more skeptical of them. Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia suggests that the original writer of the idea, and not those who follow up and agree with it, are the ones that deserve priority to being sourced. This is also the understanding that I have from most of the academic circles that I am part of. Furthermore, academic work is supposed to be original, and unless someone is writing to say that these claims are wrong, then people would not bring them up, except anecdotally. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You must also know that if an idea is accepted within academic circles, it is frequently repeated and made reference to. That is how one establishes that it is an "important" or "significant" idea within a body of scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia prefers the original. 2. That is not necessarily true, since there are more teachers on a subject than writers on the specific point in the academic community. 3. Rarely, rarely, do academics ever duplicate information unless its necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what academic field you are a part of, but in literary studies and history, academics repeat a great deal of information. Most books contain large sections of "this is what is important that has been said before" - a brief survey of the scholarly literature on the topic - as well as references to the works that the author is responding to. Anyone working in these fields would know this. Unfortunately, the only way to prove this is to read large numbers of books. However, if the editors trying to help us resolve this dispute want to take the time to read through a large cache of notes that would demonstrate this, they can look at User:Simmaren/Sandbox/Jane Austen/Collaboration Work Page. This page of notes is the result of reading the major works of literary criticism on Jane Austen. It will amply demonstrate how important ideas are frequently repeated and how authors refer back to works that are significant. Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You can say that all you want, however, you are patently false. There are rules against copyright infringement, and duplicating research is not only illegal, its extremely academically dishonest. Academics only publish works when they have a new view point or something worth contributing. They do not regurgitate old information. Your stubborn refusal to seek and listen to advice from the community on the issue is unwarranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am obviously referring to properly sourced scholarship, scholarship which acknowledges its sources. All scholarship builds on previous works and acknowledges that (hence the extensive bibliographies, footnotes, and quotations). To act as if every iota of a every new work of published scholarship is original research is absurd. Anyone who has ever read a series of works produced in an academic field will know that this is a ridiculous assertion. I have even provided notes that disprove your claim from the scholarship on Jane Austen. I have continued this discussion in good faith at the article talk page and at this noticeboard to find a consensus. However, your obvious strawmen arguments, bizarre claims regarding academic scholarship, and refusal to address the legitimate points raised here and on the article talk page by myself and others, force me to conclude that this is a hopeless discussion. Awadewit (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring how actual academia works. 1. You cannot just regurgitate information, unless you are writing an Education Doctoral dissertation (that is the only acceptable academic work that can just be a reciting of previous information) 2. All academic works require original thought. Anything else is not a reflection of real academia. 3. The only one refusing to do anything is you, and you refuse to accept the consensus in favor of the work. Your constant continuance on the issue is troubling. This is the last response you will have from me. It seems that you do not understand what Wikipedia is, and that you would rather argue over things that aren't an issue. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I might have to do a little hunting to find specific sources, but at least the first 3 of them are critical commonplaces, and will be in every later discussion of his oeuvre. If any of these are challenged as wrong , the sources can be added. But this seems asserts at least some notability, so this seems a simple case of using the first convenient source. It should be supplemented or replaced ideally, but I don';t see it as worth much fighting. DGG (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to object to the assumption that just because something is old it is automatically unreliable, especially when it comes to History. Some old sources are still considered the seminal work on a given topic. Others may have had specific points corrected by modern scholarship, but are still highly reguarded.
That said, in this particular case, while it may not be the seminal source on Swift... it certainly should be considered a reliable source. Where Smith's scholarship has been corrected or questioned by more modern sources, I would certainly point this out in the article... and if Smith's scholarship is now considered incorrect by the majority of historians I would not hesitate to say drop Smith entirely, but it does not sound like this is the case. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is now being considered for FAC and this is why questions over its sources have arisen. The problem is, unfortunately, not limited to this source. I know that some older works are seminal, but that is not the case here, as Ottava Rima acknowledges on the talk page at Talk:The Drapier's Letters. I'm not sure why this work should be considered reliable since it has been supplanted in the field - for Swift scholars, this work is no longer important. Ottava Rima has not made the argument that Swift scholars find this work reliable and use it. WP:V and WP:RS emphasize that a work must be considered reliable within its context - that must be considered here as well. If Swift scholars don't use this work, why should we? Aren't we supposed to be following the experts? I would like to point out that the Norton Writings of Jonathan Swift, published in 1973, makes no mention of this work in its "Bibliography", but does mention two nineteenth-century biographies (this was before the publication of Ehrenpreis). If the work were regarded as reliable, it would have been listed here. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the only one with a problem over the source is you, and your failure to recognize proper community procedure over such leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not responded to my argument or evidence provided above. Awadewit (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Melody Amber

Directed here from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [1]; confirming reliability first may be a good idea even though there was already consensus on the article's talk page.

Text of my alert:

Harassment and vandalism on Melody Amber. User is of the conviction that every mention of my name should be eliminated from the internet and does not care about guidelines. I could use some help, not sure where to go with this. Spillover from nl:Wikipedia where user and user:JacobH have been stalking me for over six months, risk of further escalation if more troops are called in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have determined the unimportance of his work. GijsvdL (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F and various places as in Special:Contributions/Guido_den_Broeder. Aleichem (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, this is a total and complete lie by GijsvdL, and part of the harassment that had even spread off-wiki. But, also once more, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. You're now blocked at NL.wiki for the same behaviour. GijsvdL (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, keep on lying. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Two weeks, according to log - GijsvdL (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's being dealt with. Some of this mob are indeed admins ('moderators'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oscar, the moderator who blocked you, is your mentor. He also used to be member of the WMF Board of Trustees, he is not just someone who happened to become moderator. GijsvdL (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear that he is no longer a board member. But no, he is not my mentor. His claim that he is does not make it so, there are laws that even Wikipedia has to follow. To those interested: I was blocked two weeks for archiving. This Oscar guy insists that I am only allowed to archive on the last day of the month. He then continued to vandalize my user space. I'm sure that I need say no more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright questions. Apart from the unpleasant feeling of some WP:FORUMSHOP going on, WP:RSN is probably the right place to discuss this. The "copyright question" would be a red herring at best I suppose.
At WP:VPP#Copyright questions Guido makes this remarkable reasoning:
Amber tournament has a WP article → Amber tournament is notable → the sources on the tournament are notable → the sources on the tournament are reliable.
Guido, note, this is the inversion of how it works at en.wikipedia:
There are multiple reliable sources on a topic → the topic has "notability" (per WP:N) if some other requirements are met too (e.g. sources are "non-trivial" etc.) → apart from some exceptional circumstances this usually means that a Wikipedia article using such reliable sources can be written.
Note that there is no implication for "other" sources on the same topic to become at once "reliable" by the fact that an article is written on the topic.
Re. Guido's contention "these are the official publications on behalf of the organization". Possibly. Use the article's talk page to find consensus on such contention, I mean on both contentions that this is a fact and outdoes the "self-published" characteristic of the sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My statement was not questioned by anyone, so WP:AGF applies. You could, however, contact the organizer, if you wish to be sure. Or you could check the books themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I questioned it, as a result of this being brought to WP:RSN (and WP:VPP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliability of a source furthermore follows from the reliability of the publisher and the author. Also, if you google, you will find that these books can be found mentioned, and they have been discussed in many chess magazines. And nobody is denying that. User merely wishes to see my name disappear. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Show the references, you may be able to convince some people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't show them, since they are on paper. I can only list them, which would take quite a while. Not going to, therefore; if anyone doubts it it's up to them to make the first effort. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's up to you, but if you want to list some of the sources here then we might agree with you that they are reliable. Just give the author, title, publisher and date of publication. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the google references, I quote user Thoth at nl:Wikipedia: "(ik... snap niet dat ik al die google hits heb kunnen missen" (I... don't understand how I missed all those google hits). [2] Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm user Thoth on the Dutch Wikipedia and I do not support this user in his quest for selfpromotion, nor do I appreciate being selectively quoted by this user. In my opinion, he will do anything to see his name on a Wikipedia. He tried and is stil trying on the Dutch Wikipedia and he tried it on the German Wikipedia. I think this user is one of the worst kind Wikipedia has. Jorrit-H (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Another one-purpose account, one of the mob. Expect two or three more.
I do not have an account on ge:Wikipedia, never visited it even.
On nl:Wikipedia, I have contributed to hundreds of articles. About five of them contain one or more references to my work as a leading scientist in my field. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the reliable sources noticeboard. Someone lists a source, editors comment. Please confine your posts on this page to the purpose. Don't forget that you also have dispute resolution methods open to you. A request for comment might be appropriate at this stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
One purpose account? no, this account was made for making an article on request. btw, you started to use me as a refrence so don't whine when I have something to say about it, you named me so you got me here. and if we check out de:Benutzer:Rubi64 it aint you right? :P don't make me laugh anymore than you already did... Jorrit-H (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting an IP check. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Raleigh, North Carolina population

Before someone points to this and tells me case closed, I'd like to know if this 2008 estimate from the Raleigh government website is considered reliable. The website links to the Population Estimate Methodology which states "The City’s population estimate is based on factual information available regarding population growth since the decennial Census in April 2000...housing units and group quarters counts." The estimate is not from the Chamber of Commerce. I've seen CoC stats cited in other city articles and I know they have commercial reasons for inflating the population. It's from a goverment website and the methodology used to obtain the population estimate is the same as the United States Census 2006 estimates that are cited in various city articles. The reason I think using the 2008 estimate (374,320) is important comes from the fact Raleigh is the 15th fastest growing U.S. city and we should keep up with current and government-sourced information for readers. Look at the change in population from 2000 to 2008. IMHO, common sense tells me if a government website and other sources think this 2008 estimate is legitimate, then so should we. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Census figure first, then the new estimate attributed clearly to the source. Only the census figure in the infobox (for consistency across articles). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UrbanBridgez.com

UrbanBridgez.com (abbreviated UBG on their site) is being used as a source here (suspiciously added by a new editor named AriesUBG). Spam issues aside, the reliability of this source seems dubious at best. This seems to be a fairly widespread problem with music articles—sources that, on the surface, appear professional but on closer inspection raise serious doubts to their reliability. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb - again

Hello, I'd like to reopen discussions on the reliability of IMDb. Whilst posts etc are user generated, the majority of factual edits are first moderated by internal editors. You can't just ADD information willy-nilly, it takes a while, and sometimes your input isn't accepted. Why isn't it considered reliable? Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#y.21m Adaircairell (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Generally I agree with you, although it may be difficult for us to get this position accepted. Further below on this page is a discussion of IMDBPro, the paid-access version of the site. I will be commenting there too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits in the InfoBox

Resolved.

It seems there is ample evidence and support for using a Films credits as a Reliable source for the credits on the Infobox. Does it make any difference if we can link directly to the official version of the film itself to use the films credits for verifiability?
Can a Primary source officially and certifiably accessible on the Internet be used for this or must we always use a secondary source?75.57.178.110 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There really should be explicit guidelines regarding cinema - it does seem to be a frequent topic. I'm really having difficulty with overcoming resistance to the basic concept that simple statements of fact; Director, Editor, etc. as listed in a movies credits are allowed to even consider using the film itself as a Reliable Source. To me, it appears "unique" that this would be prohibited. This is what I am being told:

  • Now, I think it is important to point out that your personal viewing of the credits constitutes primary sourcing, and is therefore not usable here in Wikipedia. ... Until something citable comes up ...
  • The crux of my argument is that you need a single reliable, verifiable, notable citation that clearly identifies the director of the film ... Without it, you cannot include it, as it is synthesis.
  • Yes, but you cannot be a source of information. Dude, find a source that lists the director...
  • No citations, no inclusion. This isn't my rule; its Wikipedia's.
- User:Arcayne

I think you get the picture. It's nothing about content - It's a question regarding the admissibility of a films credits as source with regards to an encyclopedic record of it. Is this a Prohibited Act? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic film credits, like the plot, can be sourced from the film itself as it is the primary source. There is not prohibition against using the primary source every, only in sole reliance on and any use that involves interpretation. There is on interpretation in reading the credits on the screen. Primary sources can not, however, establish notability which is a different ball of wax.Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You are not citing yourself... you are citing the film credits. Film credits are printed material that anyone can read and verify... just like text in a book. The only difference is that the print appears on film and not on paper. In other words, film credits are quite reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I think the anon user is forum-shopping here without providing the actual background. In point of fact, article in question is Fitna , and the observed name the anon is referring to was the identification of the director (etc.) as "Scarlet Pimpernel". Later, a citation was found that clearly identified (and named) the nom de guerre as being code name given to the a production company that made the film to protect it from Dutch Muslim reprisal. The citation specifically names "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions". The abbreviation in the film was likely done in the same vein that in films, credits will often use 'ILM' for Industrial Light and Magic, or that catering was done by 'FeedMe' (leaving off the 'catering' and 'inc' part).
Again, my apologies that you were not provided the full background of the question before tendering an opinion. The anon hasn't been very successful in forcing the others in the discussion to see his point of view. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh. In that case, the information about the code name would go into the production section, with the proper citation(s) explaining why. It doesn't negate the credits of the film, but certainly is a notable topic for explaining in the prose why its listed that way. Collectonian (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no citation stating that the Director, Writer or Editor are anyone other than a person named Scarlet Pimpernel. That a production company is named Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is incidental. The "Others" in the discussion are in universal agreement. Only Arcayne insists that the Films Credits are inadmissible. The question was simple are movie credits a Reliable Source? No one was asked for a relative opinion on the content and no deception was made. Arcayne's comments are nonsense and obstructionist, he is Trolling with off-topic content remarks in a simple discussion about the RS utility of Movie Credits.

Am I correct in my understanding, that a Films Credit's are a Reliable Source? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, as I am stunned and amazed that the Troll has so easily derailed still another simple discussion, I will repeat the exact question I asked in my first post: "It's a question regarding the admissibility of a films credits as source with regards to an encyclopedic record of it. Is this a Prohibited Act? "75.57.186.159 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The answer stays the same. The film credits are a perfectly acceptable source for film articles, and should be the preferred source for listing in the infobox. If, and only if, there is a reliable source backing up the Scarlet Pimpernel = Scarlet Pimpernel Productions should that information be added to the PROSE but not the infobox. Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your concise and reasonable guidance.75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment, hoss - that doesn't seem correct. Forget the obvious personality disagreements presented. We wouldn't lit ILM by its shortened form even if it appeared in the credits as such, and we certainly wouldn't list Skippy's ChuckWagon without noting its a catering service. Please indicate any instance where the shortened form of a title appears anywhere in an FA film article. Yes, we discuss the happenstance behind the assignation of the title, but we don't ignore it, especially when we have citable proof as to the proper name. We are an encyclopedia, not a visual guide for a play-by-play of the film from soup to nuts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop - it is a settled issue here and at the article with a clear overwhelming consensus. Secondly do not make things up - you have no "citable proof" naming the Director, Writer or Editor as anyone other than the pseudonym. That's just a fact. Stop now, you're wasting the good peoples time. Or cite. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, anon - you haven;t the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Maybe you've forgotten where the discussion took place, but we aren't here to discuss what you do or don't know. The citation is in the Fitna discussion. It is identified as a production company, and you have since been reported for your rather unfriendly behavior. I think you're done here. Take your little vendettas elsewhere, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And because of the rather preposterous and bad faith claim that the production company reference doesn't exist, allow me to provide the citation with translation (as performed and verified within the article discussion):
"Katz [lawyer of Wilders] meldde overigens dat niet Wilders zelf, maar de stichting Vrienden van de PVV de opdrachtgever is van de film. Die heeft de opdracht gegund aan ‘Scarlet Pimpernel Production', de bedachte naam voor de productiemaatschappij die niet met de echte naam naar buiten wil." (Lit. quote of Volkskrant 7-04-2008)
Translation:
"Wilders lawyer Katz reported that not Wlders himself, but the foundation 'Friends of the PVV' has commissioned the film. The foundation has given the assignment to 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions', de name which was made up for the production company, that does not want to be mentioned by its real name."
I think having the right info is helpful in disagreements. It was important to cite as, later on in this article that this anonymous production company is the cause of the incorrect and inflammatory imagery. As this is an encyclopedia, its probably important to simply note that its a production company, despite the pretty short form they use in the credits. We as viewers are not citable. Someone talking about the credits in a reliable, citable format is. Hopefully, we are done here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


It has been clearly and concisely stated, in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguity. The Films Credits are a reliable source. Your assertion, stated above, "We as viewers are not citable." Is not a correct interpretation, it is the film itself that is effectively cited. We do not make up names for Directors, Writers and Editors based upon incidental names for Production company's. In point of fact, production company's often take the name of the principals involved - not vis-versa. To create names from thin air is neither correct nor citable. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We as viewers are not "citable" but the film's movie credits are the source, not the viewer, and as it is the primary source, it is the main one that is used. Again, as noted above, the infobox should use the name officially used in the credits, which is also the name that will appear on official registration documents, et al. In the prose, it can be stated that, "according to Patrice Katz, "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a doing business as name for "Friends of the PVV", which did not want its real name attached to the film." The use of another name for a production company is quite common, particularly among Japanese anime productions which often create Production companies named after the series that is made up of multiple companies. We list them by that production company name because it is the name they chose to do business as. We don't ignore their choice in name. Collectonian (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This, bordering on absurd, argument is actually playing out only over the term "Productions." The film credits say "Scarlet Pimpernel" and Arcayne, as per his other source claims the full name is "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions." While I'm not sure exactly what the big deal is I would like to point out that we do not in fact know what the exact legal doing business as name is ... that is whether or not it has the term "Productions" in it. In the end I think this is a relatively pointless discussion, since we can all agree that Scarlet Pimpernel (Productions) is not some individual with that legal name. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
On that we are agreed. No difference either way, really, though the source Arcayne listed actually says SP (SPP) is another name for Friends of the PVV, which would be different. The whole thing is a confusing mess, really. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of that we are quite likely all agreed. It is quite a mess. However, I am not sure I understand what the problem is with preferring to list the term in the infobox (which is supposed to contain the most concise info for the movie, a la at a glance) from a Primary source to that of a Secondary source (the one calling it Productions). For the same reason we cannot list an observable phenomena ()the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation.
That said, I am willing to strike the alternative of listing it as "Scarlet Pimpernel (Productions)", which would seem to seem to bury the dead horse some folk insist on beating into mush. Will that work as a compromise? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Compromise? "which would seem to seem to bury the dead horse some folk insist on beating into mush"? We have an accepted principle on Wikipedia that a films credits are acceptable as a reliable source. Wikipedia also has a preferred standard that the Infobox correctly reflect the films credits. And we do that no matter what the pseudonym is, be it a standard stage name Ice T, Alan Smithee[3][4], Walter Plinge, Georgina Spelvin or whomever.
Further we have no citation to correct the credits with - no where is there any statement that anyone other than the pseudonym has taken the credit. That a production company bears the same name is incidental. Clarity is required. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, could I trouble you to learn how to indent your posts? Don't get me wrong, i am pleased as punch you've set aside that silly ego sig of putting a spade at the top of your sig, and also that you've taken to signing your posts more often (even though your IP address has changed virtually every day). Indenting your posts allows you to indicate when you are responding to another's post. Take a look at the edit screen for this page - everyone else does it, so give it a whirl yourself.
As for the other matter, I believe you haven't really read my post or the accompanying posts to the policy links I generously supplied you. Might I trouble you to re-read my post and craft a response based upon that? Comments like "that a production company bears the same name is incidental" do not do you service. Please read the actual policies as they are, and not as you wish they were. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a simple question, "Are a Movies Credits a Reliable Source?". It received a simple, clear answer: 'A Movies Credits are the preferred source for the info box'. Yet Arcayne has dictated that this be marked as "UnResolved"?? I should add that the User Arcayne has a history of failing to accept any answer but the one he demands to hear, this is from the same topic, different subject: "Re-added them myself, the discussion is over, no-one else agrees with you Arcayne." I don't know how much clearer anyone could make it, but a Resolved Tag would be appreciated. 75.58.39.148 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure you would appreciate it, anon. Unfortunately, the bs personality conflict you keep tossing into the discussion tends to muddy the waters. How about you restrain your posting and let an actual established editor weigh in on the actual points of the discussion? I'd like to get a few folk's feedback, if that's quite all right with you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record... I agree with listing "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box and discussing the tie to "Friends of the PVV" (cited to the other source) in the text. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree listings in the Infobox are allowed to be sourced from the Film and cited to the credits. Just for clarification do you support the listing of Director, Writer and Editor as Scarlet Pimpernel, as listed in the credits and of which no citation exists crediting anyone else, or are you suggesting that the appendage "Productions" be added to the Credits in the InfoBox where they do not occur in the credits and where no source supports the usage? (I never, and no one else has, opposed the very proper and cited mention of SPP. It was a Red Herring.)75.57.196.81 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in this case my first choice would be to simply omit listing the Director, Writer and Editor completely. But if that is not possible, as a second choice I could see listing "Scarlet Pimpernel" (including the quotes - to indicate that this is an obvious pseudonym - I might even include a statement to that effect in a foot note or as part of the citation). The point is to make it clear to any readers that the film was made anonimously, and does not actually list the people involved. And, of course, if a reliable source, disclosing the individual(s) involved, is located... that should be discussed and cited in the text. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a source that notes Scarlet Pimpernel as a production company. For informational sake, we want people to know it isn't an individual, but an alias. I would even propose making it "Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions, which would accomplish this task. However, if there is solid citation for us to ignore this, maybe a follow-up providing the policy/guideline that nixes the idea would be good to have. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So there is no basis on which to add "Production" to the credit? When listing the credits in the Infobox one must follow either the Films Credits or a sourced reliable citation?
It has been taken by Arcayne to WP:OR notice board, has been discussed in two different Wiki article talk pages, in three sections here, marked as Resolved and archived four times in the articles Talk page and fully entered into the article only to be reverted by Arcayne at least Ten times.
I'm marking this as: Resolved: A Films Credits are a Reliable Source and are the preferred citation for the Movies InfoBox. There is no reason to drag this on any further - it has community consensus - Blueboar did not state to change the names, no one but you has.
As this has been marked UnResolved without comment and no reason has been given I will mark it as Resolved again shortly.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you (finally) using discussion to suggest a ouse of action. As I consider discussion to still be ongoing (note the unanswered question above), I am letting you know that I would oppose marking an unfinished discussion as resolved. Sometimes, being patient is going to be a far more effective editing tool for you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has near universal consensus, and has been the supported usage of, at a minimum:

  • Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • MantisEars (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Huon (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Face 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Avb 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Myself

It has been taken by Arcayne to WP:OR notice board, has been discussed in two different Wiki article talk pages, in three sections here, marked as Resolved and archived four times in the articles Talk page and fully entered into the article only to be reverted by Arcayne at least Ten times.

The sole voice opposing this is Arcayne. It is Resolved and enjoys community consensus. There is nothing left to discuss, your own comments even go no further than just a desire to "discuss" - but you don't even pretend to offer reason or support for this. It was never a contentious issue, you are and have been, the sole resistance. Consensus does not mean unanimity and you do not possess the Wiki veto.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't see all those folk's post here. I am trying to retain AGF, but that seems a tad suspicious, anon. I have supported my view with policy and guidelines. Your pov is to seek an interpretation of CIMDB that exists nowhere else. You have specifically misrepresented the argument.
This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[5][6][7] [8]different sections here still on this page, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style![9]
It is Resolved. It is the Community's Consensus. Even you must agree that there is not now, and never has been, any support for your effort.
Please await the end of discussion. Be patient. Building consensus is like building Rome - it isn't done in a day. If you disagree, sit back and wait a while. If there is - as you say, no consensus, then there wont be one in a few days from now. There is no hurry. Relax. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[10][11][12][13] [14]different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous editors and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS[15]]
It's been more than two weeks. You're engaging in a campaign, and not a good faith effort to reach and respect consensus. 75.58.39.201 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

By returning the dispute from the far-ranging noticeboard and policy discussion pages (I won't call it forum-shopping) to the article discussion (the source of the dispute) page, compromise was reached by all of the editors concerned. Couching Scarlet Pimpernel in scare quotes will serve to note SP as a pseudonym, and further detail about it being a production company will be noted in the text. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits in the InfoBox - arbitrary break

Resolved.

(matter resolved at discussion source)

The argument is as follows: do observational details outweigh citation? The argument posed by the anonymous editor is that the nom de guerre 'Scarlet Pimpernel' desperately needs to be in the infobox all by itself, since he saw it in the credits of the film, Fitna. Currently, the article the credit as 'Scarlet Productions.' The anon seeks to have the word 'Production' removed fromt he infobox.
He rejects any compromise ("Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions being the most reasonable) that notes the existence of the citation that identifies the alias as a production company. For lack of ambiguity's sake, it seem important - not to mention encyclopedic - to note that 'Scarlet Pimpernel' in the infobox is not an individual, or a real name - we have reliable citation that specifically identifies that it is not, but rather a pseudonym to protect the actual production company, which goes by another name. New thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The film credits state that the film is "a Scarlet Pimpernel Production"... so including the word "Productions" in the box for producer is correct. For other box categories (director, writer, etc.) the film credits simply list "Scarlet Pimpernel" as if this was a person. So Scarlet Pimpernel (without the word productions) is what should go in the boxes for those categories. I have no problem with using scare quotes around the name to indicate that this is a pseudonym. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The matter appears to have finally found a resolution/compromise at the article discussion. The term Scarlet Pimpernel will be changed to Scarlet Pimpernel, which notes the name as a pseudonym as determined by citation.

Sources at Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination‎

Could someone take a quick look at the sources used to backup the straw polls over on Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination‎? I've been going back and forth with John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) on this and I would appreciate a little outside input as to what constitutes a WP:RS for the purposes of reporting the results of political actions. Burzmali (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One should not be sourcing straw poll results to Ron Paul's website. Ron Paul's site has made claims (like delegate count, etc) which are at odds with what reliable sources state, so I don't think they are acceptable. Free Market News Network... maybe. --Haemo (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Haemo, I agree that no candidate should be the primary source for a result. (The delegate count issue is not so clear-cut, of course.) The article is in the midst of revamping according to the concerns Burzmali has stated, so there is some work cut out for me yet; but right now Paul's site is only referenced at two places, one at the WP map to link RP's map as illustrative (that might be cut), and one to back up a second incomplete source for a single poll. We also have a Huckabee blog back up the official result in another poll, and a few links that look very Thompson-favorable, and the like. My general rule has been to use the best sources possible for every poll that can be independently proven to have been held, and to use involved sources only when there is no disagreement about the results. This could result in either a primary source, a secondary source, source-based research, or a less reliable source when reporting noncontroversially (and often against interest). I had tried to limit the article to one source per poll, but Burzmali has made clear that backup sources will be often necessary. I have also asked at talk for anyone who disagrees with my rules to propose others, but nobody has.
In general, this article was created because Paul's campaign was clearly giving partial results, for example, starting their results list in Jun after Paul had hit his stride. The purpose is an independent list that reports all results impartially and in accord with commonsense rules, and Southern Texas and I both think the main article (both parties) will be presentable for FL sometime soon. We have been open for discussion since the article premiered! JJB 16:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just the RP websites that I am concerned about, there were plenty of blogs and forums used as sources as well. I'll wait until you complete your rework to bust out the hedge trimmer. Burzmali (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Paper That Uses Non-RS?

Is the specific paper "Of Otaku and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law",[16] by Jordan Hatcher on the Social Science Research Network considered a reliable source for making a claim IF the source he cites for that claim completely fails WP:RS? Specifically, he claims that Geneon Entertainment only licensed the anime series Fushigi Yūgi because of its popularity in fansubs, however the source he cites for this is a fansub distribution site and a non-RS anime site that does not specifically make such a claim, but only says that distributors "should" look at fansub downloading when deciding to license a series. This would seem to invalidate the paper as a reliable source and I'm not sure it should be used to add that claim to the Fushigi Yūgi article. Collectonian (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

May I add that Sequential Tart, one of the sites the paper uses as a source, describes itself as a women's comic industry web magazine, which has run since 1998. -Malkinann (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's been published in a verifiable publication then it's reliable. What the author chooses to source is not relevant to verfiability. --neonwhite user page talk 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, so then I guess the question is is Social Science Research Network considered a reliable source? Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the actual journal it's published in (SSRN seems to be a journal-searching service), it says the article's been peer-reviewed. -Malkinann (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A follow up question, and semi-related, is the "Sequential Tart" website linked above considered a reliable source? Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sources meet the relevant policy's criteria, so they are reliable sources. Still, if you think the referenced statement is controversial, all you have to do is attributing it, so to make it clear that it is that source's take on the issue, and not a general fact. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sequential Tart appears to be a reliable source. As for the other question, of what to do if an RS uses something that isn't an RS, that's a seperate possible can of worms that may be beyond us to answer. For example, what if a newspaper that is otherwise reliable uses as a source someone who we feel is unreliable? Do we have the authority to devalue the article in question? That would open the door to making questionable calls based on our own personal bias rather than neutrality. Tricky. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

school newspapers

Are school newspapers for colleges considered reliable? (for example, [17]); I don't need them to prove the notability of the subject, but they are a good source for information and opinions on the subject, as the subject is college-oriented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that particular link is an op-ed in a student newspaper. Op-eds are usually on the bleeding edge of reliable sources, as are student papers. Combine the two, and I'm not confident at all. If it's a goofy subject like "Zombie apocalypse" we might as well include the opinion, but in a mainstream article I would be quite leery of it. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I read the link as a letter to the editor, in which case it would have to be "not reliable." (Maybe a letter to the NY Times from a notable person would be reliable). In general, I would think that a well established student run college newspaper, at a well established college or university addressing general news topics would still be borderline, but if they were addressing a university topic it would be reliable (i.e. more or less agree with Eleland here). Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, bad example for the op-ed, but in terms of general use of school newspapers, it's ok? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
They're on the edge of reliability. If it's a novel and controversial claim, or if it's outside the general area of the newspaper's competence (ie, campus affairs,) I would wish to attribute it in the text as the report of a student newspaper. Without knowing more about the specific dispute, it's difficult to give a more helpful opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Some collegiate newpapers are well known for their journalism... others are not. I think this has to be a case by case determination. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article in question is Humans vs. Zombies. I have a primary source backed up by the Washington Post for the rules of the game, et al, but in terms of the controversy it has caused at college campuses... that is where I would be using some sources from school newspapers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source Questions for the Sega Mega Drive article.

Hello. To whom it may concern, I've been working on the Sega Mega Drive article for a little while now. The article is now being peer reviewed, but the peer reviewer brought up two sources that I used as being questionable. Now, he didn't know whether they were reliable or not. So, I took these sources over to the Video Games wikiproject and once again got an "I don't know" for an answer. Now, I'm bringing these sources here to find out. The first source, http://www.skillreactor.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?megadrv , appears to be a tertiary source, a report somebody compiled about the Mega Drive and cited where they got their information. Although neither the peer reviewer nor the person who looked at the sources from the Video Games project knew whether it would be a reliable source or not, but the information from this source is used very extensively in the article. The second source, http://www.consoledatabase.com/consoleinfo/segamegadrive/index.html , is used less, but still used extensively. I would really appreciate some feedback about these two sources. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB Pro

I know the regular IMDB is not considered a reliable source, but what about its Pro site? Someone is using it as a source for biographical information about a relatively little known actor, but I'm wondering if Pro is somehow reliable where the main site is not. Nothing that I see in their information for pro would seem to indicate it be.Collectonian (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is more reliable. Consider what the following (uncited) statement from the wiki article on Imdb:
In 2002, the IMDb spun off a private, subscription-funded for profit site, IMDbPro, offering the entire content of the database plus additional information for business professionals, such as personnel contact details, titles in development, movie event calendars, and a greater range of industry news.
As well, most information as to the features of ImdbPro are contained within the site itself, which requires a paid membership to access. This would seem to be in opposition to our verification policy - we aren't able to verify the presence of the statement being cited without signing up and paying for the right to verify it. This limits the fact-checking reliability required for inclusion as well as seemingly interrupting the peer-review that adds to a statement's verifiability. Exceptional claims made by such a source cannot be verified as having an exception source through normal means by the average user (even JSTOR is accessible through a local library). Failing our basic policy is reason enough for disinclusion.
I would suggest that the individual of whom you speak read our verifiability and reliability policies not just for the letter of the policy but the spirit of them as well. Free sources are everywhere, and if something is important enough, it usually turns up in more than one place. Wikipedia has a list of free online sources here. Good luck. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was thinking, but figured it would be good to confirm. :) I didn't think Pro actually offered more information beyond the contact stuff and other stuff of no value to Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus at WP:V is that that having to pay to view a source does not affect it verifiability. Anyone could sign up and pay if they wished to do so. It is therefore verifiable. It is analogous to having to pay for a library card to check out a book at a public library. That said, I agree that IMDbPro is probably not reliable, you simply give faulty reasoning for saying so. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I know of IMDb, the main site is a reasonably reliable source, as to the content which is reviewed by editors before going live. (The message boards, plot synopses, parents guides, and other items are not reviewed by editors, but there is still plenty of content that is reviewed.) I'm not sure why there is a common belief that IMDb is not a reliable source. I can't speak to the pro site because I've never seen it, but to the extent that the same information appears on the main site and the pro site, clearly it's just as reliable either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes to WP:RS

I've made a couple minor changes to WP:RS. In short - I added a couple notes to WP:RS#Scholarship. Basically: a single, small study is not considered the final word in science, and in complex fields like medicine, small studies have a decent chance of later being shown wrong. And, oh yeah. Not everything that claims to be a peer-reviewed journal is reliable, because some fringe theorists decided to publish their own journals, reviewed by peers who are fanatically devoted to the fringe theory. Secondly, I revised the extremist sources section, basing it a bit more closely off of WP:V, and adding a little bit on fringe sources based on WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and checking WP:FRINGE to confirm my interpretation of what that meant re: sourcing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a good thing to move the guideline closer to what the policies say (especially WP:V). This guideline has a tendancy to attract instruction creap, and often ends up in direct contradition with Policy. We have to clear it out from time to time. When doing so, we must be careful not to inadvertantly end up conflicting with one policy in an attempt to clear up a conflict with another. In this case, I don't think you did so... Just wanted to go on record with the caution. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to WP:RS#Scholarship on the publishers of academic or purported academic journals, a criterion I feel could be more widely used in the assessment of RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
the language needed some adjustment, & I & others have been adjusting it to sound less contentious. DGG (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this. 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

James Randi

Is James Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural a suitable source for a description of a meditation technique? It was originally published by St. Martin's Press, a, large and well-established publisher, and co-written with Arthur C. Clarke the science fiction writer. Randi has won several awards, induding a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant". He has published many books. I believe he's considered a living authority on paranormal and spiritual phenomenon. This is inspired by a dispute at Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#Randi. (I searched for this in the noticeboard archives and I don't think it's been asked before.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the central issue here is whether the article Teachings of Prem Rawat is part of the biography of the living person, Prem Rawat, and therefore requires the exceptionally good sources stipulated by biographies of living persons. User:Will Beback does not believe so. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A) I think that this book may qualify as an exceptionally good source. B) I don't think that "Teachings of Prem Rawat" is a BLP, and certainly not in this context. That article is mostly material merged from "Techniques of Knowledge"[18], which is a meditation system dating back to 1780. The material from Randi is not about Prem Rawat and doesn't mention his name. It's solely about the meditation technique. C) The BLP aspect isn't really relevant on this noticeboard. Let's resolve the reliability issue first and if there are still disputes then we can visit other noticeboards as need be. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Randi may be an known stage magician and skeptic, but that is not the issue at hand. Will omits the fact that the few paragraphs in that book that want to be used as a source in a BLP, contains numerous factual inaccuracies, such as wrong dates, wrong information about aspects that are well documented by scholarly sources, etc, and that the proposal is to omit mentioning these and cherry pick one short sentence from these paragraphs. Well, we cannot do that: either the source is accurate or it is not (as it compares to the many scholarly sources available on the subject) So, again, the issue at hand is the quality of a source and not a blanket statement about if a source is reliable or not. There are other considerations as well: We ought to use the best sources available to us: Per Wikipedia:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research: (my highlight) Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.' Try the library for 'reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later. An entry on that book that is so peppered with factual errors, is not the best "reputable authoritative source". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(btw the book was not co-written by A C Clark. He just wrote a foreword) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this, this is a fairly borderline-notable subject - it peaked in the 70s, so finding articles is going to start to become a problem, since proponents of a view have a habit of keeping track of sources they like, but the skeptical views tend to be forgotten as there's noone who has an interest in recording them. Hence, I think that Randi's views are fine to include as criticism, if properly attributed to him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Randi is a reputable source on yogic techniques. In the Teachings of Prem Rawat article, he was quoted in the Reception section, so one could have some sympathy for his presence there, but I feel it's still not enough. One of the methods he comments on, in a very dismissive and sneering way, is Khecarī mudrā, a centuries-old method used in the Indian subcontinent. Needless to say, Randi's comment does not appear in the Khecarī mudrā article, nor is it ever likely to, even if that article were brought to FA status.
To transpose this sort of issue to another field, Richard Wagner is reported by the New York Times to have written that Hegel's work is "rubbish". The New York Times is a reputable source. However, this does not mean that we should now all flock to the article on Hegel and insert a sentence like "The notable composer Richard Wagner thought that Hegel's work only appeared profound, but was in fact empty nonsense and rubbish". Wagner's views of Hegel simply do not have encyclopedic relevance, even though they are published and many people would agree with him. The same goes for Randi's views of yogic methods. Jayen466 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That argument has nothing to do with whether Randi is a Reliable Source. You asked whether we thought Randi was a reliable source for this. I think he is. Is he one you want to include on this page? That's for consensus over there, but I don't think that policy gives you an automatic win on this argument. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jayen that this material covers an old meditative technique, and is not about a living person. I'd also add that Randi is apparently used as a source for hundreds of WP articles, including BLPs.[19] He is also cited by numerous scholars, [20], and this particualr book is also cited.[21] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The book may be cited, but if you look at where and by whom it is cited, none of these citations appear to be in anything remotely approaching this field: [22]. Wagner's letters, I am sure, are cited too; that does not make him a noted authority on Hegel. Jayen466 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Randi is a reliable, although opinionated, source, for claims of the paranormal or transcendent. Because he's approaching things from the "debunking" side, it may generally be appropriate to qualify his remarks as "according to noted skeptic James Randi...", however, his opinion is worth mentioning. <eleland/talkedits> 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Eleland, though where Randi's critiques align closely with the scientific rationalization of the subject, they may not need attribution within the text (as opposed to when he, for example, calls people names.) Remember too, WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. Attribution is necessary, but his work can be used. - Merzbow (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Parity of sources is relevant and part of the reason for my objection to Randi as a source in this article; we have numerous texts by scholars of religion available, covering a full spectrum of opinion, and Randi sticks out like a sore thumb. Jayen466 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but the fact that Randi's text (which is only a few paragraphs) is full of factual errors makes this a less desirable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see how saying "We have a lot of religious sources" means "We shouldn't use non-religous sources". Wikipedia seeks to cover all the views in existence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, we don't cover all the views in existance... we cover all significant views. The question is whether Randi's views on this should be considered significant. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Randi is a well-known and award-winning investigator of spiritual and paranormal activities. The article already contains the views of followers, and the skeptical view is unrepresented. For those reasons it appears to be a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the background is useful to know here. Will Beback, Jossi, Rumiton, Jayen466 and I have been actively editing the various Prem Rawat pages. On the actual BLP page, Randi was one of the very few critical sources present. While I felt he was more snide than I would like for a BLP, I also strongly felt that supporters of Prem Rawat were trying to remove all criticism for POV reasons. I called for Randi critics to provide an alternate, better source for criticism, to move forward in good faith, but none was forthcoming.
On a non-BLP page, I think the non-involved editors here have it right -- Randi's opinionated and that should be noted, but he is not unreasonable or irresponsible. I think he clearly represents a notable and significant viewpoint. I also think there are way more pages on Prem Rawat-related topics than his notability justifies, but that's a whole other discussion. Msalt (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but where are Randi's views on Christianity, Jesus or the Virgin birth of Jesus in those articles? To quote Randi,

"For example, they told me, some 2,000 years ago a mid-East virgin was impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes. All that was in addition to tossing out demons. He expected and accepted a brutal, sadistic, death — and then he rose from the dead. There was much, much, more. Adam and Eve, they said, were the original humans, plunked down in a garden to start our species going. But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons — and one of them killed the other — yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no! Then some prophet or other made the Earth stop turning, an army blew horns until a wall fell down, a guy named Moses made the Red Sea divide in two, and made frogs fall out of the sky…. I needn't go on. And that's only a small start on one religion! The Wizard of Oz is more believable. And more fun."

No, this is simply minority-bashing; it has nothing to do with Randi's notability or the encyclopedic relevance of his views (many of which I have some degree of sympathy for, incidentally). If I am wrong and this is a good-faith effort to reflect the views of a significant commentator on religious matters in Wikipedia, please see to it that his views are reflected in the articles mentioned above. Upon successful completion of that task I shall then entertain the idea that his views are of wider importance than I have hitherto believed. Jayen466 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It is a reliable source. That doesn't mean it has to be included, or that you can't go and edit it in elsewehere. But you can't just try and get something declared not a reliable source because you dislike it. Take it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:FTN if you want it looked at on those grounds, but I don't think it's going to be found to violate any actual policy, and you must instead actually build consensus not to include it. You know, WP:CONSENSUS. That other part of Wikipedia policy that so often gets ignored in these disputes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
While the factual reliability of the account has been questioned as well, that was not the issue here. The question asked above was whether it was a suitable source for the description of a meditation technique. Otherwise, I have no objection to dealing with this as per WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. Jayen466 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is no dispute that this book from Randi can be considered a usable source in certain contexts, and a case can be made that it is not usable in other contexts. The real discussion about suitability and appropriateness for inclusion needs to be had at the specific article. All sources, have to be assessed in the context of other policies as well, such as NPOV#UNDUE, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This just isn't a reliable sources issue, it's a consensus issue, and the effect of using this noticeboard in this manner, sidestepping consensus, would be inappropriate. (Obviously, that does not mean that it was the intent of the original posters.) This needs sorted out at the article, with reference to WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:NPOV/FAQ for more guidance. Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, however. That said, perhaps you could work out a compromise, say, paraphrase Randi's somewhat inflammatory language into something more neutral. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Organization Newsletters to Source an Article on the Organization

I want to write an article on a Rochester, NY based organization called Metro Justice. I believe that the criterion of notability for this topic is established, due to the fact that they have been a force in the community since their origin in the civil rights era in 1965. They grew out of Saul Alinsky's suggestion that whites organize their own organization to support blacks in Rochester after the race riot in 1964. Over time, they involved into a more general social justice organization, and have fought battles that led them into the courtroom and even to the Supreme Court. They have been very influential in accomplishing a lot of significant change in the Rochester community. I don't want to be too lengthy here, but simply present some of the arguments for notability.

My problem is this: there are limited third party sources which I might cite to write the article. A book was written on the organization by a former member that covers only its early years. There are miscellaneous articles, some of which come from the two major print news sources in Rochester, and others from local print sources such as community newsletters. The most comprehensive source of information I have available is back issues of the Metro Justice newsletter, which summarizes their activities each year and provides the kind of general overview of their work in a chronological fashion that would be most useful in writing the article.

Is it acceptable to use these newsletters as reliable sources?

Thank you.

These are what are called self published sources, and are acceptable in articles about the organization that issued them. See WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'Map' of Megalithic culture

Image:Megalithic Culture.PNG is an alleged map what the caption says is the "Development of the European Megalithic Culture", which is an obsolete culture (as the article says later, with references). The editor who placed the map there says he took a free map and then, using material from an article by Geoffrey Barraclough in The Times Atlas of World History, created the map in the article. Barraclough died in 1984, so the map is over 23 years old, perhaps a lot older. The editor also says "The problem here, I suspect, is that the word "culture" has a wider meaning in normal English usage than how archaeologists use it. Since we're not writing a paper for an archaeological journal, the use here is legitimate." but that is another issue. My question is whether a handmade map using such old information can be considered a reliable source. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not sure if "source" is the right word for this ... A user created image should not be used as a source in the first place. That would violate WP:NOR. However, such an image might well be usable in an article, to illustrate what is said in reliable sources. The fact that this specific image is based on old information might or might not affect its use as a good illustration. That depends on whether the underlying information is still considered accurate or if more recent research has made it obsolete. That is a determination that is best made at the article level (where, presumably, there are editors who know the subject matter) and not here. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying this, I'm back in dialogue on the talk page about the age of the reference.Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha Beall Mitchell Arkansas Times Blog.

Referencing the Martha Beall Mitchell article, and in extenstion, the Martha Logan article, I found a reference from a blog, from the Arkansas Times. The question I have, is this covered by our policy? Th external links policy states that, under links to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." My question is, is this source OK to use? The link is is [23] here. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you're looking to use that blog as a source for biographical information about Martha Mitchell, I would recommend you look elsewhere instead. There are only about two paragraphs of content about Martha Mitchell in that blog post, which was written by someone writing under the pseudonym "Death by Inches" -- which does not make the writer sound like a recognized authority, even if he might actually be one. I suspect that some additional research could yield much more reliable sources about Mitchell in mainstream newspapers and magazines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

reliability check por favor

An editor has used http://www.metalstorm.ee for sourcing, asking whether it's reliable or not. It's not my cuppa, and I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, can somebody please vet? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a bit more information... exactly what are they trying to source with the site? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The genre of an album; "Caught in a Mosh" from the album Among the Living. I've included the genre (which the site lists under "style") for now, but with a comment that I'm having WP:RSN evaluate the source. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Politico.com

In the article George Soros a new source that I hadn't heard of the Politico or politico.com is being used as a source for the supposed fact that Soros is funding a political attack campaign against John McCain, e.g. "Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements."

Since the tone doesn't seem like a neutral reportage of facts, and since I'd never heard of it, I'd think it's not a reliable source. Rather than get into an edit war about it, I thought all you reliable source experts might be able to chip in.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be a reliable source, although there may be issues of NPOV inherent in the manner in which it is cited. Since it's a fairly new media outlet and may not have built up a reputation for accuracy, I would generally prefer to cite it as "According to the tabloid politico.com... whatever". <eleland/talkedits> 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, but if it is a tabloid (in the sense of content or style, rather than printing format), then it shouldn't be in a BLP. Does anybody have info with whether this is a reliable source? Smallbones (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its wise until its built up a reputation. I note, however, that the "story", such as it is, has been picked up by Fox News, so there's a supposedly more reliable source on it. I wouldn't think that it was encyclopaedic until the ads actually appear, though. By which point the NYT and such like will probably be covering them. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Sources

On the Portsmouth article myself and another editor have conflicting sources, what is the best way to resolve it? is there any precendent between Web and Paper sources?

The best way to deal with conflicting sources is by Attribution. Discuss what both sources have to say in a neutral manner. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, for simple, minor facts, it may be best to check further sources and use them to help decide. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the newspaper article you are trying to use as a source, it is riddled with inaccuracies which is unsurprising as it is a throwaway piece on a football rivalry (failing to even get the club formation date correct). The London Gazette is a official journal of the government, used to announce statutory notices such as the granting of city status. When two sources conflict like this I would go for the one of greater status. Nuttah (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a very silly content dispute; the anonymous IP editor is attempting to rewrite history by relying on one incorrect newspaper sports report, whereas my source is the government's official journal of record. This dispute is over a simple matter of fact, not opinion; the anon IP's source is quite simply wrong yet the anon IP has repeatedly reinserted the erroneous information. DWaterson (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have updated with a direct link to the original archived article from 1926. Hopefully there can be no dispute now. DWaterson (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Supercouple

I'd appreciate some input on a couple of sources being used in this article. The first is "The power of cinematic love" by Joanna Arcieri. She's a student at Mt. Holyoke and is writing for the school paper. The second is "Gamers' Philosophy II: "Love" is a Four-Letter Word" by Robert Hall. It's an editorial from a site dedicated to roll playing games called allrpg.com. I don't consider either of these any where near a reliable source, though another editor strongly disagrees. I'd appreciate any guidance. AniMate 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is not familiar with the content issues, the way I see this is that both of those sources may be somewhat reliable, but it would depend on the context. Regarding pop-culture issues, an independent college newspaper seems OK, unless the content is controversial and contradicted by other sources, or the paper is self-published by the author of the article. Even if the article is by a student journalist, if there is an editorial staff, that could help support the reliability of the report.
For the gaming website, again, the question would be - is the article self-published, or is there a fact-checking staff? This particular website seems to have more than a few on staff, and seems to be approaching their work with journalistic intentions to some extent. However, it also includes a discussion forum, so it would be important to differentiate the editorial content from the forum postings. As long as the editorial content is not written by the publisher, I would find it useful as a secondary source. If the publisher wrote the article, then it could be a primary source or might be less than reliable.
Those are just my personal interpretations though; others might not agree with me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with AniMate. I do not believe that college newspapers or editorials are appropriate sources outside of (possibly) articles about themselves. Vassyana (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tektonics.org and The God Who Wasn't There article

Is this site a reliable source for the information that was added to the article for The God Who Wasn't There? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on their mission statement, my view is that it's a self-published website or blog and therefore does not meet WP:RS. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to second Jack-A-Roe. This seems to be a self-published source inappropriate for that article. Vassyana (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom and Prometheus books

Is either Andrew Bostom or Premotheus books a reliable source? Although currently I'm discussing the reliability of

Bostom, Andrew, ed. (2005). The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Prometeus Books.

I would like to reach a consensus on the sources in general.

Prometheus books has published many books that are critical of/biased against Islam. Examples include:

  • Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq
    • The book is described as a "sledgehammer to the task of demolishing Islam," and says "Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights."[24] For those who read the book will find that it says that the Qur'an is a fabrication, a fraud.
  • Women and the Koran by Anwar Hekmat
    • The book says this about Islam: [25]
      • "Anwar Hekmat tells us of the brutality inflicted on women in the Islam religion",
      • "Mohammed is also depicted with insatiable sexual appetites that knew little boundaries",
      • "Hekmat argues...the Muslim religion created by Mohammed is a barbaric tradition",
      • "Much of the Islamic religion, claims Hekmat, is clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased."

Bostom himself has a similar record:

  • An Apology for Koranic Antisemitism?
    • "...Koran 3:112/2:61, and their virulently antisemitic contents."
    • "As a central anti-Jewish motif, the Koran decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews..."
  • Sufi Jihad?
    • Calls Wahhabism "evil".
  • Islam Without Camouflage
    • "...Islamic doctrines that threaten all of humanity—including Muslims themselves."
    • Bostom gives a quote: "THE ESSENCE OF HIS [i.e. Muhammad's ] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE." Bostom calls this one of the "quintessential truths regarding Islam".

I leave the reader to judge whether the above sources are reliable or not.Bless sins (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The publication is not academic like University Presses (that practice blind peer-reviewing) nor does Bosom have any degree in Islamic studies. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Collections are not peer-reviewed; they are at best checked for accuracy (of reproduction; besides, of course, permissions). rudra (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bostom is the editor. The book is a collection of articles and translations. WP:RS applies to these sources. rudra (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The book has also been reviewed. rudra (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, a review by itself isn't much.
Some of the articles have been previously printed elsewhere, notably the one by C. E. Dufourcq - which isn't representative of his work, as far as I can tell, but still. I don't think any of the citations are from those articles but from the translations that Bostom considers significant. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Part 3 of the book. I don't think the credentials of the translators need be questioned. The issue would be the "Muslim Theologians and Jurists" so translated: why are they "primary" and not secondary, since they themselves are traditionally cast as interpreters of "the law" rather than originators? Or does every translation have to be further interpreted by an English language functionary in order to satisfy some notion of "secondary source"? rudra (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Augustine merely "interpreted" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, but I strongly doubt he could be considered anything but a primary source on original sin. I don't see the difference to this case.
More to the point, why are we looking at Bostom's choices of hadith? If those hadith have not been considered significant by any real modern authority, we shouldn't be quoting them at all. That's why every discussion of a twelfth century source damn well needs someone telling us which the important bits are, because picking the important bits is precisely what a bunch of academics quarrel about, and us doing their job is pretty much the definition of original research. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between Christian theology and Islamic law, not to mention the traditional (and I dare say justifiable) pride in the precision of the Arabic in fiqh texts by reputable scholars, and the systemic horror of bida. And this is the first I'm hearing of hadith. Where did that come from? rudra (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, too many near-identical arguments simultaneously.
The world of difference between Christian theology and Islamic law, or for that matter American jurisprudence, does not concern us in determining what we consider an acceptable form of research. We set up our rules of research to ensure that those who wish to skew articles towards the unreliable and the original cannot do so; in order to do that, we cannot permit them to quote-mine or misinterpret sources that are the correct subject of the article. We do not, for example, have a structure in place on-WP that can separate a fuqaha with greater authority from one with lesser; if someone wishes to propose such a system in the future, it would be helpful, but till then we must filter them through the systems we already have of reliability. Similarly, the question of whether Augustine or Grotius or Kant was more "reliable" on the subject of the rules of jus ad bellum is nonsensical; we use our structures of reliability and modern secondary sourcing to makes sense of what is central in what they say and what is not. The same is actually true of Supreme Court rulings. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like wikilawyering to me. Al-Ghazzali as "primary", especially when the book concerned was the very essence of a "secondary" effort (a compendium of Shafi'i law), is simply absurd. There is simply no question that Al-Ghazzali is himself a reliable source on Shafi'i jurisprudence. The rest is just handwaving to wish away what has suddenly (i.e. in modern times) been found indigestible. When Al-Ghazzali is found to say something, ah, palatable, naturally the wikilawyering will go full tilt the other way, fighting tooth and nail to cite him. rudra (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Come to me and complain when that happens. An eleventh-century scholar can be called "secondary" when we want every idiot amateur adding his opinions on everything to this encyclopaedia, not before. What is handwaving is "essence of secondary". Bollocks. That's like claiming Bagehot is a secondary source on the British constitution. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The BC is unwritten, by convention (which, of course, has been the cause of much histrionics). The jizya procedure according to the Shafi'i school has been written down multiple times, I'm sure, and scholars in training are no doubt obliged to bone up. I grant that it would be interesting if someone has shown that the procedure itself was subject to serious dispute within the Shafi'i school. It's possible; I don't know, but I see no reason to assume that. But if it wasn't disputed, then Al-Ghazzali is as good a source as any other leading light of that school. It's pretty cut and dried. rudra (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we need to know is that the procedure was not subject to dispute. Whichever source says that will serve as the required secondary source. The default position is not that we can assume it was not; nor can we assume it was. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
While I would phrase things differently, I agree in substance. Documents that are several hundred years old are not secondary sources in the modern sense used in Wikipedia. Their interpretation needs expert knowledge, which is why we have history departments and anthropology departments and even religious studies departments at universities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom has no credentials in Islamic studies, he is a medical doctor by profession. Prometheus books is a well known publisher, but it's not academic, scholarly, nor does it have any sort of pedigree in the field of Islamic studies. Additionally, its books on Islam are often received negatively by the experts, such as Fred Donner's or Asma Asfaruddin's scathing attacks on Ibn Warraq's works for example. ITAQALLAH 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had this issue with another person who was presented as Dr John Shea and an expert on anthropology when infact he was a medical doctor with a partisan agenda a mile wide. Since it is published by a notable publishing house I am afraid it is admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable but it should be made clear that: (1) this person is a medical doctor and not an expert or a scholar on Islam (2) he is an Islamophobe, given the amount of crap he seems to have produced obtaining a reference to that effect should not be too problematic (3) any criticism of his drivel by normal people should also be included with references. I am pretty sure the issue must have come up before with the racist work of this Bat Yor person who doesn't even have a history degree. PS: Obviously any references to this kind of stuff should be in the form "Bostom, a medical doctor and noted Islamophobe says this and that". It must never be presented as unqualified fact since that would be severly misleading.Xenovatis (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"I am afraid it is admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable" Great, now we should modify the Islam article to include the claims that it is a "barbaric tradition", and "propaganda". But you may want to ask yourself one thing before this: how many people will take wikipedia seriously if it did such a thing?Bless sins (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You on the other hand may want to pay a visit to the links I pointed you to, namely WP:SOURCES, a policy, and actually read them.Xenovatis (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read those links many times. In particular I fail to see how Bostom of Prometheus books satisfies the following:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Bostom has no qualifications in Islam that have been recognized by an institution (actually he has not qualifications period). Prometheus books can't be considered "mainstream" (let alone "academic") mostly because of the type of authors it attracts. And it certainly isn't "respected".
My above post was simply to point at the horrendous consequences that would result if either of the two sources are considered "admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable."Bless sins (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
What "horrendous consequences" (and "horrendous" to whom)? Proper attribution, as Xenovatis points out, is the answer to that "problem". rudra (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling 1/5 of mankind to be "barbaric" is not horrendous to you? Claiming that one of the major world religions and civilizations is "doctrine of violence and lust" doesn't sound ludicrous to you?Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. There is no lack of academic sources and certainly no lack of much more reliable books or papers. If any of this information is non-controversial, one would expect it should be produced in other secondary source. But let's take Bosom out of the picture and avoid using primary sources directly. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For a mainstream academic topic like Islam, many hundreds of scholarly books and many thousands of peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals are available. While it make sense to use high-level introductory books for an overview, there is no reason to go to borderline sources on anything remotely controversial. This is not a fringe topic where we must be thankful for any scrap of material. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a "fringe" topic, in that current "mainstream" work tends not to look into it. In any event, what the classical texts say about dhimma and jizya is conspicuous by its absence, for reasons that aren't hard to understand. rudra (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Stephan and Aminz (who make similar points).Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joel Fuhrman and Herbert M. Shelton's published books

Their self-published books are being used as sources to backup what I believe to be exceptional claims in the Fasting article.

Some of the claims are "Some doctors believe that pure water fasting can not only detoxify cells and rejuvenate organs, but can actually cure such diseases and conditions as cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, colitis, psoriasis, lupus and some other autoimmune disorders when combined with a healthy diet. ". This one uses Fuhrman's book as a reference.

Another claim was "In naturopathic medicine, fasting is seen as a way of cleansing the body of toxins and dead or diseased tissues, and giving the gastro-intestinal system a rest. Such fasts are either water-only, or consist of fruit and vegetable juices. Some results have been achieved while including fasting in the treatment of some kinds of cancer". This one used Shelton's book.

Am I wrong in this belief, or are they reliable sources? There weren't any peer-reviewed studies associated with these claims. Thanks for the help. I'm posting this here because there's a dispute with another user on the talk page for this article, and I'm trying to avoid an edit war. FironDraak (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick check of 2 of Fuhrman's books on Amazon. They weren't self published - one was published by Brown, Little, the other by St. Martin's Griffin. They look like a step or 2 above the usual diet books - at least Fuhrman is an MD. So I'd say at face value they may very well be RS. They are "popular books" rather than medical texts however.
One concern - in the article it looks like we're getting fairly close to offering medical opinions - there should be caveats given (it looks like these can be taken from Fuhrman's books) that medical supervision is needed for a fast. There probably is another view of medical fasting - why not get an RS for another view and include that as well?
In short, don't rely exclusively on these, but more-or-less RS. Smallbones (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it's a popular book instead of a medical text is the issue because it's being used as a primary source for some pretty way-out claims in at least two articles. I've posted it on the fringe theories noticeboard now, but thanks for the help. FironDraak (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would raise this issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have done so. Thanks. FironDraak (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate use of capitalization in French titles and style from 1589 to 1830

To begin with, if this is not the appropriate notice board to post this discussion, please excuse me. I am in a dispute with Charles and, apparently, WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles. I find this whole section of the MOS faulty. It tries to set standards were it readily admits there are no standards. In the end, the standard it does promote is contrary to the actual usage of capitilization method used by the House of Bourbon between 1589 and 1830. In addition, the standard is not followed by many English-speaking authors today, leading to a style of writing most English-speakers would not be familiar with from reading a biography of a member of the French royal family.

In particular, I am offended by the following comment/directive and find it to be arbitrary, incorrect and representative of a very biased POV:

"in French with capital spelling: Comtesse de, Marquis de... (e.g. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu; Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney). This is a incorrect Franco-English hybrid form using the capitalization rules of an English-user."

I am interested in getting this policy changed, and WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles rewritten or deleted. I will summarize my argument as follows (it is found more fully in Talk:Fils_de_France and Talk:Prince_du_Sang):

1) The capitalization method described in the MOS is not an incorrect "Franco-English hybrid." It is the one used by the French royal family and court themselves:

2) Many modern English-speaking authors do not use the Wikipedia style of capitalization, and to use it not only misrepresents how the people who used those titles and styles referred to themselves, but also is confusing to most English-speakers, whose reading material should not be censored by modern French linguists and how they feel about linguistic revisionism.

The following is a list of well-known books in English on the French royal family that specifically do NOT use Wikipedia's incorrect capitalization standard for French titles:

  • Nancy Mitford - The Sun King, Harper & Row, 1966;
  • Antonia Fraser - Marie Antoinette, The Journey, Doubleday, 2001;
  • Antonia Fraser - Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life of the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006;
  • Caroline Weber - Queen of Fashion, Henry Holt and Company, 2006;
  • Susan Nagel - Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008.

BoBo (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not take it to the talk page at WP:MOS?? I don't see any question about Reliable sources here. Smallbones (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I have added my complaint to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. BoBo (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall

  • AdamDeanHall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This user has utmost frequently continued to terrorize Desperate Housewives future episodes pages. In the past, I've warned him many times. Check his talk page, and his talk page history! Check Sunday's revision history. Check In Buddy's Eyes revision history. AMONG numerous others! This user will not stop, no matter how many times I warned him to source his work. He deliberately ignores my beggings. Check here, here, and you'll see how he reduced me to begging. Please, give him a strong avid warning (at least), or a minor ban to prevent him from Vandals in the future. Please!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Content disputes are not vandalism. This board is for the reporting of obvious persistent vandalism only. I suggest you seek the proper dispute resolution channels for dealing with this individual. Trusilver 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That too! He keeps ruining pages by reverting all edits, removing all sources and refs, and writing in lies.- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 22:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Given his most recent edits, when I looked, were legitimate link fixes, I don't see obvious vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what do I do then, if he continues what I call vandalism? I try to keep it in a good FA and/or GA type-look, but if someone like him disgraces the page, what do I do? I have no back up.- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A good start would be to read over WP:DISPUTE and use that as a reference for your next step. Trusilver 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done that! Done the "third option", and if you take a look at his talk page theirs a recent section called "source it" -- a direct proof I tried negotiating! I've done most of that, keeping a cool head, and attempted to call a truce but he still feels he has to add things from unreliable sources. Tripod is not reliable!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you might want to try taking your matter to WP:RSN. That seems to be more in line with your difficulty. Trusilver 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For this reason, I have come to you! Please, tell him that TRIPOD is not a correct site!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are author/publisher bios reliable sources?

I regularly come across WP articles on authors or musicians where the primary source for the info is the author's homepage or the publisher's bio. Often, my online searches fail to turn up additional info or even confirming sources. My question: Is a author bio (particularly one probably written by the author) a reliable source? I debated posting to the WP:BLP/N but this is really a reliability question. It seems to me these sorts of author bios aren't remotely independent of the subject. If the info was republished in a RS like a newspaper or mag article or a valid online source, that would probably work but trusting what is, for all practical purposes, self-reporting?. I have doubts.

I guess my main concern is that there is also a question of notability if they don't have at least some significant RS coverage. Input? Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not reliable, per se, but you just treat it like any self-published source. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. In other words, if it's being used for something like confirming the real name of someone, where they were born, etc, it's probably fine. If it's being used exclusively to support the claim the person won a Nobel Prize, probably not. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What about for claims of educational qualifications? They're not easily verifiable elsewhere. Should we take what they say on the book cover at face value? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

UCLA-led study

There is a battle going on in the Fox News entry that has caused it to be blocked indefinitely. It has many facets, but a large debate is swirling around this source. Here are two opinions on the source. If you could weigh in I would appreciate it. My main question is, do we really have to sit here for months and come to a consensus on whether every detail of this study was good science or not, or can we just let it be mentioned in the article because it is a reliable source and let the reader examine it as (s)he wishes?

-_-_-_-_ Criticism -_-_-_-_

Regarding the UCLA paper: I strongly object to using this to source anything in the FNC article. It's an analysis from 2005 by one adjunct professor, one professor, and a few graduate students who computed a score based on how many times the network cited the same think tanks as members of congress. That methodology is so unreliable and subjective that I can't begin to explain all of the problems in it. There's no random sample, no measure of quantifiable variables, and think about how many republicans were in office in 2001 to 2005. The study used the composition of congress to determine what is "center", and the congress was a large majority of republicans, then by definition the network that is most biased towards whomever controls congress (republicans) will appear the most centrist. The study was never republished and has been completely ignored by the academic community, and there are several criticisms of the piece; The one that most completely debunks the study is found here. Though blogs are not reliable sources for articles, it raises other serious concerns about the paper which should be considered here.
I don't consider an article that was printed one time in one MIT journal three years ago, and mentioned in one UCLA press release, as a reliable source, especially if you're trying to use it to prove that this has due weight with the other references that are out there. In any case, no one has addressed the flaws I've pointed out; if you truly believe this is a valid study please discuss below. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

-_-_-_-_ Response -_-_-_-_

I will repeat the fact that UCLA states it was published in an academic, peer-reviewed journal.Link. And those are the standards we go by in verifying whether or not a scholarly source is reliable, not whether or not we personally approve of the scientific methodology. (see WP's definition of reliable source) We are editors, not political science statisticians. Our personal conclusions are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not this study meets the criteria of "reliable source." If you want to pretend that our opinion of the scientific methodology has any relevance to the question of the reliability of the source, then I'll play along... but the bottom line is WP:RS lists very plainly and simply the criteria for determining if a scholarly work is reliable, and "whether or not wiki editors think its scientific methodology was sound" is just not one of those criteria. I cannot emphasize this enough. Here are some points (please don't break this up when responding, see guidelines at the top of the talk page).
  • 1. Concerning how Blaxthos claims the "center" was defined, why don't we actually quote the study? The study says, "In discussing left- or right- wing biases of the media, one should be careful how he or she defines center. We think the most appropriate definition refers to a central voter, as opposed to a central member of Congress. Accordingly, we think that it is more appropriate to compare media scores to the House as opposed to the Senate, since the Senate disproportionately represents small states." The House is about as representative of the nation's voters as it gets. If you personally think that the "centered" voter is too far from you on the political scale... then maybe you just aren't the center! Sure the House fluctuates, but given its large numbers the "center" of it stays much more consistent then the Senate. Even if the "majority" changes it that does not change the "center" by any more then a fractional margin, because the majorities are very, very slim. The center remains by and large extremely consistent, and 7 years is plenty of time to gauge that center.
  • 2. A good question to ask concerning the study is, "how would you do it?" Media bias is something very difficult to quantify, and this study did an excellent job at attempting to do just that. It passed muster in peer-review and was published in an academic journal. Period. I am not saying the study's conclusions have to taken as the Word of God and all here must agree that it is true. I am saying the study is a reliable source, by wikipedia's definition, and must be presented in the article so the reader can see it for him or herself. We don't trash whatever reliable sources we wish, pretending we, not the academic journals, are the peer-reviewers. Have some criticized the study? Sure. Every study, even a study about the mating habits of horseflies, is criticized. No study would ever be cited in wikipedia if the standard was that it had no have no criticism. And a study about media bias is especially sure to be criticized. But the point is, this study is a reliable source.
  • 3. A good second question to ask is, have other studies come to similar conclusions? This study concluded that most of the media was actually quite liberal. What have other studies said? Again, I quote the study, "Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections." That is quite a strong indication of liberal views being over-represented in much of the media. I am not aware of any other studies published in peer-reviewed, academic journals that attempted to measure media bias and concluded Fox was biased. If one is out there, by all means include it in this entry as well! I'm not trying to push my POV here... I'm saying our job is to be editors, not political science statisticians. The Pew Research study did in fact indicate that Fox had more conservative viewers then other outlets (which had more democratic viewers). Include that in the article too if you want.
  • 4. As far as the "graduate students" criticism, any scholarly work from an academic institution involves the assistance of graduate students. The authors are Ph.D professors at respected institutions. The fact that they have graduate students that help them is obvious and is irrelevant.
It would be a tremendous waste of time to sit here and vet every detail of the UCLA study. To do so is not necessary. The study is what it is... it is a reliable source. Let the reader vet it as (s)he wishes. The bottom line is, the UCLA study is relatively recent (I'm not aware of a more recent study that attempted to quantify bias in the media), is extremely relevant to the controversy section, and is a reliable source according to WP:RS. Accordingly, it must be included in this entry. Jsn9333 (talk)

I, Jsn9333, have posted this information on the notice board. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The paper is unquestionably a reliable source. It is correct that editors should not be in the business of trying to prove or disprove reliable sources. However, what should be considered is whether or not it's mention is undue weight to an isolated view. If it's claims are not accepted by other reliable sources and no other reliable references make similar claims, it can be safely said that its views are those of an extreme minority. Vassyana (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Jsn9333 writes, in part: "I am saying the study is a reliable source, by wikipedia's definition, and must be presented in the article so the reader can see it for him or herself." I'm sorry, but the bolded part is completely and totally untrue. There is NO such requirement. This is a common misconception of reliable sources. Reliability is a minimum' requirement for inclusion [with exceptions detailed at WP:SELFPUB (the link name is kind of a misnomer), but it doesn't work the other way: There is no requirement that a source be included simply because it is reliable. WP:CONSENSUS WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:NPOV/FAQ, and WP:FRINGE all have a role to play as well.
This is a tpical minor study. It's technically reliable, insofar as it can be used as a source. That does not mean it's unambiguously correct, and WP:RS does not attempt to evaluate correctness. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'm not of the position that this source must be cited, but simply that it should be, and I am most definitely not of the opinion that the source is unambiguously correct. I wonder if you can weigh in on the question of undue weight as well? The current version states only the independent POV that fox is biased conservatively, and it cites a cbs article about prominent democrats who have that opinion (CBS) and a Pew Research study that concludes Fox has more republican viewers then channels that have more democratic viewers (PEW) (notice, Pew says not that FNC has more republican viewers then non-republicans, but just that FNC has more republican viewers then channels that have more democratic viewers).
To state the POV of other independent observers (that Fox is balanced and/or objective in its news coverage), and to show that POV has due weight, I have suggested citing the UCLA study (which approached the question even more directly then the Pew Study) along with the following sources which convey the same types of facts the current CBS citation describes (prominent figures who share their opinion of Fox) and comes to the same conclusion as the UCLA study.
  • New York Times - This is an article is by a respected journalist, in a respected newspaper, reporting that a prominent figure (the president of the Council on Foreign Relations) thinks Fox has the most objective, balanced news coverage. The piece also states that many of Fox's viewers agree with that assessment.
  • Huffington Post- This article is about yet another respected and well known figure's opinion of Fox, the prominent Democratic Penn. governor, one of Hillary Clinton's staunchest supporters, who has been outspoken of his criticisms of bias in the media at large. On March 31st, 2008 he congratulated Fox News on doing "a very balanced job of reporting the news," and for being the most objective outlet.
The reason the FNC entry has been blocked for editing is because every time I add these sources an editor or two immediately edit wars me and claims that I am citing sources that are both not reliable and have undue weight. I and a number of other editors just don't see that to be the case. We are making an intense attempt to reach consensus, and the view of editors who deal with reliable source issues regularly would be greatly appreciated. Do these references (especially the UCLA study) seem to be both reliable and have due weight in the circumstances? It seems to me these are the perfect types of sources to use to bring a neutral point of view into the entry. But I am a relatively new editor. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would recommend that the UCLA study be cited in the article but briefly and with a reference to criticism thereof. Instead of saying "A UCLA-led study concluded Fox was one of the most centrist or politically balanced networks with regards to its actual news coverage", I would recommend saying instead "One academic study described Fox as one of the most centrist or politically balanced networks with regards to its actual news coverage", with a citation, followed by "However, the methodology of that study has been questioned", followed by a citation to the most reliable source for criticism of the study. (In particular, I wouldn't say that the study "concluded" that Fox was centrist.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related matter, the Huffington Post, I'm afraid, is, in my opinion, not a reliable source. It has a very, very bad reputation for reliability and accuracy, and is essentially no more reliable than a self-published source. Please DON'T use that one. Do we have a list of sources that the RSN has looked at and found unreliable? If not, why? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this. Can I ask though, what would be a good source to cite for the Governor's claim then? I know for a fact that he said it (the broadcast is on YouTube). Can I just cite the You Tube link itself? It seems like no other major media outlets carried the story (perhaps for the very reason's the Governor speaks of... but that is another debate). Jsn9333 (talk)

After reading through the comments, I realized it was never mentioned that we're discussing the lead. Of course, that has no bearing on whether a reference is a reliable source or not, but some people have been more discursive -- making comments periphery to that question, and I'd like to make sure they understand the context in such cases. Kevin Baastalk 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit war has resulted in these sources being forced out of the lower sections of the entry too, not just the lead. I brought this question to the notice board to discuss the sources, not whether they should be mentioned in the lead. In fact a consensus is forming about citing no sources at all in the lead, and leaving the source citations to the lower parts of the entry. Jsn9333 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The study was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is out of Harvard-MIT and one of the three most prestigious journals in the field. (The other two are the Journal of Political Economy out of Chicago and Econometrica, of the Econometric Society.) While this study has several flaws - and the journal itself has, in my opinion, not covered itself in glory in the recent past - there is absolutely no doubt that this is as reliable a source as you can possibly get.
  • The question of whether to put it in the lead is an editorial one. I note that the paper found that it was significantly to the right of the median member of Congress (but to the left of the median Republican) which seems to be the central point.
  • The paper, for all its flaws, which mediamatters has surprisingly detailed reasonably well, is generally cited without comment in the literature. Consider a recent article in the Journal of Public Economics from Baron of NYU, which uncritically adapts the mechanism and introduces persistence. It seems to have become the accepted method in the field for estimating bias. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your first point: Firstly, i would classify the bolded part as "hyperbole". Secondly, the first half of the sentence seems to contradicts the "absolutely no doubt" part of the hyperbole, by way of WP:RS:
  • In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist).
  • Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with.
If the "this study has several flaws - and the journal itself has, in my opinion, not covered itself in glory in the recent past", it would seem that "care should be taken to respect [the] limits" and that there, in fact, is doubt as to the "standards" of the journal, etc. So I was hoping you might be able to expand on the "not covered itself in glory in the recent past", esp. w/respect to these two fifths of WP:RS, scholarship. Kevin Baastalk 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank each of you who responsed to this query. I'd like to explain what we're faced with when trying to discuss this article.

Relata refero, even though you said "there is absolutely no doubt that this is as reliable a source as you can possibly get," user Blaxthos went back to the talk page of the article and described your response only as "This study has several flaws." Your "absolutely no doubt" was left out for anyone reading that page.

Vassyana, even though you said "The paper is unquestionably a reliable source," Blaxthos reported back to the talk page describing your response only as "If it's claims are not accepted by other reliable sources and no other reliable references make similar claims, it can be safely said that its views are those of an extreme minority." The fact that you called it unquestionably a reliable source was left out.

Metropolitan90, even though you said "I would recommend that the UCLA study be cited in the article but briefly and with a reference to criticism thereof," your response was reported back by Blaxthos only as "I wouldn't say that the study 'concluded' that Fox was centrist."

Shoemaker's Holiday, your response was reported back pretty accurately, as "This is a typical minor study. It's technically reliable, insofar as it can be used as a source. That does not mean it's unambiguously correct." That does seem a fair summation of what you said. However, your statement, "There is no requirement that a source be included simply because it is reliable," was also quoted and set aside with no indication that it came from the same person as your other quote.

This is what we're faced with when trying to talk about this article. You helped with your comments here; and then your comments were instead described back on the talk page as I've just explained. Urzatron (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the statements about the QJE should be taken as my personal opinion, and do by no means represent the general view. As I said, the QJE is one of the three most important and respected journals in economics. Articles published in those journals represent the mainstream view of thinking about a problem. Shoemaker's Holiday, I'm afraid, is extrapolating from other fields to economics; in economics what matters is not "one of many studies", but whether that particular study has used a method that is considered the best estimator of the problem, or the most effective model. That seems to be the case here, given the fact that the model has been picked up and extended. There is absolutely no doubt that the study is reliable. This isn't hyperbole at all. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. For the record, i disagree with most of what you just said. For instance, I don't dispute that the source qualifies as a reliable source on wikipedia, but to insist that there is "absolutely no doubt that this is as reliable a source as you can possibly get." is quite an extraordinary claim. to claim that no source could possibly be more reliable than it is a textbook example of an "extravagant exaggeration", or "hyperbole". and I find shoemaker's holiday's reasoning more sound than yours, from what I've seen on this page, your above reasoning being no exception. Kevin Baastalk 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To disagree is your privilege. However, shoemaker's holiday is quite incorrect in that he is extrapolating from other fields to economics and political science. If something has made it to the QJE, the JPE or Econometrica, it is not "one study among many", it is the theoretical and empirical exercise on the subject. If you discuss bias in the article, and exclude it, that would be an unacceptable violation of NPOV. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Relata, would you care to explain why the definitive study on the subject of "media bias" would be published in one of the three most definitive journals in the field of "economics?" According to what you wrote, publication in this capacity means that the "mainstream" view of economists is represented by this study. Great, but since when is the "mainstream" view of economists on "media bias" of such high esteem? What happened to the fields of media studies, communications, and in this case specifically perhaps, political science? While I wont (and cant) disagree with your generalizations about this journal within the field of economics I remain perplexed as to why this matters so much, and why the mainstream view of economists should be given so much weight. Could you please elucidate. I'm not an economist, or a media studies person for that matter, but instead someone with a decidedly more qualitative and less quantitative social science background, yet to me the conclusion (that others are inferring perhaps not unfairly from your comments) that this study is the definitive study on media bias, simply doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While I believe that the study published in the QJE is a sufficiently reliable source to be used in Wikipedia (to some extent, as I mentioned above), we need to avoid placing undue emphasis on it, particularly in the article Fox News Channel. The study did not purport to evaluate the liberal/conservative slant of Fox News Channel as a whole -- just one of its prominent programs, Special Report with Brit Hume. Furthermore, the study did not rank Special Report as the most centrist media outlet in the study; it was the 5th most centrist out of 20 outlets studied. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamosport magazine as source

There is currenty a set of articles on SV Dynamo under the Category:Sports Club Dynamo, the former East German police sports organisation, existing from 1953 to 1989. To a large amount, these articles state as their primary source the Dynamosport magazine, a magazine published by Dynamo about Dynamo, having ceased publication in 1989. Even if I ignore the fact that press freedom did not really exist in the former GDR, it seems to me that it is a questionable source for the articles. I personally, for example wouldn't even consider the Bayern Munich club magazine an independent source for a Bayern Munich article, and even less so then Dynamosport on a Dynamo article. Or, for a matter of fact, the Völkische Beobachter on an article on the Nazis, other then to highlight the meaning of propaganda. Has anybody got any ideas on how to tread sources like: (a) Club magazines about sport clubs, and (b), historical publications from countrys we generally consider as having been unfree? Advise would be appreciated, thank you.EA210269 (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They fall under WP:SPS ... in other words, the club's magazine is being used in an article about the club. That seems appropriate to me. I would not consider it reliable for other articles. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Even in regards to claims of the clubs international success? EA210269 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It might have to come with some kind of a "health warning", like "Believing in this source could damage your knowledge".EA210269 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article SV Dynamo needs a complete rewrite anyway as it appears to have been poorly translated into English. Furthermore, the claim that Dynamo won over 200 Olympic medals is misleading. Dynamo didn't even win one Olympic medal; members of the club won those medals, and they did so representing East Germany, not representing their club. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

TheGoal.com

Is The Goal.com a reliable source? I think the source is of questionable reliability. It appears to have a religious agenda of "helping them [athletes] communicate their faith in God."[26]

More specifically is this website a reliable source when it claims that a certain Hindu or Muslim athlete has converted to Christianity? What if this website is the only source saying this and the information can't verified using any other source?Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a Christian advocacy site, associated with TheGoal.org. The usual caveats apply. rudra (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if you spelled those caveats out. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell: reliable for what they say about themselves; not reliable for what they say about anything else. rudra (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So basically WP:SELFPUB?Bless sins (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's quite different. WP:SPS is where an established authority in a field says something on-topic outside the normal WP:RS channels (e.g. peer-reviewed journals): it still counts as reliably sourced material. E.g. if a Nobel-laureate physicist posts something about his specialty in physics on his blog, the material is on a subject in which he's a recognized expert, so it's notable, and exempt from normal WP:RS criteria. The point here is that the subject is one where there are other experts and WP:RS also. In the advocacy site case, the only relevant subject is themselves, and they are the unique experts (if they are at all!) rudra (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB is actually the section on Using self-published and questionable sources, and thus the correct link. We really should give it some other WP: Abbreviations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Sorry for the misidentification. Though, what is a questionable source that isn't self-published and yet there's no reasonable doubt who authored it? An article in an e-zine (like "A Message from Pat Robertson" on TheGoal.com)? rudra (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

reliability check

I'm fairly sure that http://www.edbrill.com/ will not constitute a reliable source, but I want third-party corroboration before I take that back to the article. Thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a personal blog to me. As such, it is not RS. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another: http://www.metalstorm.ee. Not my cuppa, and I'm unfamiliar; please vet. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like a fansite, generally not RS, though it depends what's being cited. An exclusive interview with a band member might qualify for example, if it was verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Email from an official source

Resolved.

Is an email from an official source, in my particular case an embassy or ministry of foreign affairs, a reliable source? Over on the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence page we're trying to gather the positions of as many countries as possible and since less media-friendly or geographically distant countries do not announce their positions on Kosovo, it's often necessary to email them and ask. I can see this becoming a dispute as it becomes a more common practice for us to do so, thus I seek an opinion from this page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, personal emails are not absolutely NOT reliable. What's more it would be a WP:No original research violation to add information gathered from such a source to an article. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar. You can ask the country reps. if the they can point you to published documents (press releases, quotes in newspapers etc) where they have stated their position in the Kosovo situation, and cite those published documents; but you certainly cannot cite any personal communication. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

adenda, I had the same question

Meh, I have a very similar problem with a list sent by the Comitee for external relations of Saint Petersburg, and I was going to ask the same question. Now I know the answer.

Only difference is that in my case the information wasn't controversial at all (a lister of sisterhoods with other cities). Problem is that some info that is correct and confirmed by other sources does not appear on the official list on an official website by a different official organism but does appear on the comitee list, and viceversa. Well, I'll ask them again to publish the list on an official website so I can reference it --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus (en Español)

For quite a while, various editors have been trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus regarding allegations of election irregularities. Most, if not all of the edits have been associated with http://apostolicassembly.info, a self-published cite that does not meet WP:RS. There has been some discussion concerning this in the past, and the election irregularities content has been kept out. Just now, content concerning the election irregularities has been re-added, this time sourced to two articles from La Opinión. I do not speak Spanish, so I am coming here to see if there is anyone versed in WP:RS that also reads Spanish. Would they care to look over the new content and the links and give feedback, specifically on the matter of reliable sourcing?

There are some specific issues that jump out at me. The second sentence mentions "it has been outspoken" when instead it should state who specifically is doing this critical speaking. Next, do the articles mention the name of the bishop who wrote the request? Finally, do the articles mention the complaints in the last two sentences (fund mismanagement, "the family").

Any additional help or comments would also be helpful (but if they stray from WP:RS, WP:V issues, it is probably best to bring them to the article talk page). ¡Muchas gracias! -Andrew c [talk] 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

La Opinion is a highly reliable source. I read some Spanish and have skimmed through the articles. They do indeed make accusations of financial irregularities within the organisation. It would take me a while to read through them carefully enough to suggest amendments to the article. I suggest that you look for a Spanish translator who would be able to do the job for you. Note that WP prefers English-language sources where they are available. Could you check whether the reports in La Opinion were picked up in the English-language press. Even if not, I think references to La Opinion can stay, because it is an important newspaper in California and easily verifiable by many people who might come to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta College

  • Question Is the website of Bhaktivedanta College a reliable source for information on the members of their faculty. This issue has been raised in two articles: Smita Krishna Swami and Hanumatpreshaka Swami where both have been tagged under the assertion that Bhaktivedanta College is not a reliable source. I feel that the information on the Bhaktivedanta College website helps to establish verifiability for the above articles. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a primary source,;it may have been written and was probably at least approved by the subject. That doesn't mean it's not necessarily reliable, but it should be used within reason, with respect for the limits of a semi-promotional source, and ideally backed up by more sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the real problem here is WP:N. rudra (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Would WP:PROF be the notability criterion, or is it different for religious figures ? Abecedare (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd have to play this by ear. However, the standard criterion applies: if there aren't enough good-quality, reliable sources to write an article on them, we shouldn't have an article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the College website is a reasonable source for the assertion that individuals are or are not members of its faculty, the responsibilities of those individuals at the College, and basic information about their CV. (Though if there are semireliable sources that challenge the College's assertions, further investigation is warranted, and the College's assertions weighed very carefully.)
In general, an individual's own College (or own company or other institution) isn't going to be a reliable source to establish that individual's importance, significance, or eligibility for inclusion. Per Shoemaker's Holiday, such sites will all tend to have a (more or less) transparent interest in promoting their own people. My employer will be sure to market my incredible skills on our website – TenOfAllTrades is a leading expert in the design of widgets – because he wants to sell more widgets. Awards and honours (Nobel Prize, perhaps?) that would lend notability may be mentioned on such semipromotional sites, but should be sourced to the awarding organization or to a neutral third-party news source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ishaq

In the The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press. pp.44-45, Lewis quotes a medieval poem, by Abu Ishaq, who provoked the anti-Jewish outbreak in Granda in 1066. The poem goes:

Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.

They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?

How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent?

Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right!

Can this poem (which I think is a primary source) be considered a reliable source?

Secondly can this primary source be interpreted to conclude that the anti-Jewish massacre was an example of antisemitism, that was caused by Islam?Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis quotes it. So Lewis is the secondary source, and his book is a WP:RS. If Lewis himself (or anyone else citing the poem) draws the conclusion of anti-semitism, or offers the poem as an example of it, fine. Otherwise, no. We need a secondary source (like Lewis) to give that characterization. rudra (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And, looking at 1066 Granada massacre, it's clear that you were wasting everyone's time by posting this question. rudra (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Tut, don't be silly. Its a valid question when framed as asked. I don't think you understood it properly.
Did Bless Sins arrive on Wikipedia yesterday, that he needs a primer on secondary sources? Coming from him, the question as framed is silly, because primary sources are not open to interpretation. He's just fishing for more specious arguments to filibuster with, as usual. rudra (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Peh, he was asking if it can be used as a basis for categorisation. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? And what category could that be in any case? The one he has been filibustering over says "articles that make references to the religion of Islam and to the topic of antisemitism." Nothing about drawing conclusions. rudra (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudra, you're filibustering as much as you accuse him of, now. "Nothing about drawing conclusions", indeed. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what I'm holding up, unless it's the end of this thread, in which case I apologize forthwith. rudra (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The poem can be quoted as a primary source that has had its relevance and accuracy attested to by a reliable secondary source - Lewis. Check if Lewis says that the massacre itself was motivated by Islam, or he describes it as an example of antisemitism rather than, for example, economic strife; the fact that it was conducted by Muslims, and that one of the causes was a poem that was antisemitic in nature, is insufficient for the interpretation you suggest. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tried looking for some references about this myself. Amazingly, few enough studies - even recent ones - can resist blaming the victim in this case. Very odd. Relata refero (disp.) 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty obvious quote by a reliable secondary source, and Lewis' clear characterisation of it and its effects are also quoted in the article. I am a little surprised that an old user like Bless sins would think it necessary to bring such a clear case here (hence, presumably, Rudra's comment). Perhaps we're all misunderstanding the question? One quick comment on the article itself: It's a bit quote-y, and could use more descriptive text about the massacre itself. Try not to add any more direct quotes while expanding it and it should be fine =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Further notes: the poem itself has been quoted outside Lewis, so we're not relying only on him. James T. Monroe, in a delightfully acerbic passage, says that Ishaq wrote "ascetic poetry renouncing the pleasures of the world that he was not allowed to enjoy." Also that he put "his pen at the service of prevailing anti-Jewish sentiment"; though of its use in the riots himself he says "it illustrates the dissatisfaction of the lower classes with Zirid rule". Most studies of the pogrom contextualise it in terms of a resentment from the Arab working class against the Jewish compradors of Berber rule. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata, do you have full references to further academic studies because the article sorely needs them. At present there are Lewis and Laqueur, both A1 RS, but also an unacceptable citation of a 12th century writer (primary source) as if he were writing today, and the list of "references" is mainly to non-RS websites. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, The Monroe citation is to Monroe, James T, Hispano-Arabic Poetry: A Student Anthology, Gorgias Press, 2004: pp 24-30. I've mentioned a couple of additional ones on the article talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going try and clean up the article a bit and it would be great if you were able to add facts from these refs. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll add some of them to the talkpage. A more complete answer is here. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I know the poem can be quoted as a reliable source. But can the poem be interpreted to conclude a connection between Islam and antisemitism? As for me I don't even see the word "Islam" in the poem, so how could it refer to the religion?Bless sins (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh Bless sins, bless you, please pay attention! The poem is not a source. Lewis is the source. It is Lewis' words that are cited, and the poem is a citation within a citation. Look at the Lewis text, which you probably have to hand (I don't). If he says it was Muslim antisemitism then that goes in the article. If he doesn't, it stays out. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. The user I was in edit conflict with kept on insisting upon the poem. Let's take Lewis. His job is to report historical events and literature. That doesn't mean he agree with the content of that literature. I agree if he argues Muslim antisemitism then we keep the cat in the article.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre, as the article directly quotes Lewis' analysis of the poem:

Lewis writes:

“ Particularly instructive in this respect is an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066. This poem, which is said to be instrumental in provoking the anti-Jewish outbreak of that year, contains these specific lines:
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.
They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?
How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent?
Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right!
 ”

Lewis continues: "Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's and massacres such as that in Granada in 1066 are of rare occurrence in Islamic history."

...I mean, really... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Really what? The poem is anti-Semitic. Lewis says so, therefore it is. But what does this have to do with (at least mainstream) Islam? Lewis even makes him self clear by saying "Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's... are of rare occurrence in Islamic history" - in other words a fringe and rare view.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what this argument is about now. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Nor I... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
See what I mean about this fellow's disruptive proclivities? And lo, I'm the one who's filibustering, apparently. rudra (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he appears to have made himsef clear on the talkpage of the article. I case anyone is interested, it is on whether this particular mention can be used to justify the inclusion of the article in Category:Islam and antisemitism - not really a RS/N problem. (Rudra is currently filibustering in favour of inclusion.:) ) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm done, except perhaps for posting a list of references, though I don't know how useful that would be. We have Brinner for Dhimma being relevant, and Lewis' summation. The argument now reduces to whether a single RS is required for both criteria of the category. I've already had my say on that. rudra (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consumerfraudreporting.org

http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org is apparently an anonymous self-published website. I'm dealing with an editor (and an admin no less) who is claiming it's WP:RS. Thoughts? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be run by a reputable non-profit. However, attribution is hard to find. On the other hand, there's little in the MLM article which is sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"seems" to be? There's no attribution at all. As for the lack of sourcing of the rest of the article, I entirely agree. That however is extremely poor reasoning for allowing a bad source. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree with Arthur Rubin's assessment. It does not, in the least, seem to be run by any kind of non-profit, reputable or otherwise. It may be superficially presented in that fashion, but even that is making a stretch. It's quite obviously a privately run ad-supported site. There is no note of non-profit status and not even an "About Us" page. It's a self-published source with no indication of authorship and, as such, certainly not a reliable source. Vassyana (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

unsigned website with zero sources and severe bias hosted on an odontology website

I need independient uninvolved confirmation that odontcat.com is a non-reliable source. See reasons on title. It's being used on Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia on both sides of a POV argument. Actual page being used is this one,

The page being used has probably terms that can indicate bias as "Count-Kings of Barcelona" and "so-called Crown of Aragon". The site has grave errors, probably caused by bias trying to give more importance to Catalonia, see "With the marriage (...) in 1137, the Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon was born"[27], but there was never anything going by the name of "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon". Only page with something ressembling a source is one that has some data tables on it. The entry page to it has very few incoming links [28], so it's non-notable and certainly not cited as reference.

Please someone take a peek and give a second opinion confirming or denying the non-reliability --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This gateway is destined to professional dentists and dental hygenists, students and any person that might be interested in the dentistry world. say what? it's a gateway for dentists that also hosts some material on catalonia? em.. --87.114.40.124 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick google finds many references to th "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon", include on official EU websites[29]. The site itself doesn't pass WP:RS muster, but it seems reasonably well put together, so I'd suggest anything it claims should be able to be verified from other sources and those sources used. For example, this europa.eu article would I think be an acceptable source for the claim of the marriage leading to the creation of that Kingdom. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If you use quotes, the number goes down to 106. If you try to look at all the results, there are only 24 in reality, the rest are omited for being very similar. Almost all are travel guides or travel articles like this nytimes article about how cool Barcelona is. There are no documents or articles from historians naming the term, except for the europa.eu article and this document about dance on 15th century, which also uses a non-standard term like "Alfonso III of Catalonia and IV of Aragon", and this document about Landscape and national identity in Catalonia (ouch @ potential bias in using names that increase importance of Catalonia).
(rant: that damned europa-es site includes "aragon" inside the catalan area, and only talks of the Crown history on catalonia article, and not on aragon, valencia or balearics articles. Still not as biased as the other one, since it says "King John I of Aragon and Catalonia", so at least it preserves the original order of the titles. It's also centered on languages, and only mentions history of the Crown tangentially)
Well, I'll try to use the europa.eu web instead where I can, and I'll replace it with cites from Payne, Chaytor and other historical authors that I can get from paper sources as I find them. Thanks for the help. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So that leaves us with 24 sites... surely at least one of them is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To put it in context, "kingdom of Catalonia" has 1180 results [30], and "Kingdom of Aragon" has 168000 [31], with the first page of results including the Britannica[32], a call for papers for a magazine about critical-history study of alchemy[33], a list of abstracts of a University of Valencia website[34] and a book by historian Chaytor[35]. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
After looking at this, I would say that WP:FRINGE applies to this term, so it needs an extraordinary source for inclusion on the article. It's extremely little used in comparison with "kingdom of aragon", and don't mention the relative quality of sources. Ídem for "kingdom of catalonia", I think Sclua can easily agree with me that it's simply inaccurate to the point of incorrect, with catalonia never having been an actual kingdom at any point of history --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ídem for "Count-Kings of Barcelona" 82 results vs "Kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona" 773 results and better quality, and "so-called Crown of Aragon" 5 results, 2 of them being copy/pastes on forums of the odontia page and "Crown of Aragon" 59100 results including 2 history books and the official page of the Archive of the Crown of Aragon.
Add to this that it has near-to-zero WP:V verifiability, and I would say that this website is biased to hell and back, and not reliable at all except for sourcing which are the most biased statements you can find on the web. The europa-eu website is also unsourced, so no WP:V, and, combined with the use of that term, I think it's neither a reliable source at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please, notice that Enric Naval is aragonese and is involved on the talk page. The first united Parlamient of the Aragonese and Catalans was called by the Crown of Aragon and Catalonia, on 13th Century, so the name is not biased and like this, the rest but this is not the talk page ideal where to talk about this. Please, Enric Naval do not try to clear the sources you do not like.--Sclua (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's "crown", not "kingdom". I remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jin Jing - between hero and traitor

Hello. There are three sources quoted for Chinese netizen attacks on Jing, two of them being kind of blog-like (China Digital Times in English, the other in Chinese). The third is the reputable German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, effectively backing up the other two sources. Now some removed the first two sources by saying they were "unreliable", but once this has been done the text quickly was changed to run along the line "according to one German media, there were attacks by Chinese netizens against Jin Jing", making it look like an isolated report. What is your view? Should we keep all three sources or remove the bloggish ones? Part of the problem is that the attacks took place on Chinese internet bulletin boards, so it is only natural that primarily blogs report about it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Suddeutsche Zeitung is a reliable secondary source and should remain as the main source. The bulletin boards can be seen as primary sources. I suggest removing the one in Chinese and keeping the one in English for convenience and as a backup to the German newspaper. As the English wikipedia we prefer English-language sources where they are available, but Suddeutsche Zeitung is a respected newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

EIR vs PRA

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia applies policy consistently. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for this as well. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was the Arbcom given authority on any content matters...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Removal of original work? ...this is a pure content decision and I believe well outside of their authority. Then again, this was 2004, so if this were reviewed I imagine it would have to be tossed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions don't come out of thin air (though sometimes they may seem that way). One of the issues with the LaRouche articles that was discovered in the three ArbCom cases involving them is that most of the "pro-" editors are socks of a clever puppeteer, and that he's a tireless promoter of the ideosyncratic ideas of LaRouche. I wouldn't call it a content decision so much as a content-based behavior remedy. It's a practical way of dealing with a behavior problem that otherwise would be impossible to enforce. I don't see any reason for the ArbCom to review their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So the only Arbcom sanction specifically involving content, which limits what any editor can do with a subsect of valid material, was done to stop one lone editor? That's wildly disproportionate, and still seems to be beyond the boundary of what the Arbcom is permitted to do. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason that the decison should be reconsidered, aside from a desire for consistency? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there are certainly some circumstances where it would be appropriate to use EIR as a source. If the ArbCom decision is being interpreted as a blanket ban, that should be reconsidered -- particularly if it is a unique case, where EIR is being singled out for some reason. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The EIR and similar LaRouche sources are determined to be self-published sources. Like other SPSes, they can be used in articles about themselves. They just aren't allowed in other articles. It's only s lsight modification to normal procedure. Even its proponents here can't think of a single example of how it would improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
EIR appears to have a staff of 35-40 people[36], appears in numerous languages, gets cited frequently in other publications. If it is considered a SPS, then PRA web pages qualify in spades. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
While the LaRouche movment isn't generally considered a religion, the thread titled "#Religious sources" below appears to apply. The EIR is a fine source for the views of Lyndon LaRouche. It is not suitable as a source for neutral, reliable facts on other topics. Since LaRouche is the Editor in Chief, it's hard to imagine that the editing staff (no matter how large) would ever contradict him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Your reference to religious sources appears utterly irrelevant to me. EIR is a conventional newsmagazine, but with the editorializing a bit more blatant than one finds in Time or Newsweek. Also, I tried my best, but I was unable to imagine any circumstance in which the editorial staff at Political Research Associates would ever contradict Chip Berlet. --Niels Gade (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
More imagination, please. Both the research director and the editor of The Public Eye edit my work all the time, as do other PRA staffers, plus outide scholars and journalists asked to review what I write. I get edited and contradicted all the time. Makes for better text.--Cberlet (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, OK, it's coming to me. "You call this an analysis? Where's the damn innuendo?" --Niels Gade (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
LaRouche is the editor in chief, while Berlet is not. Berlet is quoted in mainstream papers as an authority, while LaRouche is quoted very rarely and in a very different context. The two aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This thread seems to be going in circles. Unelss there's some new argument to be made I suggest it's time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the haste to terminate this discussion? The matter does not appear to be resolved. I just did a google search for citations from Berlet on Wikipedia, and the number seems disproportionately high. I would like to propose a moratorium on any additional use of Berlet as a source for BLP-related edits until there is a consensus. By this I mean the use of materials published or posted by PRA or Berlet personally -- I have no problem with those instances where Berlet is quoted in a mainstream source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Haste? This thread has been open for five months. Unless there's a new point to be made we should archive it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that my proposal for a moratorium is just such a new point. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "moratorium" on use of a reliable source, including PRA. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the same request to invalidate PRA that has been made since December. I don't see anything new. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do the two of you have some sort of ideological affinity for PRA? You seem eager to dismiss a rather extensive discussion and debate on this topic. A source cannot be "invalidated" if it wasn't "valid" or a Reliable Source to begin with. BLP policy says be careful with sourcing. You endorse a guy "whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst"? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That quote is the same that started this thread five months ago. Nothing new, time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And it shouldn't be repeated all over the place either. (There's no need to use Raimondo if other sources are available.) I too, however, would prefer that we cut down on the PRA cites. Chip's written extensively off his own website, so that shouldn't affect too much how he's cited; but the case has not been made that publiceye has a demonstrated reliability equivalent to the other places Chip's published. Of course, any comparison to EIR is ludicrous. Will's comparison to #Religious sources below is spot-on. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles sources

Hi. The term "British Isles" is controversial in Ireland. Sources say that the term is objectionable and say things like "objectionable to many people" or "often objectionable". These descriptions appear in serious published histories of the British Isles and by serious historians of the British Isles. An editor on the British Isles page is repeately denying that these sources are acceptable and is reverting phrases in the text that reflect the references. Some of the references are here[37]. Are these sources acceptable, reliable, verifiable? I view them as very much so, since they are scholarly views published bby some of the most serious publishing houses in existence. Another editor on the article is describing them as "academic tracts" and discounting them. If a Cambridge University press published history of the british isles says "many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable", is it justified to use "many" as a characterisation of the number of people who find it objectionable? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, for the reasons you give. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion of the Nation

(clipped from closed thread.)

I suggest we don't. Not on that note. I've just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong.[38] How this article, or by implication The Nation, can be considered a "reliable source" when their unreliability is proven beyond doubt is beyond comprehension. Andyvphil (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, we're done discussing this. I judge from a look at your contributions that this is probably related to your efforts at Barack Obama media controversy or whatever that article is, but I think this issue has been addressed. Relata refero (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I had just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong just before your premature attempt to close. This hasn't been addressed. I don't know what Obama has to do with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It was presumably considered irrelevant to the overall reliability of the Nation. What an article on Obama has to do with it is evident by looking at your contributions. Unless you have something new to add, I don't think there's anything further to say. Relata refero (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a serious issue with a particular article that was printed in The Nation, and how it is used in a particular Wikipedia article (and it seems you do), then that is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the wikipedia article in question. Go to your fellow editors at the Daniel Pipes article, explain your problems with the McNeil article, and try to reach a consensus on it. If the consensus of your fellow editors is that the McNeil article should not be used... then don't' use it. All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source. That determination isn't going to change. To continue to beat this dead horse after this determination has been repeated several times by multiple editors is counter productive... and is starting to become a WP:POINT violation. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There are degrees of reliability, of course, not absolutes. The Nation is generally considered reliable, but it's not, for example, a peer reviewed journal. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would note that even the most enthusiastic readers of The Nation would not consider it a source that espouses a neutral point of view. The reason I indicated above that it could be used in the Daniel Pipes article was because the article's writer (McNeil) made certain claims about things Pipes had written, which could be confirmed as things Pipes had written from looking at Pipes' own columns. Furthermore, the Nation article was being used to illustrate what Pipes' critics say about him -- not to report neutral facts. It may be that McNeil also stated other claims about Pipes which were not true, but those other claims were not going to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if a source was intended to be used in Wikipedia only to provide neutral facts, then contentious claims in the source would taint the source and make it a poor source to use even for the non-contentious claims. To put it another way, suppose a source said, "George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, has two daughters named Jenna and Barbara, and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would not cite that source even in support of the statement "George W. Bush's daughters are named Jenna and Barbara"; I'd look for another source instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The false claims have in fact been been incorporated in the article, off and on. And should be, since the fact that they are both made and false is relevant context to the other criticisms by McNeil that are quoted. The claims that Pipes is "notorious" and "anti-Arab" are undermined by the double falsehood engaged in by the same author to link him to ethnic cleansing, and that ought not be concealed. Consider if your example had instead read "George W. Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." Merely quoting the former assertion, arguably merely a POV take on true facts, misrepresents the flavor of the source. The fact that critics in venues as semi-respectable as the The Nation are allowed, unquestioned, to demonize Pipes in ways unmoored to facts is a very legitimate subject in a section dealing with the criticisms made of him. Andyvphil (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For Pete's sake... just attribute the view in the text, as we usually do for reliable sources which have a somewhat subjective perspective. As in, "The Nation wrote X about Y." If other reliable sources have disputed what The Nation said about Pipes or whomever, then the following sentence should read: "But source X said Y." Many literate adults are familiar with The Nation and its viewpoint; those who are not can click on the wikilink and see it described, in the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede, as "the flagship of the Left." What's the problem again? MastCell Talk 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem, again: Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
The Nation's POV is not what is at issue here. It could be both highly biased and reliable as to facts. But in this case it isn't. GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap.(quoting self, 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
As Jayjg says (what a phrase, coming from me) "There are degrees of reliability, of course..." Blueboar's "All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source" is nonsense. We can, indeed must, use The Nation in describing the emanations of Pipes' critics, but then we must note that venom directed at Pipes in that venue is not well fact checked. Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I request a bit of clarification here from user:andyvphil on why, considering his argument here against the nation as an RS, why he has repeatedly advocated for the use of a Nation article on the Obama campaign page, and why he has reverted back to that version even when other editors' consensus found the text obsolete, if there is such a problem with the Nation? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As usual, without diffs or specifics it's pointless to attempt to reply to 72etc's vaporings. What text is "obsolete"? Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As usual, you don't seem to realize people can look at your edit history andy... first I want you to deny it happened and then you can have your diffs. this is the Hayes article we're talking about here, in case you're wondering... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think you've said that I'm supposed to deny. The Hayes article is also a piece of crap, now that you mention it. I've said so before, so it is clear that you haven't been taking things in. Nothing new about that. Andyvphil (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Again... The Nation is a reliable source. It is a notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical. The fact that it has a distinct political slant does not negate its reliability. The fact that a given article in The Nation may contain statements that are deemed inaccurate does not negate its reliability (the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth"). Thus, it may be used as a source in Wikipedia articles.
Now, questions about whether any source should be used in a particular Wikipedia article, and questions about how it should be used (for example: should it be used in support of a statement of fact or only in support of a statement of opinion) are legitimate. But these have to be decided at the article's talk page... not here. So... stop being POINTy. Take this argument back to the talk pages of the articles involved. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already pointed out that what you are saying is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less nonsense. "The Nation is... notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical."? Really? I don't think so. It appears to do very little fact checking of assertions that align with its biases, as shown by the example I've provided. And the Hayes article 72etc mentions also fabulated an importance to a nonentity named Andy Martin, unsupported by any fact, to perform a convenient smear. Do you have any evidence that it does fact checking, or are you just pulling an assertion out of your rear end? Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil, you've made your point, and consensus appears to be against you. My recommendation is that you accept that and move on. We are all sometimes in a minority of one. Relata refero (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly as simple as that. The Nation is generally considered a reliable source; however, if the claims in question are highly contentious and provably false in some cases, the author in question an otherwise unknown, and the subject a living person, then the determination is quite different. The standards for articles about living people are considerably higher than the usual Reliable Source requirements. I refer you to the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We're all aware of that. If you read the discussion above, you'll see that we are not proposing using it for "provably false claims", so your concern is irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether The Nation is a RS for McNeil's highly contentious claims when they are made in conjunction with provably false claims, something it is proposed we not mention. I've already given my answer: "...we can mention [the article's] content.... only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap." Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that you dont have anythong close to consensus for. Unsurprisingly. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
With BLP issues you don't need all that strong a consensus. When you're defending the inclusion of negative material in a BLP written by a person who is otherwise unknown, whose article contains provable falsehoods, and whose article is found, after all, in The Nation, a periodical - not a peer-reviewed journal - well, then, you know you're on extremely shaky ground at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Editorial decision. The Nation, however is a reliable source. Move on, already. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay says it best: we need a higher standard than RS for BLP's than the Nation, when it comes to negative material. A column in a partisan magazine from a writer no one's heard of (and no one--no one--on this board will admit to supporting) does not rise to the level of quality we're expected to maintain. IronDuke 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay said it irrelevantly, actually. The Nation is a reliable source. Opinions published in the Nation are notable opinions. If there is consensus on the talkpage of a particular article that a particular piece should not be cited as it has other problems (as Jay suggests), so be it. However, the reliability and notability of the Nation itself is not questioned. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It does seem odd to me that every time I bring up whether this woman has the right credentials to be judging Pipes the response I seem to get is eyes closed, fingers in the ears "I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you." This insistence that we are somehow not allowed to consider the actual writer of the content we are using seemes bizarre to me. Even if we take it as a given the Nation is reliable, that doesn't mean we are obliged to suspend judgment on everything within its pages. IronDuke 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Err no, not irrelevantly. You keep acting as if "reliable" is a binary choice - either a source is 100% reliable, or it's 100% unreliable. In reality, sources have degrees of reliability, which depend on the nature of the source, the context in which it is used, the author, etc. In this case, the source is about as reliable as other periodicals with a strong political POV - that is to say, more reliable than a random website, about the same as The Weekly Standard and National Review, less reliable than, for example, Time (magazine), and certainly less reliable than a peer-reviewed journal. Your continually pretending that comments made by otherwise unknowns in a moderately reliable reliable sources trumps BLP is tendentious at best. I didn't really care much about the subject when this discussion started, but your continual misrepresentation of both WP:RS and WP:BLP have, quite frankly, gotten my back up. Now, come up with a really good reason why we should include negative material from an otherwise unknown, from an ideological periodical, which contains known falsehoods, in a BLP. A really good reason. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should I? I haven't argued anything of the sort. I have said - several times - that the Nation is a reliable source as we consider such things, and that an opinion published in the Nation is a notable opinion as we judge such things. That is the limit of my statement, and that is the consensus on this noticeboard. On that article talkpage I have in fact pointed out that the contested phrase is used extensively elsewhere, so I am puzzled by the emphasis on this source. I also think you need to review BLP. X policy does not "trump" Y policy. They work together. Reliability works with BLP. In this case, if there are specific objections to this particular article, it should be discussed on the article talkpage. As I and several others have stated above. It does not impact the Nation's general reliability. I hope that puts your back back down, and doesn't cause any further rashes of bold text to break out. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Frieda Harris

The above article is a direct, verbaitim copy of this webpage. According to the talk page this is not a copyvio, as permission apparently has been granted to copy it... but it still bothers me that we have an article that simply copies another webpage. I also wonder whether the underlying source is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Feminism reliability

Hi, the user User:Cailil has made the following change to remove critisicm of the quality of this particular source which I believe to be fundamentally flawed. He insists on describing the research as being the opinion of the United Nations (I am unaware if an organisation like this can have an opinion), when it was the result of a study for the UN.

I think it is either important to maintain this criticism or remove the reference.

Also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#civil_rights the reference #104 is not verifiable, it is simply a statement that someone stood up and said something at a conference, I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source.

I'm sure there are many more unreliable sources here and I can attempt to identifiy these if it seems worthwhile.

There are many other issues also:

Here the same user has used an edit description that is misleading, the edit is completely different. The article has does not appear to be representative of worldwide views on the subject either and is heavily influenced by this single editor.

Other articles edited by User:Cailil also do not seem to exhibit a NPOV, e.g. Sexual Objectification where the page seems to be written entirely from a feminist perspective, including content under the sub-heading for the objectification of men.

Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.60.134 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 April 2008

I notice that the UN study link leads to a 404 Document Not Found page, so I can't check what it really says. (However, it's clear to me that a study called "United Nations Human Development Report 2004" should never be referred to as "A study for the United Nations". That's just trying to downplay the study for no reason.).
You mean Sexual objectification. As a very short superficial review, Cailil's edits seem correct: removal of unsourced text under the men section [39], preceded by the addition of sourced text a reference under the women section[40] and a reword that reduces the number of words on an unsourced paragraph on the women section[41]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Remark: See comments about this IP being an edit warrior, and relevant checkuser case --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is still interested in this, I'd like to point out that the Human Development Report is eminently reliable and can be quoted without attribution. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this Relata refero and Enric Naval. I'm always happy to have people review my edits. I have no idea what the IP has against me (other than the fact that I reverted their vandalism) or what their problem with the UN is. But that aside the user is a block evading sock IP of User:80.192.60.20 and has been making a number of personal attacks about me over the last 24 hours. They've been reported to the original blocking sysop and other than this post I'm following WP:RBI--Cailil talk 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Below I have listed several problems with Section 28 of the report in question.
  • There is no information in that report regarding what constitutes work and this is one of the units used in the calculation for the ratio of work between genders in section 28.
  • The report clearly states that the information it presents in section 28 is an estimate (this would preclude it from being considered fact).
  • The report indicates in section 28b that "Classifications of market and non-market activities are not strictly based on the 1993 revised UN System of National Accounts" with no comment as to why this is not adhered to or what classifications are used.
  • The report indicates in section 28e that it does not perform a weighted average. This indicates that the figures are unrepresentative of the population that has been selected as a whole.
  • The report indicates in section 28b that it is considering selected developing countries yet the criteria for selection is not given.
  • The report includes non OECD countries under a heading of OECD countries (Israel, Latvia) in Section 28.
  • The report indicates Section 28b uses data based on time use surveys that was available at the time. It does not provide references for where this information has come from.
  • Section 28 presents a list of the "Burden of Work" which is undefined. This is also listed by country yet there is significant difference in the dates at which this information was obtained for each category (differences of more than 2 decades can be seen).
This is just from reading section 28 as referenced. I haven't looked at the rest of the report but I would find it remarkable that this report could be considered reliable information. 80.192.60.134 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer on page 6:

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or its Member States. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. It is the fruit of a collaborative effort by a team of eminent consultants and advisers and the Human Development Report team. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director of the Human Development Report Office, led the effort.

I think that the paper needs to be attributed like "The Human Development Report Office commissioned "The United Nations Human Development Report 2004", which estimated (...)" or similar wording. The title of the report should be preserved, since the UN allowed the report to bear its title, and the disclaimer only says "not necessarily". As for reliability, it's probably very reliable. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Human Development Report is, quite simply, the state of the art in development economics, and is reviewed by hundreds of academics, independent scholars and area-specific expert consultants before being released. If it has chosen to use a different form of accounting, we can rest assured that it has done so because that form of accounting is more appropriate. The data collated and analysed by the HDR are used without question by thousands of scholars, and feature in doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed papers without comment. Simply put, and concerns about the reliability of the report are delusional. If anything deserves to be stated without attribution, its the HDR. Wikipedia is unlikely to ever reach the HDR's level of reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here[42] you will find Kevin Watkins, Director at the Human Development Report Office of the United Nations Development Programme giving an overview of the contents of Volume 7, Number 2 (July 2006) of the Journal of Human Development: Alternative Economics in Action.
This journal has coverage of the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) used throughout the aforementioned 2004 report.
Of particular relevance is that in this summary he states "The papers and findings from the on-line forum were discussed at an expert meeting in New York in January 2006, which led to specific recommendations on revising the measures." Note that that the referenced report in the feminism article is from 2004, before the experts recommended the measures be revised. (Also note that the previous editor has just implied that these experts are are delusional). A particularly appropriate paper in this issue is "The Uses and Misuses of the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: A review of the literature", described by Kevin Watkins as follows:
"The paper by Dana Schüler examines the uses and misuses of the GDI and GEM by researchers and policy-makers in the past ten years, and discusses some interesting proposal to reform the GDI and GEM and ways to better interpret these measures. In particular, she highlights that very frequently the GDI is erroneously interpreted as a measure of gender inequality. This reflects a poor understanding of the (rather complex) measure as well as the great demand for an internationally comparable measure of gender inequality. "
Contrast this with the following text describing the use of this index in the 2004 report:
"The gender-related development index (GDI), introduced in Human Development Report 1995, measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men."
The abstract for the Dana Schuler paper can be found here[43] along with abstracts for the other related papers in this edition that focus on these metrics.
It is clear from the above quotes that the experts have decided that the metrics is not fit for the purpose of measuring gender inequality. The metric is pervasive throughout the 2004 report. I have also raised the 8 bullet points above related specifically to section 28. I think it is clear that the reliability of the source is called into question, when the metrics being used are being discussed in academia as insufficient and panels of experts are moving to replace them. 80.192.60.134 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, 80.192.60.134, the article is using the report as a source for "Gender, work burden and time allocation" and not for GDI, so your entire comment is moot. I'll have to agree with Relata that the report does not need attributtion on its current usage. If the report is ever used to report GDI, *then* the article should caution about the meassures possibly being outdated. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on sources regarding personal letters and buinsiness letters from public individuals

I have been working on two types of articles: politics and literature. I want to research personal corespondence between some authors and their pubishers to gain insight on how they viewed each other in relationship to their success. For instance, how much impact did the publisher have on the success of a particular invidual and how much impact did the success of an author have on their pubishers success. I think this information is particularly noteworthy in regards to the the success of their careers. I woulld like to research personal letters that are in archieves at libraries. How would I cite these sources and are these sources appropriate for wikipedia?

In regards to politics, I have worked on several articles for US presidential candidates. I wanted to add endorcesments from foreign leaders to the endorsement artilces of candidites where I nknow the foreign leadres supports the US candidate for president. Is it appropirate to add letters of endorsements which have from the offices of these leaders? it would be a primary souce document. It is me i think (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the letters between authors and publishers... It sounds like an excellent project, but unfortunately it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. What you wish to do would be termed "Original Research" on Wikipedia, and that is not allowed (see WP:NOR).
As to the political endoresements... first, such letters would have to be published in some form for them to be used at all. If they are published, they would indeed be primary sources (and, thus, only usable with great caution and lots of limitations). It would be much better to use a secondary source (something like a newspaper), that reported on the fact that the foreign leader endorsed the candidate. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links

(The following has been transferred from WP:AN as per the request of User:Durova.)

A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Our concern was based on rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:

rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example: [44] [45]

Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:

"Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner."

The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.

Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed.

Note that the Prem Rawat article is also subject to an ongoing Arbitration Case (Prem Rawat (t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (d/ t)).

Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Rick Ross is a commentator frequently referenced by others, so I don't see we should have a problem discussing what he says in context and attributing it to him, with links to his site to back that up. The blog looks to be a link to avoid, on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your feedback. I understand the point about quoting Rick Ross himself. However, this is not at issue; the copyright question arises because of the large number of press articles and other copyrighted material hosted on the site, evidently without a proper process of seeking permission from the owners. Instead, the Disclaimer page states that rickross.com will take down any copyrighted material if the copyright owners complain in writing. Rather than licensing the material, as required by WP:EL, this seemed to me to shift the onus from the site operators to the copyright owners. In other words, the onus is now on the owners (1) to become aware of the infringement and then (2) to write in to ask for their material to be taken down. As it is, the status of any document hosted on the site seems unclear; it may be the case that the owners are aware of their material's presence on the site and do not object, or it may be that they are not aware (yet) and will complain at a future date. At any rate it seems to me that where the same material is available on the legitimate copyright owner's own website (e.g. nytimes.com), it would be preferable from a copyright point of view to link to the copy at nytimes.com, rather than the one held at rickross.com. Jayen466 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. My usual take on sites that play fast and loose with copyright is to exclude on principle, but here we have a notable individual who may be quoted as an authority. It should not be a problem to link to that content which is unequivocally Ross' own, attributed to Ross, if a compelling case can be made for the relevance of his opinion. Better, of course, to link to a reliable secondary source that describes Ross' views and places them in context. I am not a fan of primary sources in biographies, other than the subject's own site as a source for uncontroversial facts. Any copyright violating material may not be linked, period. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Starting at the top of the list of WP articles linking to rickross.com, what would be your view on this link, present as ref. 1 in Kenja Communication (permalink: [46])? I wasn't able to find the article on the Daily Telegraph website (note that this is the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the UK one), although there were articles on the subject present there (and hosted for free). This specific article, however, did not seem to be there. Now, what to do? The thing is that I believe many editors consider rickross.com a very valuable resource, which often has detailed material not available elsewhere. Jayen466 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the citation on Kenja Communication, I see the problem.
The citation is worded: "Secrets of sect in sex case. The Daily Telegraph, The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (May 25, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-08."
It should be worded more along the lines of: "Secrets of sect in sex case by Brad Clifton, The Daily Telegraph, Syndey, Australia May 25, 2006 - as hosted on: www.rickross.com, Retrieved on 2007-02-08."
This would make it clear that the Rick Ross site is being used as a convenience link to the Daily Telegraph story, which is the actual citation. Now... the question becomes: is Rick Ross's site an allowable convenience link? Does he need permission permission to reprint the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and if so does he have it? If the answer to that is that he did need permission, and did not obtain it, then his site can not be used. We must omit the link to Ross and simply cite the Daily Telegraph without the link. This obviously requires someone double checking to make sure that the story in the Telegraph actually exists and says what Ross said it did... but this should not be all that difficult... I am sure that we could find a Wikipedian who lives in Sydney and whould be willing to go to a library and check the May 25, 06 Telegraph for us. If Ross does not need permission to reprint the story... or if he does, and obtained it... then there is no problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The (Australian) Daily Telegraph article exists and is correctly quoted on the Rick Ross website. I confirmed that through a Lexis-Nexis search; it appeared in the "Local" section on page 13 in the State edition. Is there any suggestion/evidence that Rick Ross misquotes attributed news articles, or is it only a matter of him (possibly) not having licensed the copyrighted content ? If it is the latter, the solution is simply not to link to his site as a convenience link for hosted newsarticles. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking and verifying the article's existence. There is no assertion that I am aware of that any news articles on rickross.com have been misquoted. There may be a quibble as to how selective the choice of articles hosted is; this on the Prem Rawat overview page for example appears to be a record of a couple's divorce proceedings, with the only link to Rawat being the fact that one of the couple had once, years prior to the marriage, been a follower of Rawat. This article reports on the opening of an enquiry, and there is no corresponding article reporting on the enquiry's findings (which appear to have been that the organisation was in order, from checking the UK charity registration website). But this may partly reflect the fact that newspapers and courts tend to focus more on negatives than on positives. The scholarly Dupertuis article also present on the Prem Rawat page was, I believe, actually written by a follower of Rawat's. So far the consensus seems to be then – do not use either of these sites as a convenience or external link, but verify the articles' existence and credit them (and link to them, where possible) directly. Jayen466 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The consensus you state makes sense to me. Does the Rick Ross website have any original content ? If so there may be a case for using it as a referenced source or external link in some cases; if it only hosts links/extracts from news sources, then it is advisable to cite them directly (after verification), and use rickcross.com only as a convenient resource for editors (as opposed to readers.) Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found much material on the site that to my mind would qualify as an encyclopedic source. I think most of the texts on the site are taken from elsewhere. Plus there are the pages where Mr. Ross is offering his services to worried families. But I agree with the principle that any original material on the site written by Mr. Ross or his associates could and should be linked to, if it's pertinent to a topic covered in WP. Jayen466 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:C. Do not link to material that violates copyright. Cite the original source, and if it's not online, too bad. we are allowed to cite treeware, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>
One final thought for now: It may be a good idea to email Rick Ross (info@rickross.com) and ask him (politely) if he has licensed the information on his website and if he can provide an OTRS verification. We may be able to short-circuit this whole debate if he replies in the affirmative. Any volunteers experienced in the process ? Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the wording of the disclaimer and the absence of copyright acknowledgments I think it highly unlikely that any such licenses exist. I get the feeling the database of news articles is really designed to bring in customers, because looking for original material by Mr. Ross on the site I realised that rickross.com is also a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: [47] [48] [49] [50] as well as selling DVDs [51] and soliciting donations [52]. All of which makes me less inclined to consider it a suitable source for linking to in WP articles. Jayen466 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that whenever possible, we should link to original sources. However, if those sources are hard for an average person to reach, then also linking to existing excerpts or full copies on the web is reasonable as long as we believe the copies are uncompromised. The owners of newspaper archives presumably are aware of the web, and I'd expect that they see no value in going after people promoting their work, especially when those people have a scholarly purpose in doing so. Respecting the property of others is certainly important, but I don't believe we must respect someone's property more than they themselves do, especially given the centrality of verifiability to our work. Thus, I'd consider both sites an acceptable backup source for linking. William Pietri (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's thrash this out. Well over a hundred articles link to the site; if these links are to be removed (or redirected to legitimate sites), there should be a good reason to start this work, and it should be backed up by solid community consensus. Personally, I don't see how these sites can be compatible with the copyright policy outlined in WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. In addition I have the feeling that the purpose of both sites mentioned here is not just scholarly, but also commercial; and if the above reasoning by William Pietri (talk · contribs) were to be applied to any site that infringes copyright, then there would be no copyright-infringing sites on the net at all. Because then we would have to assume that the ongoing presence of such material on a site generally implies the legal owner's consent. Any other views? Jayen466 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this is to say the least not the best characterization of the Rick Ross site links. Rick Ross is a well known expert on groups that many consider cults with huge publicity budgets churning out uncritically reviewed material. The purpose of these Rick Ross links and similar sites devoted to such groups is to provide a ready reference to hard to find published information on many such groups, not to sell services. Wikipedia's restrictions on critical external links have become such that original, critical material by Rick Ross would not be suitable because it is critical, and now you want to restrict linking to Rick Ross as well because he even collects information on these groups although the claim isn't that the information isn't sourced and there is zero chance of derivative liability for Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you can't even put in an article a general statement that critical information can be found on the internet anymore because advocates will demand that you provide anm attributable source for even that or it is "original research", which is absurd. The fallacy here is that there simply isn't a large body of scholarly, NPOV secondary sourcing, only a large amount of primary soured proponency and much less secondarily sourced, published material, simply due to limited interest, and Wikipedia simply doesn't function well in such niche areas. Wikipedia's increasing inability to address the underlying problem with NPOV in such cases by keeping these articles limited in scope for balance results in almost every article on such groups presenting a skewed view. This is just another "cure" that will make the problem worse. Not much point in editing Wikipedia anymore. Bye. --Dseer (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't know much about religionnewsblog.com, I disagree strongly that a substantial purpose of rickross.com is commercial. The Rick Ross Institute is a registered 501c3 nonprofit. I am of course not saying that any infringing of copyright is ok, but I am saying that there are cases where copyright owners may find non-profit use of limited amounts of their work acceptable and even welcome, and that this is plausibly one of those cases.
We should certainly try to be good citizens and follow the law, but we are not obliged to act as copyright police or to take hard-line positions on IP, especially when it would reduce the quality and verifiability of our encyclopedia. When we have no more official option, linking to web-posted copies of referenced articles on legitimate non-profit sites is not illegal, does not hurt the commercial value of the original work, and is beneficial to us and our readership. I believe we should continue the practice as is. William Pietri (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to weigh in here, but after reading the most recent above comment by William Pietri (talk · contribs) (as well as his previous comment), I don't think I could have said it any better than that. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As to newspapers' copyright policies, here are the relevant pages from the New York Times website: [53] [54] There is nothing there to indicate that unauthorised reproduction of their articles on websites like the ones discussed here is welcomed by them. The same applies to Associated Press: [55] and I believe most other newspapers. In my view, the fact that editors like or applaud the work that the owners of a particular website do cannot be material here: that is an argument that would be open to any editor, with any site they link to. As regards the not-for-profit status of the Rick Ross Institute, Mr. Ross does use the rickross.com site to advertise his professional services and those of his associates, as outlined above. An American Professor of Sociology has described rickross.com as an "entrepreneurial lone ranger attempt to solicit customers". I still think that linking to the newspapers' own websites, where this is possible, is preferable and more in line with WP policy, and that simply referencing the article without the link (possibly with a note in the ref that the copy cited was found on rickross.com) is the right thing to do in those cases where the article is not available any more on the publisher's own website. Interested users can still find the article online by googling for its headline. Jayen466 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That nonprofit institutions take in money is not proof of commercial activity; every nonprofit takes donations, and many sell DVDs and services. Your quote is from 2003 and about the late 90s, and so appears to predate the creation of the nonprofit. If you think the Rick Ross Institute is violating its nonprofit status, you should talk to the IRS, not a Wikipedia noticeboard.
If you've spent any time in a large American corporation, that newspaper has no lawyer-written policy approving web posting of excerpts or articles should be unsurprising. But that doesn't mean that they actually mind their material being re-used as a non-commercial public good. Standards in Germany may be different, but in the US, the doctrine of fair use is an extension of the core of copyright: a limited, temporary grant of property rights to promote the creation and publication of intellectual works. Rick Ross is probably within the legal and moral boundaries of that, and we certainly are. I agree that referencing the original newspaper whenever possible is the right thing to do. However, when I weigh reduced verifiability against a token gesture of extreme deference to a publisher that may be perfectly happy that people are using and discussing their work, I feel that verifiability wins out. That is especially true given that, as Dseer points out, rickross.com has articles about organizations that in many cases work very hard to present and promote a one-sided view of themselves.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rick Ross is necessarily a reliable source on anything other than the views of Rick Ross. He's clearly partisan, so I don't think he personally should be cited except in a "critics say" kind of way. But if he's the only guy with a web-accessible copy of a text that we are citing, we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of verifying Wikipedia articles based on those texts. William Pietri (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am quite certain, judging by the Disclaimer quoted above and the sort of material hosted, that rickross.com does not operate within the realms of fair use. Just try getting one of these NY Times articles that he hosts uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a fair-use rationale and you'll see what I mean. Re your concern for WP:V: my suggestion is either to link to the publisher's website or to omit the link to rickross.com, but state that the copy of the article viewed was that found on rickross.com. That should be done anyway – see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. (I don't know what the status is if the copy viewed and cited infringes a copyright – perhaps we'd have to raise this in another forum.) In either case, then, verifiability would be ensured. Readers either get the original article, on the publisher's website (preferable in any case), or they can look for the article on rickross.com, since our reference tells them that we found it there. As for the site being non-commercial, I don't think you understand that Mr. Ross makes his living as an "intervention specialist" or deprogrammer, and as an expert witness in court cases. In other words, these pages [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] advertise the professional services by which he makes his livelihood. So in what sense is the site non-commercial if it advertises his commercial, for-profit services? Surely, the business idea is that people surf to the site to read up on the group that a member of their family has joined, and then at least a small proportion of them will click on "Getting Help", where Mr. Ross's services are available at the quoted prices. See Duck test. Jayen466 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but the determination of fair use is made by judges, not by Wikipedia's policies, which are and should be much more stringent than what is legal in the US, which in turn may be stricter than what a particular rightsholder allows. That someone makes a living at a non-profit endeavor does not make it suddenly for profit, and neither does providing services. Most educational institutions, for example, are non-profit, but certainly charge money for services, and just as certainly provide a living to their employees. Do they put up their websites partly because the will attract paying students? Surely. But that alone does not mean they are suddenly a for-profit institution, or that other material on that site would suddenly fail the first part of the US fair use test.
Making readers and editors go the extra step of searching the web for a reference whose location we describe doesn't benefit anybody, and it harms the encyclopedia. If we are going to use the article and say where we saw the material, then we should link to it. William Pietri (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can follow your reasoning, but there remains the fact that the links to these sites appear to be a clear breach of our above policies. And the same argument could be made for any other site hosting unlicensed public-interest material. I've left a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if we can get some editors with a clearer understanding of WP copyright policy to comment on the matter. Jayen466 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Many news websites have links and advertisements to items they do not own the copyright to, or host items for sale. They are still acceptable on Wikipedia. However, if an item is a blog, it should not be allowed, except as opinion (and chances are this is reflected in legitimate news websites). I believe the policy deals with things like linking to excerpts of Harry Potter on a website that does not have permission to use it. If the text that you are linking to is rightfully used by the website, then it should be okay. If not, well, there you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty straightforward situation. If a website illegally hosts infringing material, we should not link to them. Policy makes this clear (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, among other places). Additionally, simple legal realities preclude us from linking to such sites. Contributory infringement requires both a reasonable belief that the infringing party should have known the material was in violation of copyright (which is apparent for news "scraping" sites of any sort) and a material contribution to the infringement (which linking from a top ten website would almost certainly qualify). IANL, but a law degree is not required to see why linking to such sites should be vigorously avoided. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is largely affiliated with the open-source community and copyleft, I think we should clarify here: F*** copyright law. People seem to pull out claims of copyright infringement in content disputes, just to push their point-of-view. I.E., a while back, some images I'd uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted by some annoying people because I used copyrighted Wikipedia logos, in the images. Thus, they argued, "That's in violation of copyright." Yes, but is Wikipedia going to sue itself? Is anybody going to somehow use my images, pulled from Wikipedia, in a way that harms Wikimedia financially? Later, I found images which had done the same thing, elsewhere (used copyrighted Wikipedia logos in images uploaded to Wikipedia) which remain untouched. Sometimes, Wikilawyering actually involves real laws, not just made-up ones.
So, the relevant question isn't, "Is this in accordance with the letter of the law?" but rather, "In reality, will Wikipedia get sued?" The second question is particularly important since the government itself often ignores the law and the answer to the second question is no. The legal culpability for linking to another website which violates copyright law is minimal, if not entirely non-existent. Much less, the legal culpability for the Foundation, which delegates editing responsibility to the community is minimal, if not non-existent. Technically, it could be argued that knowingly linking to a site which knowingly links to a site which knowingly links to a site which infringes on copyright is "copyright infringement," but such a ridiculous argument would be thrown out of court. The internet, period, is rampant with copyright infringement. The only way to completely avoid this would be to avoid secondary sources, especially sources like blogs and self-published websites. WP:Copyvio (and all policy, period) isn't like legalist dogma which we pedantically follow, literally, because we all somehow think policy was somehow written on stone tablets, by God, or we have some kind of undying love for copyright law. It's simply practical, pragmatic steps we take to keep Wikipedia functioning and to avoid getting Wikimedia sued. In this case, Wikimedia is not going to get sued from citing Rick Ross and I suggest e-mailing the Foundation for clarification, if you're still concerned.
With that said, what Rick Ross and religionnewsblog.com do could certainly be construed as fair use. If a company thinks they're infringing on copyright, they can issue a DMCA takedown provision very easily and Wikipedia will respond accordingly. Until then, this is just wikilawyering, literally. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This has to be the most sensible post I've seen on this topic - thank you Zenwhat. Orderinchaos 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Reproduction of entire works for public distribution is not anything close to fair use. However, it is classic infringement. You may wish to say f*** copyright, but copyright is a reality and numerous people depend on it for a living (writers, artists, etc). Is there a good chance we won't be sued? Sure. Does that make violating the law or encouraging the theft of someone else's work correct? F*** no. Also, contributory infringement for linking directly to infringing works is not an obscure technicality unlikely to result in court enforcement, but rather a legal reality upheld by courts in the United States. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case, I believe that rickross.com is not doing anything illegal or morally wrong. First, copyright is not an absolute right, and not all copies are illegal, as section of the law on fair use makes clear. As the US Constitution says, copyright exists, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Further, not all uses of somebody else's property are crimes. When the neighborhood children sit on my porch after school, they are indeed on my land, but if a neighborhood busybody called the police for trespassing, I would be outraged. We certainly shouldn't link to people who are engaging in wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property, and I think nobody would suggest otherwise. But there is a complicated spectrum here, from obvious piracy to sharing abandoned works to educational fair use to simple quoting. We must be responsible citizens, but equally we must not be extremists or prudes. William Pietri (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wholesale copying for broad distribution is not even remotely close to fair use and asserting otherwise is simply ludicrous. I agree there is a whole spectrum of use involved in using copyrighted materials, but I disagree that the use by rickross.com constitutes anything but obvious wholesale infringement. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Then it's a good thing I asserted the opposite. Sorry if my writing was confusing, but "wholesale copying for broad distribution" is one end of the spectrum I'm pointing at, and fair use is close to the other end. Rickross.com is far from the ugly end of the spectrum. It is a legally registered non-profit with an educational purpose collecting small portions of the original salable works, and only those portions related to its mission. Those articles bear no commercial ads. They do not charge for access. The value of the original work seems unharmed. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fair use to me.
Back in the days before the Internet, any serious public library would maintain files like this on topics of local interest, and would happily let you read and make copies of articles in the files. This is a functional modern equivalent. We should make use of it to increase the verifiability of our articles when (and only when) we cannot link to the original publisher's version. William Pietri (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"Wholesale copying for broad distribution" is exactly what rickross.com does, so your position comes across as more than a bit incoherent. Whole articles are considered single whole works (just as a whole essay or whole short story from a book is a whole work), not "small portions". Since many of the news services charge for archive access, it most certainly is harmful to the value of the original work in those instances. Regardless, there's a big difference between making private copies from legitimately purchased materials (such as your library example) and publishing the material publicly on a website (which is equivalent to handing out thousands upon thousands of copies for free). Also, the for-profit or non-profit legal status of a venture does not affect the status of infringement. It only affects the fiscal culpability of the offending party. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As you'd expect, I disagree that my position is incoherent. AllOfMP3 is the kind of thing I mean by "wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property". I agree that we should stay far away from that end of the spectrum. If there are articles in the rickross.com database that people are actively trying to sell, then yes, let's link to where they are on offer. But otherwise, I see what he's up to as no more sinister than archive.org, which we happily link to. Indeed, much less so, as his collection is surely less than a millionth of theirs. William Pietri (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there's no real comparison between a web-archive that is cautious to move within the law, has solid academic respect and endorsement, obeys robots.txt and readily complies with the wishes of rights holders, and an advocacy site that republishes news articles without permission. In my own view, your position is logically and ethically flawed (as I've detailed in my responses). Since we are apparently operating on different assumptions and standards of analysis, we will just have to agree to disagree. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Note e.g. [61], [62] and [63] – ? Jayen466 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive.org may be many things, but they (and Google) have not been legally cautious. I know people who worked on it, and they definitely saw themselves as breaking new legal ground. As Lauren Gelman says "The Internet Archive has been involved in the debate over the future of copyright in cyberspace since its formation in 1995." Like archive.org, rickross.com offers to remove any material on request of the rightsholder. The only obvious difference is "solid academic respect" which is not, as far as I know, an excuse under the law for wholesale distribution of other people's copyrighted works. By your own arguments, we should pull both sites; I believe we should pull neither. William Pietri (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you will find that a lot of people, including Jimbo Wales and probably quite a lot of others don't agree that the criterion should be 'do we get sued'. That is why for example, we respect the copyright laws of countries like Bhutan, even though we are not legally required to (hint: try reading WP:Copyrights). Indeed the very essesence of the copyleft and open source movement is that while the current copyright regime may be flawed, we need to work within it an do our best not to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to change our policy on linking to sites with unlicensed copyrighted materials, they should attempt to get consensus to change Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If people disagree with the copyright regime, they are free to petition the copyright office and elected officials. Unless the policy is changed, links to such sites should be removed without serious debate. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor. Red herring arguments such as "they make money off of this website" confirm my concern -- the New York Times makes money off of their website; should we be banned from linking to it?
I think there is a high value in linking to external websites that simply keep tabs of news stories on whatever issue an article is about, in this case controversy over religious organizations. They should include links, or make their own summaries, instead of simply violating copyright of course. It's best is they are scrupulously fair, but it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP, no OR, etc.
How about this alternative to RickRoss.com, et. al.: CAIC.org It seems reasonably fair and a site that summarizes copyrighted material instead of copying it. I know that the word "cult" is fightin' words for some, despite the disclaimer on their front page ("Read This First (disclaimer). Both Cults & Isms are listed here. Not every group mentioned on this site is considered a destructive cult. Some are 'benign isms' — different but not emotionally or socially destructive.") We can avoid that word in any case by simply referring to it as CAIC, and linking directly to the page about a certain group or figure, for example [64]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2008
it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#External_links Jayen466 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been hashed out at length before, with no clear resolution. See Wikipedia:Convenience links. If anyone seeks to remove links to articles hosted on Rick Ross's website they should be sure to not delete the articles as sources - we don't need hot links to use newspaper articles as sources. Instead they should reformat the citation so that it lists the bibliographic information about the article so that interested readers can look up the reference on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the fair use rationale, there is a somewhat similar case described here: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense Jayen466 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written to the New York Times and Associated Press copyright/permissions departments to seek their advice; when and if I hear from them, I shall report back. Jayen466 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this further, here's my view. From Wikipedia:Copyrights, we are allowed to link to "internet archives", but we don't define what those might be. I can find two obvious ones in use: archive.org and webcitation.org. Both take previously published material and offer it to anybody on the web who cares to ask for it. Both have policies where they will take down material on request. Neither asks for permission in advance. Both are non-profits, and do not put advertisements on the archived material. They do solicit donations and/or offer services. Rickross.com appears to meet all these criteria. Religionnewsblog.com claims to be non-profit, but I haven't confirmed that. They also run ads, but I didn't see requests for donations or offers of services. Otherwise, they fit these criteria. So I would say that both of these sites appear to qualify as internet archives (albeit with RNB possibly closer to the margin) and so should be kept. William Pietri (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For more info: the term internet archive is wikilinked in Wikipedia:Copyrights; archive.org has official recognition as a library. Not sure it solves this issue, but there it is, FWIW. Jayen466 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, excellent point. I was thinking mainly of the US fair use criteria when I was comparing things, as that is the legal hole through which they appear to be driving their multi-petabyte truck. The Internet Archive indeed recently (June 2007) became an officially recognized library as part of seeking some federal funding, so that's indeed an interesting difference. They appear not to have done anything more than they were doing before, however, so I don't think that helps us with a duck test for internet archives. William Pietri (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Both archive.org and webcitation.org are automatic (bot) archivers and obey robots.txt and provide information on how to block them via robot.txt. The archive pages precisely and do not reformat or modify pages. They only archive from the internet. Do these apply to rickross.com? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The pages there are 'archived' manually by the site owner (so robots.txt becomes irrelevant), they are reformated for the site, and I'm not even sure if he only archives from websites. I don't think rickross.com is what we mean when we say internet archive. I would suggest if people find stories online that are relevant to an article, they submit them to webcitation, rather then relying on some more dubious website Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification to link to sites that repost copyrighted material without permission. None whatsoever. "F*** copyright" might work as the slogan for some anarchist wannabe who doesn't understand the whole point behind intellectual property, but it does not currently and never will fly on Wikipedia. With Wikipedia as big as it is, if it did start knowingly violate copyright laws as policy, it would get lawsuits left and right -- and deservedly so. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far this discussion is more or less stalemated. How would you suggest resolving it, one way or the other? Jayen466 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I've had a response from the New York Times Permissions Representative at PARS International, short and sweet:
Thank you for your patience as I checked with "The New York Times" legal department.
In all cases, the publisher would prefer to have links directly to the nytimes.com site, all of which is now freely accessible.
Thank you for your consideration of 'The New York Times' copyright material.
(To receive a copy of the mail, contact me by e-mail.) Jayen466 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just learnt that, interestingly enough, Rick Ross has a post in his blog on the man running the "relgionnewsblog.com", "Apologetics Index" and "Cult FAQ" sites. It appears that Rick Ross characterises the man as a fugitive sex offender who runs the sites for profit: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1636 [65][66] Hmmm ... Jayen466 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Msalt said earlier -
I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor.
Well I have strong concern that some editors are ignoring valid copyright (and other) concerns in order to maintain links to sites with critical information about groups they do not favour. I would think that, especially in clearly POV situations and appearing on rickross.com (or caic.org) is essentially little more than a self-published reflection of the site owners opinions, erring in favour of wikipedia policies and guidelines would be a much more sensible alternative than erring towards ignoring them. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)