Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9

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

Marquis' "Who's Who" as RS?

Resolved.

I have the following questions about the use of Marquis "Who's Who", and in particular, "Who's Who in America" (in case there is reason to distinguish between the different Who's Who publications):

  • Is it a reliable source?
  • Can it be used to establish notability? In general or under special circumstances?
  • Is there a way to verify whether a particular entry about a person is authentic or self-promoted?

These questions arised due to a discussion on a user's Talk page. While the noble goal of this publication is to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry, this article here claims the contrary. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I can get into the Marquis "Who's Who" it's likely not a reliable source.  :) But in all seriousness, I don't know. I recall getting a form to verify certain information about myself (like where I'm working, is my name spelled correctly and so forth). I don't recall anything in particular that I would characterize as "self-promoting" but then again I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention to the whole thing. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, it’s a good, thought-provoking question. As someone who has consulted the Who’s Who in Economics, Who’s Who in Political Science, and Who’s Who in Asian Studies in the past, I would have thought those three sources would have been reliable for any claims made about the subject for the subject's own article (as they need to be confirmed by the subject before publication). In addition, if the editors made the independent decision (and that’s unclear) that these individuals merited recognition in their respective fields by listing their peer-reviewed publications, credentials, and personal details in the entries, then I would have thought that's a good step towards confirming notability (but you'd still need other independent sources).
However, your question is a little more problematic because it’s linked to notability of a subject in a more general compendium, isn’t it? In this instance, I would ask, “notable for what”? Does a general Who’s Who in America compendium determine the notability of the subject? If so, how? What are the criteria for inclusion in that particular Who’s Who? The linked article highlights some of the absurdities involved. Without any transparency behind that selection process, it’s difficult to determine if it is also a good source to meet the notability guidelines. J Readings (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Who's Who in America is clearly a reliable source by our rules (it is independantly published, it has editorial oversight, etc.) So the question is really whether being listed establishes notability. I have to wonder... can any one single source establish notability? I would say no. To my mind you need more than one. So, while a Who's Who entry could be one of several sources used to establish notability, it would not establish notability on its own. Besides, if someone is prominent enough to be listed in Who's Who, there should be other sources out there that can be used to establish the person's notibility in conjunction with the Who's Who entry. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It apparently has a very low bar to entry, so is not suitable to establish notability. Generally entrants submit their own biogs, so it should essentially be used much like a self-published source, i.e. it's OK for non-contentious basic facts about the subject. Tyrenius (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I do not think any Who's Who should be a valid way to help establish notability. However, despite all of this and other evidence to the contrary (or rather, lack of evidence in support of his position) presented in the latest AfD and the DRV, FeelFreeToBe continues to argue his point on my talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Which evidence? I see mainly opinions. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My own thinking about the matter was this: A single negative article (which is not even a piece of reliable information itself) about Who's Who cannot prove that Who's Who failed its stated mission to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry. It would be like claiming that the 9/11 Commission report failed its mission to provide the results of a straight investigation, based on a single debunking article. If the number of those articles increases, the situation somehow changes, but I think WP editors shouldn't have the authority to decide which side is right, since they have to maintain the neutral point of view. I found Who's Who volumes up to the present in a university library, which indicates to me that Who's Who is still a respected source of good reputation despite the debunking article. However, if there is serious concern, that readers might be misguided by the reference, it might be worth to cite the negative article about Who's Who as well, so that readers can make up their own mind without being too much impressed by the Who's Who citation. It all boils down to the fact that EVERY source can be discredited somehow. Corruption and/or false accusations can be found everywhere. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now what about notability? I know it's difficult, but just imagine a case, in which there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that you're unable to find a significant amount of other(reliable) sources. Maybe this is not a well-chosen example now, but let's imagine that you find a historic Who's Who entry from 1930 about a Jewish political activist, but all the books and newspapers citing him have been burned by the Nazis (except Who's Who of course). The only other information you find about him are his own books, preserved by his family and friends. Would this man be notable enough to get a (short) WP article? I would say yes, but where do you draw the line? Once again, I would say, it's not up to WP editors to decide. If there is some kind of reasonable explanation, why somebody has not been mentioned frequently by easily accessible sources despite his/her notability, lack of notability would be a weak argument, i.e. for deleting an article. Does my logic make any sense? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Free", I don't think you can justify a Who's Who entry as indicating anything more than:
  1. They the the person is notable.
  2. The person in question wants the information published (as the subject has editing approval.) "Editorial oversight" may exist in theory, but do we have any evidence it's practiced?
Accuracy is not established. My entry in Who's Who (which I mentioned in the deletion discussion about my article) is there, and happens to contain exactly what I sent them (edited for form). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your first point. About your second: According to the WP article Marquis Who's Who you also get an entry as a notable person if you decline to submit any information. How can you use your own case to prove lack of accuracy? Is the information in your entry accurate or not? Is there a significant amount of cases in which existing individuals purposely submitted wrong information? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, you ask if we have any evidence that editorial oversight is actually practiced... the same question can be asked of any publisher. As long as editorial oversight exists "in theory"... I think we have to accept the source as reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should differentiate between the current and historical editions of Who's Who. I'm fairly certain the editions relating to the periods before Marquis was established are reliable. Regarding the "current" editions, I would have to assume that anyone who gets included gets included on the basis of some establishment of notability elsewhere, so I'm inclined to think that it is sufficient to establish notability. It's probably also, generally, reliable. However, if there is a clear difference between it and other independent sources, I'd probably weigh in on the side of the independent sources. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a confusion between notability issues and reliability. Judging by the evidence, the Who's Who is probably worth very little in trying to establish notability, as several editors have pointed out. However, it is reliable source for information for article about an individual judged notable, in part because the subject is asked to correct/update the bio. In this way it is very similar to a bio published by an individual on his own website: useable in a article about him/herself, but for nothing else.
Reply to John Carter. There are different kinds of Who's Who published by different publishers. I think you may be thinking of the UK based versions which are a very different kettle of fish that the Marquis one. --Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. The volumes in question are entitled "Who Was Who", not "Who's Who". John Carter (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PublishAmerica publications

PublishAmerica is basically a disguised vanity press with little to no editorial control. Yet, books published by them have been used as sources or "further reading" entries; sometimes pretty extensively (For example, Voynich manuscript, a Featured Article, uses a book from PublishAmerica as a source for some claims). Since PublishAmerica has no editorial control, shouldn't all PublishAmerica publications be considered, by default, dubious as far as WP:RS is considered, in topics unrelated to PublishAmerica? As I see it, this is definitely the case. And secondly, how do we tackle this mess, anyway?

(The site was again brought to my attention a few days back, apparently someone at PublishAmerica message board wanted to use Wikipedia as a marketing device. That, however, is another matter. I was just surprised to find that PublishAmerica books are actually used as a source in many articles!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Over usage of internet sources

On the article on the nation of Colombia, there is an "internet references" section.

See: Colombia#Internet

Every citation is on a website and none of the books in the "further reading" section are used as sources.

Is this standard procedure? If so, is there some reason internet sources should actually be preferred over non-internet sources? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only unusual thing about it is they bothered to section off internet references at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sad to say this is very common. But no, there is no reason to favor internet over print, or print over internet when it comes to sources. We should use what ever sources are the most reliable for our topic... in whatever format they may take. Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Traffic (band) - need help

Is this an unreliable source? It appears to be a fansite, yet it has a wealth of information about its subject that could easily be used to improve the article. I don't want to make the same mistakes as I did with Family (band), as I may try to get Traffic (band) to GA status.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Respond either here or on my talk page if you feel you can help... thanks.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks self published to me. I would use verifiable sources first. --neonwhite user page talk 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability question about a Geocite website moved to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Reliability_question_about_a_Geocite_website

This issue is being moved to the Sri Lanka Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation The forum which deals with this issue and other issues related to Sri Lanka in particular the Sri Lankan Civil War. There is 1 edit restriction and how sources are to be taken particurly in the Sri Lankan context is better.The edit war has come down after the project was started.Please put your comments there.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Is an e-mail a reliable source? Discussion. I say nope, but just in case...

Odd that there's apparently no mention on WP:RS, but I saw it as common sense. Unless people are willing to hand out their e-mail addresses and passwords to all editors, there's no real way to verify. It would be a WP:SPS and any expert who writes an e-mail should be expert enough to point to reliable sources rather than opinion. WLU (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In a word... No. Information cited to a personal email would also be Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran_Air_Flight_655 - Is Sajed.ir a reliable source?

Someone tried to insert an image from sajed.ir in this article: Iran_Air_Flight_655

See: Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Sajed.ir_as_a_reliable_source.3F

Is the photo of a girl from a reliable source? I doubt it, but who knows. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Already asked above. Relata refero (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.throng.com.au/

This source has been used in the Home and Away article. I've tried to work out if it's reliable or not but im not sure. I guess it's a third party source but theres 2 questions im not sure about.. would you deem it to be reliable and because it's a online community is it classed as self published??

The specific article also concerns me . http://www.throng.com.au/home-and-away/mark-furze-ric-dalby-leaving-home-and-away As it contains little information about the subject and no claims on how this information came to light.

What do you think? thanks Printer222 (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not reliable... fan forum websites are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat

An editor deleted material from Prem Rawat referenced from the Los Angeles Times saying it was "extremely poorly sourced".[1] The Times article in question is a report on an announcement by the subject's organization, and apparently just quotes their information. Are mainstream, award-winning newspapers like the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times reliable source for the purposes of a biography of a living person? I asked user:Jossi, but he hasn't been able to give an answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, that is not cool. I have answered your question quite explicitly. I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. This is consistent with advice I have given in this very pages to other editors. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:V: (my highlight)
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. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.
Context is important, as well as editorial judgment for the suitability of the material: the fact that something was published in the LA Times, does not mean that we have to use it. It means that we look at the material and decide if it is usable, how to use it, how to summarize such article, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The LAT is a mainstream newspaper that has received the 2nd highest number of Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper (after the NYT). Specifically, under what circumstances would the LAT or NYT be unacceptable sources for the Prem Rawat article? Let's pin this down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, many circumstances. Is the material encyclopedic? Does the material adds value to the article? Does the way the source is used complies with WP:NPOV#Undue; is the material corroborated in other sources or it contradicts other sources? Again: there is no such a thing as an absolute as it pertains to the reliability of a source regardless if it is the New York Times, a local San Diego newspaper, or schloarly book , when we have to take into account the context in which the source is used, how it is intended to be used, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether the material is encyclopedic is totally unrelated to whether the source is unreliable. I've address that issue below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
From the top of WP:RSN: Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. -- Hopefully we will get some feedback here from neutral, uninvolved editors, other than the editor that posed the initial question, and the editor mentioned by Will Beback (talk · contribs) in that initial comment. Feedback from some neutral third parties in this matter would be greatly appreciated, so if anyone is knowledgeable about WP:RS/WP:V, and the reputability of the Los Angeles Times, your input here would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times and the New York Times are reliable sources, as the policy says of mainstream news organizations. There might be circumstances in a BLP where, for legal reasons, we would have to remove certain sources, but it would be a rare event for high-quality news sources to be removed, and would only happen if there had been a complaint and OFFICE involvement. There might also be circumstances in which a newspaper article was incomplete compared to a specialist source, in which case editors might agree that they prefer the specialist source. But the news source would still be considered reliable if someone wanted to use it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several circumstances under which that isn't true. If its an opinion piece, if its a single piece unconfirmed by or possibly acting in contradiction to scholarly sources.... SV, I've told you this before, over-reliance on papers when academics are working in a sector is not encyclopaedic and doesn't have support in policy as written. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), for providing your input. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, why do yo think we have a statement in WP:V that says: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context? If we take the discussion to mere absolutes, yes, the NYT is a RS. But we still need to apply editorial judgment about suitability, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're mixing up two issues, Jossi. One is whether or not specific sources are considered reliable and material sourced from there to be verifiable. The other is whether that material is appropriate to include in a BLP, and if so how it should be written. We need to pin down the first issue before we can go to the second. I can certainly imagine circumstances where material pronted in the L.A. Times would not be appropriate- for example if it were printed in gossip column and labelled a rumor, or if it were an issue where the paper's integrity had been called into question by other significant sources. However without some specific reason to discount their reliability I think our presumption should be that they are suitable sources for biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do always need to judge appropriateness, but for the most part, high-quality mainstream newspapers will be appropriate. One example of inappropriateness might be where a newspaper seeks to explain a complex historical situation, and we have a specialist source who explains it better. If there's consensus on that point, we might want to choose the specialist source. But that's really the only circumstance in which a good newspaper might be left out, and then it's not so much being excluded as superseded. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's functionally irrelevant, as jossi only has to stop using the word "reliable" to kill this thread (and I suppose one other editor can stop claiming BLP violations), but the dispute would still be mostly the same. That is, is the information relevant and/or significant to Prem Rawat. You've done away with the BLP issue, but as jossi says (and what retains in this the status of a content dispute), "that something was published in the LA Times, does not mean that we have to use it." Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The question goes beyond the content of any one edit. The LAT has published dozens of articles on the subject or his activities, as has the NYT. Rather than fighting over them every time we want to use them as a source, which is what some editors seem to prefer, I'd rather see if we can establish under what circumstances they are reliable. I think the answer should be: "under all circumstance except ..." with a list of exceptions. The reliability of a source is not directly related to whether or not material sourced to it should be included in an article. It's appropriate to debate that on a case by case basis. But the verifiability/reliability of the LAT and NYT should be assumed in almost all cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Will and SlimVirgin, NYTimes and LATimes are, by default, reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the answer should be: "under all circumstance except ..." with a list of exceptions. Except (as the arbitration committee ruled) [2]: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. Medicine, for example, "is an applied science, and clearly medical articles should rely on sources appropriate for a scientific article".[3] Even the NYT or the LAT quite often get it wrong when it comes to medicine, or at least, fail to get it completely right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are good points. However since this is a biography which doesn't concern either medicine or science I don't think that those exceptions will come up. As SlimVirgin suggests, where better sources (such as scholarly sources on scholarly topics) are available they may supercede newspapers. I can see that being the case in theological issues, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Newspapers are prone to error and POV, as are all sources, but also represent a significant view which should be included. In my opinion it's a good source. Anynobody 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times and The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (Dr. J. Gordon Melton editor) are in conflict. The LA Times says Rawat purchased it, Dr. Melton says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". So who do you believe? WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and that is why the LA Times article is, in this case, the less reliable source. If this material is important enough to go in the article, and I don't believe it is, it should be right, BLP Policy is clear - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V 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. The Los Angles Times is in no uncertain terms a reliable source. Brimba (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
But when the LA Times is contradicted by an Encyclopedia edited by a renowned religious scholar, what do you choose.? As WP:VER "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" .Momento (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not report both? "The Los Angeles Times writes that abc, although according to the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults, xyz." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at another section on this page, but ended up putting in my 2 cents here. Having said that I fail to see the relevance of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". How that would apply to this subject matter? The question is strait forward; is the Los Angles Times, per policy, a reliable source? The answer is extremely clear, and that answer is Yes.
Beyond that I happen to notice that you are stating that there is a contradiction, “Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". Who are Premies? Who organized that purchase, who decided that particular house, who handled the transaction, so forth and so on? You may have nothing more than two views of that same event descried in slightly different terms. I do not know enough about the subject to say. What I can tell you is that the LA Times is a reliable source. Other issues are to be sorted out somewhere else, not here. Brimba (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What brought me to this page was in essence this question here: Having said that I fail to see the relevance of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". How that would apply to this subject matter? Insisting upon academic sources for non-academic subjects. That a particular academic source touches upon the subject, does not invalidate the greater body of non-academic sources that cover the same subject. Brimba (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Religious scholars, such as Melton are not specialized in property transfers but in describing beliefs and practices of a religious group, so in this case I think the Los Angeles Times is more reliable. Andries (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Both sources are without fail reliable sources, the cult book as well as the LA Times. List that one says this, one says that, to indicate the disconnect, and readers can click on the links in the refs to make their own decision unless further sourcing comes up. As said above, the LA Times is functionally going to be almost always a reliable source, and pinning it on context isn't valid, nor to question if the content is encyclopediac. It's about Rawat, it's in a de facto reliable source, and the information is not something which would or could be considered as contentious under any established neutral consensus here. I'd go so far as to say anyone challenging a fine source like the LA or NY Times should at all times have the burden on them to demonstrate why it should not be used, and to gain acceptance for that view. Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that that was precisely what Jossi was doing here, though, trying to demonstrate why it should not be used. In any case, I think that statement's far too strong. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not try to demonstrate that it should not be used, Relata. All I said is that there is no absolute when assessing the reliability of a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected, though all I wished to do was point out that even if you did, you had gone about it in the way that Lawrence recommends. Relata refero (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For a different take on this, German Wikipedia (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Q) has for some time now explicitly favoured academic sources over journalistic sources; the use of the latter is, according to current policy, only permissible where no scholarly sources are available. In addition, the journalistic source in question must be held to have been solidly researched. The idea has merit, since an encyclopedia should be compiled according to scientific criteria. We are not trying to produce a press review. In the field of New Religious Movements especially, a number of academics have seen it necessary to point out that many newspaper accounts, even those in quality newspapers, have been factually incorrect, polemical, or biased. Jayen466 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the German Wikipedia's approach, for this reason -- academia and journalism are completely different fields, doing different things with different methods. Newspapers and magazines focus on reporting of facts and first-person accounts, as well as real-time analysis (ie what's going on right now.) Scholars focus on historical overview, complicated cause and effect relationships, deeper connections and themes between events and people, and the particular intellectual tools of their field (psychology, economics, etc.) It's a false dichotomy to say we must choose between them, or that one is superior. Scholarly articles often cite journalistic sources for most of the basic facts they build on. Msalt (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The focus of academic and journalistic works is indeed different. However, where scholarly reports and newspaper accounts contradict each other, I believe it is good practice to give precedence to the scholarly account. Where scholars quote press sources, these can of course be quoted as well. For topics not (yet) covered by scholars (popular music etc. being a prime example), journalistic accounts tend to be the only ones available. There is a natural time delay in the publication of academic treatments. They take longer to research than a newspaper article. But once they are available, they bring the benefit of this greater research effort and become preferred sources. A scholar's evaluation of journalistic sources is of greater value than a Wikipedian's interpretation of the same sources; it's just another aspect of the WP:OR principle. Jayen466 12:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As jossi has noted, this depends on context. Scholarly articles often make statements that are not the focus of the study, and in the Prem Rawat article, these are often used as "trump cards" inappropriately. In other words, say sociologist X writes an article testing the hypothesis that members of the radical left in the 1960s came from upper middle class backgrounds. In the introduction to the article, she may recite some facts about the demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Her findings about the class background of demonstrators would obviously be more reliable than a newspaper account the week of the convention. But the newspaper may well be a better source about the facts and eyewitness accounts of those demonstrations. Or perhaps she looks at different accounts and adds perspective. My point is, you can't assume her account is better than the newspaper's if there is a difference. You would have to read both and make a judgment. If there is a dispute, Wikipedia should usually give both sides of it. Msalt (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the subject is neither science, nor medicine, nor history, WP:V makes clear not only that major national newspapers are reliable sources, but that that there is no policy basis for claiming that academic publications are any more reliable. This matter simply doesn't involve a scientific theory and Arbcom rulings about sources for scientific theories have no relevance. The community explicitly rejected a proposed WP:SPOV guideline which would have preferred scientific points of view over others, WP:NPOV has been interpreted to prohibit such a prefetence. An editor is not entitled to remove content which is reliably sourced per policy based on an editor's own personal opinion - there has to be a policy basis. Also, suggest going to WP:PUMP to float a proposal if one wishes to revise WP:V and WP:RS to make them more like the German Wikipedia if this is desired (and good luck getting it accepted!). We have to deal with policy as it is here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"...there is no policy basis for claiming that academic publications are any more reliable." WP:V specifically says "in areas where they are available..". By definition, when we have a choice to make, that is an area where they are available. Hence your claim fails. Relata refero (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe you are correct. When WP:V says "areas", it means academic fields, areas of expertise. Academic sources can disagree with reliable journalism on many points outside of their fields, and where the academics makes statements that are not the product of their discipline, they are not in their "areas". For example, in the example at hand, the dispute is over a real estate transaction. The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America has no expertise in real estate. Furthermore, it is not really an academic source in the sense discussed here -- it is a tertiary source summarizing lots of sources quickly, and hence does not have the direct authority that a secondary study of the subject would. Ironically, it's a bit more like journalism that way. Msalt (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How is that a contradiction to what I've said? Relata refero (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You said "By definition, when we have a choice to make, that is an area where they are available." In other words, you seem to be saying that any time a scholarly source and a journalistic source address the same point, the former "wins." I'm saying that scholarly articles often make points not "in their areas" of expertise, such as mentioning certain facts or disputes in passing, or in footnotes, or just ranging afield. Where they range beyond the author's special field of expertise, I'm saying that they are outside their area and have no special claim of being a superior source.
In the example at hand, we are discussing whether the Los Angeles Times' description of a public real estate transaction should be trumped by the description of that same transaction in a scholarly article (actually, an encyclopedia entry). But the real estate transaction has nothing to do with the journal's field of expertise, while the LA Times has a real estate section and dedicated real estate reporters, and is relying on the public record in its reporting. This is an excellent example of a case where a scholarly article and a newspaper article may disagree, and in my opinion the policy does NOT call for automatic deference to the scholarly article. As Jossi said, it depends on the context. Msalt (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Was the LA Times report written in its real estate section? If not, why would it be more reliable than an ecyclopaedia entry? You're setting up a false choice here. If an anthropologist happened to mention in a footnote some aspect of, say, stock market theory that was contradicted by the Wall Street Journal, nobody here would claim that the anthropologist was a reliable source, academic at all. But this situation is nowhere near that: when both sources are reliable, we have a choice, and policy indicates which way we should usually go. Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This situation is very like the one you describe, except that encyclopedias as tertiary sources have less favor in policy. To show the absurdity of this debate, the LA Times article is actually quoting Prem Rawat's own spokesman for most of its points! Yet 3 editors who happen to be current devotees of Prem Rawat are arguing that a two page LA Times article entirely on the subject of this purchase can't be used because a passing mention in an encyclopedia -- I'm not sure it's even a full sentence -- is phrased differently. Tens of thousands of words have been spilled, so I may be fuzzy here, but I believe that they will not even accept that the LA Times could be mentioned also as a conflicting view. Msalt (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC
I certainly think that in this case - and I frankly can't see why it should make a difference regardless of POV whether it was bought for him or by him - both sources should be used. That doesn't come from the fact that the LA Times necessarily should be quoted even when a (signed) encyclopaedia article contradicts it; but from the fact that if two reliable sources disagree, and there are only two accessible, we should err on the side of caution. But that's not about reliability per se, except that both sources meet the basic level. Relata refero (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, including the silliness of the underlying argument. I'm afraid there are lots of hyper-picky arguments on Prem Rawat Talk, which has the effect of driving off uninvolved editors (whether that is deliberate or not.)

I do think that, on a policy level which is interesting, that a good newspaper article -- especially one like this that is focused on the subject -- will in many cases have more detail and sometimes accuracy than a passing mention in an encyclopedia (especially), which necessarily has to drastically summarize. Again, context and the specifics are very important. I see some people (not you) trying to argue that a scholarly article or even an encyclopedia automatically trumps journalism, and that's the part I am uncomfortable with. Msalt (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata refero and Jayen. When there are peer reviewed scholarly sources they are preferable to newspapers as per WP:VER "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available", particularly in a BLP where high quality sources are necessary. Since there are many academic articles on Rawat, they should be our preferred sources. The fact that academic sources do not report on Rawat's real estate is not a lack of scholarship but rather an experienced understanding that "real estate" is irrelevant to his notability.Momento (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Peer-reviewed scholarly sources" are best for facts in their fields of expertise, and when we have more than one source for a fact we should use the best available. But the existence of that source doens't mean that other reliable sources cease to be usable for other facts. For example, if we had one scholarly artcle on the influence of Mick Jagger on American music, it wouldn't mean that all other lesser sources couldn't be used for other aspects of his life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; that is, in fact, not too far removed from the above-cited principle that journalistic sources should only be used where no scholarly sources are available. Jayen466 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Help settling a dispute

There's a dispute going on at the Flyleaf on the bands genre. These links that I have list them as Christian rock:

  • "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band"[4]
  • "Like jumbo shrimp or civil war, "Christian rock band" can seem like an oxymoron. After all, rock and roll has always been the devil's music, and Jesus surely wouldn't approve of the sex-and-drugs lifestyle. So why is the Christian band Flyleaf playing on this year's Family Values Tour with Korn, Deftones, Stone Sour and Bury Your Dead? Did some booking agent make a terrible mistake?"[5]
  • "Christian Rock"[6]

But some editors refuse to acknowledge them saying they are all not valid. Please help settle this!Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I would consider the VH1 and Newsday articles to be reliable sources, but they are ambiguous in a way. A rock band could consist of Christians, and thus be called a "Christian rock band", without playing the genre of music known as Christian rock. One obvious example is U2. I'm not certain that the VH1 and Newsday articles are specifically saying that Flyleaf plays Christian rock as opposed to being a rock band who are Christian. The Wal-Mart citation does identify the band's genre as "Christian rock" but that is in a catalog rather than a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

References for Sengoku-jidaigeki

I'd like to utilise the following links, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], as sources for the various sections in Jidaigeki. Do any or all pass Wikipedia:Reliability? And I found this site. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The LiveJournal link isn't going to qualify as reliable because it's basically a blog. And the Pasthound link isn't going to qualify because it's just a search engine result. The others may qualify; I looked at them but I couldn't be sure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources and do they conflict with NPOV?

This article describes an organisation in language which I don't consider conforms to NPOV. Edits by another user, perhaps misconceived but which at least aim to introduce neutral language, are regularly reverted as "vandalism" by an editor who defends the description of the organisation as a "racist hate group". He asserts that he is accurately reproducing what the sources [12][13][14] say, and that WP considers the source websites as reliable (although I can find no mention of them in any WP policy or guideline document). Yet the sites belong to interest groups with agendas which do not predispose them to neutral descriptions of the organisation. They produce unsourced and sometimes vague claims out of thin air without references to back them up, and I have reliable academic sources which contradict the websites on some specific points.

I don't consider that an encyclopaedic article can be written in this way or style. But even if I write up my own sources in neutral language, this will not address the bias already in the article, deriving from claims on the websites which are difficult to confirm or deny. The other editor obviously doesn't intend to address them, either. Is he correct that Wikipedia considers the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Centre to be reliable? And if so, is this a proper way to use them? Or, as I think, do non-neutral descriptions in even "reliable" sources have to be reported in neutral language? Gnostrat (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League's views should probably be used with caution and attributed as an opinion of that org. I would consider Southern Poverty Law Center more reliable as it has a legal background. I dont see a problem with the articles POV but more with the lack of claims to notability. --neonwhite user page talk 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The ADL and SPLC are the premier organisations in this area. However, wherever possible, such opinions should be attributed. I note, however, that other references, including scholarly ones, describe it as "Odinist", "esoteric neo-nazi", "white anti-semitic and racist", etc. It might be more appropriate to put the scholarly description of such groups, especially "esoteric, paganist neo-nazi" more prominently than that of various advocacy organisations. Relata refero (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks : ) I'll take all that into consideration. Gnostrat (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How old is too old?

Regarding the middle power article, is a single source citing info from the mid to late 90s a good enough to include a country on the list of "middle powers"? I opted to delete Russia from the list, since Russia has gone through some massive changes over the past 20 years, hitting an absolute low point at around the time this article was published. The info on that source citing Russia as a middle power is dated as 1997. It doesn't at all reflect current day reality, and I could find no recent articles that consider Russia a middle power today. Here's the source [15]99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over the source and found that it doesn't even directly support the notion of Russia being a middle power, and actually contradicts it. I explained myself on the talk page of the article if anyone is curious. So do I have a case for deleting Russia from the list? What do you people think? My attempt to remove it has been reverted twice.99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, this source does not at any point explicitly label Russia as a middle power. It's a very interesting article and could be a good source for expanding the article. It also has a very brief summary of the emergence of the concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Currently, on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article (possibly to be renamed "Controversies over the September 11, 2001 attacks" or something) there is a discussion over Thomas Eager's statements made in The Utah News (and a couple other papers in the USA). In the article, he explains the methodology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "the 'reverse scientific method'" and a number of other statements which are cited in the article.

However, a number of editors have moved to exclude this material on the basis that:

  1. Empirical studies made by Eager have been claimed by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to contain errors.
  2. He has been accused of participating in a cover-up by Jim Hoffman (a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement).
  3. The empirical claims he made about the collapse are "clearly" wrong, and it is common sense to exclude his opinion as an expert on that basis.
  4. He is speaking outside his field of expertise, and is not a credible source.

None of these statements have been sourced to anything beyond primary sources, so far. With that said, is it acceptable to use Eager's statements in the article? --Haemo (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribute statements directly to Eager wherever they aren't echoed by independent reliable sources, and attribute any relevant responses to his criticisms. When would we (the non-POV pushers) ever remove criticism from an article because the target says it's wrong? And if Eagar has been covered by several newspapers, then maybe he's notable, and the solution to this would be more obvious if there were an article on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Knol as a RS?

Interestingly, the CSM reported today[16] that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes[17] that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Wikipedia. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Wikipedia:Verifiability so we don't need to rely on what bloggers say. Knol is no different from any other self-published blog, or website that lacks editorial oversight: it is not presumed to be a reliable source except for non-controversial information about the writer. - Jehochman Talk 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're probably wrong, or at least on the wrong side of consensus. There's a discussion on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The mailing list is informative but does not govern policy. The mailing list includes malcontents, banned users and others whose opinion would not be persuasive on Wikipedia, and the sometimes toxic atmosphere there has led to very low participation. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Guy, just because you don't participate doesn't mean its worthless, OK? A lot of major policy is still first heard there. In this case, I'm quoting the participants in a thread started by DGerard, and there wasn't a banned user in sight. If you don't pay attention half the time, don't blame the rest of us. Relata refero (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, the Mailing list gets to challenge WP:SPS without on-wiki discussion and consensus? And we listen to that challenge and not WP:SPS? --Thinboy00 @009, i.e. 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Knol probably will be a reliable source for Wikipedia, because it names its article's authors by real name and lists their credentials, plus their sources, both primary and secondary. It doesn't get much better than that. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How would that be any different from our posting our names here? We share our sources too. It's editorial oversight and peer-review that makes the difference. --Adoniscik (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna say that Knol will probably be a good source for sources. Users can go there, find cites, get the material from the cited source, and add it to our content. But as far as sourcing to Knol itself, I'd say that a dangerous stance, cause then NNDB, which touts itself as being reliable I believe would also be a source. MBisanz talk 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mbisanz. Secondly, check out this example. It has been written by the Director of Insomnia and Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. To me that is a very reliable source. Again it would depend on the author.Bless sins (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability question - a band

I am not saing any specific names yet, because I suppose it could influence the response, so just keep on this NEUTRAL facts here please: There is an 8 track, 51:05 minutes long record by a band. It was their first record, only 1000 copies were made and so it is rare now. I made a research in the internet and I found out that the large majority of sources and the RELIABLE SOURCES (professional websites) cite it as their first, debut ALBUM and include it in the discography of the band. But the BAND MEMBERS ignore or disown this record in some ways or call it a DEMO and generally do not see it as their first album on their homepage, and in their interviews and so it is also on their today's label's homepage. Also the third album after the first release (the disputed one) has number 3 in its name what indicates that the band does not see it as their first album. Are the reliable proffesional cources OR the band members' stetements and attitude the reliable and verifiable sources for Wikipedia? Which Wikipedia's rules could be cited as a reason?--Lykantrop (Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would use the professional sources and ignore the opinion of the band, you can disown an album but you can't change history, it was still released, therefore it was the first album. As a precedent Ocean Colour Scene also disown their first album and usually refer to their second album as their first but it still appears on the article. A good way to deal with this is to simply explain the controversy in the artist and album articles. --neonwhite user page talk 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But there are several users who defend the band's statements. I REALLY need some rules that make it clear....--Lykantrop (Talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a reliable second party source it should be given more weight than a self published primary source. If the artists opinions are self published then the rule would be that self published material should not be used in an article about itself if is contentious. If they are published by a second party source then it is likely they are presented as an opinion only which can't really be used as a verifiable fact. Maybe you could provide the sources here. --neonwhite user page talk 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The band's statements (assuming they made them in reliable sources) are reliable for the opinion of the band. The industry statements are reliable for the opinion of the industry. Both opinions should be discussed in a neutral tone, per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for information. I solved the problem with a very nice compromise. The problem was with in public pretty infamous band Slipknot. Their first album Mate.Feed:Kill.Repeat. is listed in the discography now with a note of band's attitude: Slipknot discography. If somebody vandalized it, see for last version by me. I think it is ok now.--Lykantrop (Talk) 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

National Terriers Club LLC?

We've got a discussion going on at Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier. There's an entire section that cites only this page for its sourcing. Aside from this section (here) having a very unencyclopedic tone, I'm questioning the reliability of the source. The page is rather inflammatory and comes off as a fringe essay - it blames "The Corporate Media's agenda" and how "For the media it is soley about profit." The group that runs the page, the National Terriers Club LLC, seems dubious. It only yields 26 google hits (113 without the LLC) and no news articles for either. What do you guys think? Should this article be using this source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Well the only part of the page that is cited is this part from the very bottom of that page.
"Fighting dogs were bred for their gameness and/or ability to win. Most fighting dogs would take a hold of their opponent and rely on their gameness and/or their conditioning/stamina to win. A very small percentage of American Pit Bull Terrier's possessed the ability to kill another fighting dog, and it was very rare for a dog to be killed while fighting. American Pit Bull Terrier's would fight other dogs within inches of people (their handlers) and they would even be picked up by their handlers during the heat of battle. If any of these dogs showed any aggression towards either handler, the dog would automatically be declared the loser and the fight would be ended immediately. This led to a very stable breed of dogs that simply and rarely would even consider biting a person for any reason at all. The American Pit Bull Terrier is not the type of dog that just "snaps", they are thoughtful decendants of fighting dogs whom under any situation have the calm, cool, and thoughtfulness of a dog sitting on a couch."


They even cited the sources on their page of where they gathered the information from. If you look they cited the SDJ "Sporting Dog Journal" , AGDT "American Game Dog Times", and Your Friend & Mine magazines. These magazines were well known for reporting dog fights, having cover to cover accounts of dog fights, articals about dogfighting, and interviews with dogfighters in each issue. Link to those magazines
Those who are historians or are doing research on dog fighting, or the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier often purchase those magazines for information, data, statistics, etc.
They also paraphrased Don Mayfield.
Being that the only information posted on Wikipedia is what I have written above, and that information seems to have been thoughtfully gathered, studied, and then put on the National Terriers Club LLC website, I dont see what the problem would be. Working terriers (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Go take a look again: the article is referenced at the end of the first five paragraphs in the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That is clearly a mistake, and the references to the National Terriers Club LLC website concerning information thats not even on the National Terrers Club website should be removed. However, this is not about a reference mistake, you have called into question the reliability of the specific infomation mentioned above cited directly from the National Terriers Club LLC website. Right?
If this is about a citation mistake made on a Wikipedia artical, then that issue doesn't belong on this page. Working terriers (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit - "I also contacted the owner of the NTC and he said he will make some changes to the NTC's APBT page" - I believe the page is even more invalid as a reliable source, not to mention a COI. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Management and Ownership of registries talk to many people. Infact, anyone can call or e-mail just about any registry and ask to speak to the owner/s of them. Its called customer service. Working terriers (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Livejournal

When is livejournal acceptable as a source of material? In the case of Russian presidential election, 2008, someone posted two pictures of "alleged fraud" [18][19] which are sourced to a livejournal in Russian. I found this to be highly suspicious, considering there were no official reports in the media or by any of the election monitoring groups about election fraud. This sort of thing would have been widely reported after all the pre-election speculation by western media. I removed the pictures on the grounds that they're not reliably sourced and don't actually add anything useful to the article (and in fact contradict all of the sourced, reliable information in the election fairness section), but I have a feeling this is an edit war waiting to happen. Sbw01f (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a case where a personal site like Livejournal would be a reliable source--except perhaps as a primary source in the rare case that a Livejournal entry itself were the subject of an article about a notable event (for example, Anna Svidersky's Myspace page is linked in the Anna Svidersky article because the page itself figures prominently in the story of her murder). But that's hardly the case here. I'll add the article to my watchlist in case anyone is looking to start an edit war.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have expanded upon my point on the article's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

blogcritic.org

seems self-evident to me that blogcritic.org constitutes an agglomeration of blogs, thus, as blogs, they fail as reliable sources. an editor is referencing a blog on blogcritic as a RS, claiming that blogcritic is 'an online magazine' (which is how they bill themselves, conveniently). i don't see any evidence that blogcritic has any reputation for fact checking and reliability. am i right or wrong that this is not a reliable source? from the blogcritic 'about' page: "Bloggers publish their stories at Blogcritics.org because of the immense value and benefits that are offered." Anastrophe (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to their own website, they'll let just about anyone with a blog write for them, so of course they can't be considered reliable. See also our article about Blogcritics; apparently, they've won several awards and have become a popular site, but are ultimately a collection of obscure, self-published web authors.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
as i expected. thanks for the confirmation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft open letter used as reference

Resolved.

.

A edit war on the OOXML Standardization page has been going on over the use of a open letter on a Microsoft website. The letter describes Microsofts opinions about IBM's actions. IMHO the page is a self published source that has claims about a 3rd party. As such I do not believe the page is usable as a reference to prove "IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process". Here is a link to a previous version since the section gets deleted and added quite a bit. Here is a link to the Microsoft page that is used as a reference. Kilz (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about this particular reference started here and (after a page split) is now here. My position is
Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Balance is not an issue here, but if the source is a reliable source according the WP:VER and WP:SPS. Neither is where the discussion started. It has always been my opinion that self published source discussing a 3rd party is unusable. IMHO the arguments that a bad reference should be used to support a section based on it are faulty. The section should be removed if a creditable source isnt found.Kilz (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and just to clarify. Am I correct in saying that Microsofts pages can be used as secondary sources to show what their opinions and actions are as secondary sources. But that primary sources should come from what has been said in independent media. Kilz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. The microsoft pages would be a primary source for what microsoft says. The independent media would be a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
But the reply by Itsmejudith says that the article relies on statements by software houses, of which Microsoft is one. That the article should rely on independent media. To me that says the articles main statements need to be backed up by independent media. If not anyone could start a company, make statements, regardless if they are true or not and we would then take them as reliable and truth.
Also by what you are both saying, Microsoft cant be used as a reference to describe the actions or thoughts of anyone else. Only its own actions and thoughts. Those thoughts should probably be clearly labeled as opinions and not be made to look like facts. What about unfounded accusations about a third party? Should we allow libel as a reliable reference? Kilz (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The confusion probably comes from the definitions of the terms "primary source" and "secondary source". See WP:V for some pointers. The original distinction was made by historians. If a historian goes to an archive and finds very old documents, then those are "primary sources". If the historian instead uses books written by other historians, those are "secondary sources". Wikipedia is mainly written from secondary sources. So when we say that Microsoft's statements are a primary source, that does not mean that they are the best source for writing a Wikipedia article, in fact it means the opposite. A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. It helped clear up some misconceptions of terms I had, but reinforced what I believed was the correct use of the references. Kilz (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

www.Biography.com

Is this a reliable source? Thank you.

Wanderer57 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... It is the website of The Biography Channel, which belongs to the A&E Television Networks, [20]. Depending on the context, it may be a useful source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Jossi. Since it is a "maybe", will you please look at the specific case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Hilton&diff=prev&oldid=197148665
(As background information, I should mention I think there are also other issues involved here aside from the reliability of the source. I reverted the edit shown in the above diff. There is discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Re reverted edit in lead.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless the $300m fortune is disputed, I do not see why it would not be usable. I am sure that there must be other sources about the Hilton's fortune. Best would be to discuss in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

USA Today

I'm curious whether people think this USA Today article is a reliable source regarding a controversial article in a medical journal. (This issue arose at the Wikipedia article titled "fetus.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with this article? Can you provide more details? From the looks of it, the journalist is just reporting on the controversy in a mainstream newspaper. Do other newspapers contradict any of the facts or quotes presented in the USA Today article? J Readings (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to mention the USA Today article in a footnote. The accuracy of the news article is undisputed, as far as I know. Here's the diff.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought that if you attributed the "bias" to specific anti-abortion activists mentioned in the article (i.e., name them), while maintaining NPOV in the wording, then the USA Today article would serve as a reliable source. After all, it's a nationwide mainstream US newspaper. Everything is about context. J Readings (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The stuff I put in the footnote simply said, "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." I guess you're saying that it would be better to specifically say who is accusing. How about if I say the following? "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." Would that be better?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and reinserted the USA Today link into the footnote, with a new sentence.[21]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Reverted again, of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

I came across a Greenpeace report that gave a list of USN ships involved in Gulf War I that had been equipped with nuclear missiles. This does explain why some ABL-equiped ships did not fire their entire complement of tomahawk missiles during Gulf War I, but I am not sure if Greenpeace is a reliable source on the matter, in particular since the official USN position is that they do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear ordinance on thier ships. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that ships would have fired all available missiles. I can think of several reasons why some missiles should or could not be used in a single event, but we're just guessing at military decisions and actual events. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. there could be any number of reasons why the other missiles were not fired, hence the reason why I did not add this report to the articles right away. Additionally, there is is conflict of interest since Greenpeace is anti-nuclear, hence the question 'can their report be trusted'? Thats why I brought it up here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a biased source but still usable if you attribute it to Greenpeace. Taprobanus (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Taprobanus if I understand what he's saying. Attribution to greenpeace should be explicitly in the body not in the footnote. "According to Greenpeace..." JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The A/V Club

I'd like to clean up one of those "In popular culture" sections and am looking for sources. I found an excellent article on the Onion's A/V Club, which--unlike The Onion itself--is not a satirical publication. Does this seem like an acceptable website to use as source when describing critical opinion about a pop culture subject?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The AV Club seems to me to be a reasonably reliable source. I wouldn't have any problem with seeing it cited in an article about a pop culture subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs: Jason Matusow

I am writing another question about OOXML. One Im sure I already know the answer to, but I need to point someone to the answer. WP:VER, more specifically WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable sources except in some limited ways, like if the blog is an interactive news article on a news site. I do not believe that The blog of Jason Matuso can be used as a reference for the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. But some anonymous editors and one registered user believe that it can be. The problem is that Jason Matusow is an employee of Microsoft, as such it is expected that he will have a pro Microsoft bias. The site has no editorial oversight. No fact checking by anyone. He is not a third party, he is involved. Not only that he gives opinions about things he didnt personally see. An admin has recently stepped in and removed this blog and others. Now someone is trying to add it again. The simple question is this, Can or should this blog be used as a reference and source for Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Kilz (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To bring everyone up to speed, Kilz asked a few days ago whether an open letter written by Microsoft was an acceptable reference. Some responses to his query include
"Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media."
"A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better [than Microsoft's statements] for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing."
Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the question I asked. That question you mention was about an open letter on a Microsoft site. This is about a blog. Please do not post off topic comments in a section I started asking a question. Questions on reliable sources is exactly why this board exists. Since those that want to use unreliable sources wont ask, I have to if noting else but to make sure that I am looking at it correctly. This is the second time you have followed me to another area to post off topic statements. Please do not do so again.Kilz (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Kilz, please Assume Good Faith. My comments were not off-topic. I quoted a response to your previous question. That response was about
"Documents published by Microsoft..."
Clearly documents have to be published by people. "Microsoft" is not an entity that can publish documents by itself. Therefore, "documents published by Microsoft" means "documents published by employees of Microsoft." The blog in question is published by a Microsoft employee.
It is true that an open letter on Microsoft's website is different than an employee's blog. But, to add some more context: the blog you're asking about is Jason Matusow's. Jason Matusow is Microsoft's Shared Source Manager. One can find interviews with him and statements by him in plenty of 3rd party news sources, including USA Today. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Also noteworthy is that Jason Matusow is not just an employee but a senior director on standards and interoperability within Microsoft. hAl (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WalterGR, I did not come here to drag an edit war with me. I did not announce my posting here. I wanted the opinions of someone not involved with the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page to answer my question, thats why its on this notice board. WalterGR and Hal and everyone else posting on the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page please stop posting here so that I may get the answer to my question from a party not involved with the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. I feel that you are trying to delay the answer and are disrupting the work here. That he is quoted in newspapers is the same as Andy Upgrove who has a blog and is quoted all over. But as soon as he is suggested , he is shot down on Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML A new question for the people who work on this board, isnt the reason blogs are not used is the lack of editorial control? I see it as a slippery slope, as soon as one blog is allowed 5 more will be used. Thats why an admin had to come in and removed all the blogs from the page. Kilz (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mailing Lists Question

Recently a user has added a great dal of negative information to the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and sourcing it to what appears to be a University of Wisconsin mailing list. Here's a few of the quotes and references:

"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. [22]"

"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [23]"

"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [24]"

I've brought this up on the article's talk page, but there appears to be an edit war percolating on this page. I'd like clarification on the validity of the sources. It seems to be similar to a blog, but I'd like the opinions of more experienced editors. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]
IMO, the user would need to have a very good reason to include self-published forum postings to the article, especially when they are of a negative nature. My inclination is to remove everything immediately and aggressively until reliable third-party sources can be provided. J Readings (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Second comment: I just looked at the page. That whole "criticism" section should be removed per WP:OR, unless third-party reliable sources can be provided. In fact, I hate to say this, but most of the article strikes me as being original research. Granted, that's just my first impression after quickly skimming the page, but the fact that it's very detailed with very few (if any?) sources, strikes me as being more than a little suspicious. Sorry, strike that last sentence. They're not using the standard inline citations that I'm used to reading, so my eyes glanced over them. J Readings (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is very clear mailing lists are not RS period. Taprobanus (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: question-->Answer

I believe the forum list redrocket refers to is a legitimate source of citations. Many different people's posts on that list are cited in the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and those posters are clearly experts on Hoofers. Further, as Redrocket correctly notes above, much of the Hoofer Sailing article is not referenced/cited at all. (Of course this is true for many WP articles because it is often difficult to find authoritative third party references for non-scientific subjects.) In fact, some of the best-referenced parts of the Hoofer article are the criticisms. Most of the rest of the article is "supported" by links to the Hoofer Sailing Club's own website, which of course is not much of a supporting reference for itself. Certainly a Forum open to anyone is more objective than the club's own website..!

Further, Redrocket seems to have a vested interest in seeing that the Hoofer Sailing Club article is as favorable as possible. That may indicate that Redrocket is a Hoofer himself, perhaps a Hoofer leader with a free club membership and lots of extra privileges. If so, then Redrocket may be biased, or worse, may be trying to exercise censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the article to be objective (NPOV), it requires criticisms along with all the happitudes. I am in the process of adding more supporting references. (Tortugadillo (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

At this point, I have to ask who "Hoofer X" (sic) is? Realistically and following the basic official policies of Wikipedia, all sources should be attributed to a publicly verifiable reliable source. Chat fora have no editorial oversight. They have no transparent institutions that are designed for fact-checking before self-publication. Therefore, they are not reliable. Worse, the source(s) in question hail from "Hoofer X" (sic) and his or her unaccountable (negative) thoughts on the Hoofer Sailing Club. Are we honestly going to argue that the anonymous negative musings of a poster to a chat forum are considered a reliable source for the article simply because...? One last comment: invoking the "First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" in order to keep the e-mails as references suggests that you should re-visit the official policies and guidelines which have been established by the community of Wikipedia editors. J Readings (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Cant agree more. Just read WP:VERIFY, it goes into to great length to disqualify any chat rooms as RS sources. Taprobanus (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed... mailing lists and chat rooms are NOT reliable. The article in question actually has a lot of problems. It does not come close to meeting the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG... almost the entire article is cited to webpages associated with the org. I have prodded it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You have apparently mistaken Wikipedia for the United States government. "censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" does not apply to a private endeavor. Not that what is being done with the article is censorship, by any stretch of the imagination. Tortugadillo's repeated insertions of personal opinion and attacks is bordering on disruptive. Corvus cornixtalk 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I particularly like this edit [25] suggesting that I must be a "Hoofer leader" to disagree with his/her edits so much! It would be an awful long way to go for a sail and we have our own lovely Canadian lakes to enjoy!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles with no sources

Recently I have been giving more attention to patrolling new pages. I nearly always add an {{unreferenced}} tag to any article that has no references or external links of any kind. I am starting to get a certain amount of resistance and would like some guidance. These are the kinds of things I am hearing:

  • sports data that is "eminently verifiable"[26] does not need a source
  • a place (small village) that is "inherently-notable" does not need a source. (I have noticed that a majority of new articles of this type do give an atlas or gazetteer as a source.)
  • articles without sources should go straight to AfD. This was from Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk · contribs) who used Twinkle to revert around a hundred of the tags I recently added, with no explanation until I asked what was up. The explanation seems inadequate and the action taken inappropriate.

I believe providing sources for almost all articles is important. Articles I don't tag include disamiguation pages and some lists.

I'm asking for suggestions. Is there a general rule of thumb for the type of article that never needs a source so I can save myself and others needless trouble? ✤ JonHarder talk 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not offer an opinion as to whether mass-tagging of new articles is a good thing, but I find that the 3 responses listed above are, to varying degrees, misguided:
  • Removing a request for sources while saying that boxscore data is "eminently verifiable" is pugnacious editing at its best. If it's so verifiable, then your friend should have no problem verifying it. For example, if I wanted to find a reliable source for a Super Bowl boxscore, I might go to a site like this.
  • The more obscure the village, the greater the imperative for independent verification of its existence. Without such verification, it becomes easy to create hoaxes
  • Hogwash. A request for sources is far more constructive than an AfD nom. Take it to AfD only if you believe sources are unlikely to be found.
Hope this helps.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered doing some basic google searches to see if you could add sources to these articles? That would be a much more constructive way to deal with the problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This has spilled over to WP:ANI#Unreferenced tagging of Frech commune stubs with apparently me as the villain. My response, which speaks to some of the comments raised above, is here. ✤ JonHarder talk 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PMW

Is Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin a reliable source on news reports (that may or may not be reported elsewhere)?

The bulletin features headlines like "Abbas rejects Jewishness of Israel...proud to have taught terror to world"[27] which is a very contentious allegation.Bless sins (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a WP:SELFPUB, and should be used in that context. If the report on Abbas is correct, you should be able to find other sources that describes that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For example

"I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965] ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in the 60s and 70s]."

– Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008

.. could be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
So basically we can use it in conjunction with other sources, but not by itself? Also WP:SELFPUB says that the publication should not make claims about third parties, which the PMW does all the time, nor should the information be contentious, which it also is in the PMW.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Box?

A slight issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<copied from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Who runs the site? At a first glance, I would say the "gaming news" section might be reliable... and anything published in the chat forums would not. However, to determine if the "news" section is reliable we would need to know how this information is compiled and if there is editorial oversight. Blueboar (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Websites and Blogs

I see these are 'largely not acceptable'. However, when the person who owns the website is an acknowledged authority within his field, eg a well known archaeologist, historian, or anthropologist, with loads of peer-reviewed publications, etc, do I assume that their blogs or websites are acceptable? As an example, John Hawks Anthropology Weblog. I hasten to add that I agree with the policy, but when the owner of the site has the qualifications, peer review, etc....--Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. If you can demonstrate that you are using the blog from an expert published by secondary reliable sources in the field to cite something in that same field, they can be used within reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I would recommend avoiding here is citing such a source when it disagrees with a clearly reliable source. And the reason is that certain less-than-scrupulous "experts" use their personal publications to make claims they couldn't sneak past peer review. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! (That's why I said "used within reason".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd go further than when it disagrees: if it makes a claim that seems a little out of the ordinary and is not substantiated by a reliable source, I would be wary of using it. Relata refero (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia a RS for history?

Well this encyclopedia, the "National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh", has some articles, particularly those written about the Bangladesh Liberation War have an editorial tone which seems to be Bengali nationalistic in nature

  • Article on Bangladesh Liberation War - [28]
    • "the Pakistani military junta was bringing more troops to Bangladesh and at the same time wantonly killing innocent civilians all over the country. This clearly showed that they were totally insincere about handing over power to the elected representatives of Bangladesh. No sooner the talks failed, the genocide began"
    • "Several hundred people chanted the slogan Joi Bangla which lasted for about 15 minutes. But soon guns silenced them. The [Pakistani] army moved into the city before scheduled time and started the genocide. The military forces killed everybody in sight on the footpath and destroyed everything on their way. "
      • Did they literally kill and destroy everything??
  • Mass upsurge - [29]
    • "...started with the student unrest of 1968 against the tyrannical rule of ayub khan, President of Pakistan."
  • Mohammad Shamsuzzoha - [30]
    • Hagiographic language in the article, such as use of "martyr". Words like "martyr" and "freedom fighter" are used repeatedly on Banglapedia.
  • Mukti Bahini - [31], "freedom fighters"
  • Kotalipara Upazila - [32] - "Hemayet Bahini (a group of freedom fighters led by its commander Hemayet Uddin) and the Pak army was held at Ramshil Union. Hemayet Uddin was given the Bir Bikram title for his heroic role in this battle."

And so forth. Does this cheerleading style make this encyclopedia a non-RS for Bengali history? Opinions? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Blnguyen to post here. I think these issues alone demonstrate that Banglapedia should not be considered a reliable source. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, horribly POV language here indicates that it probably shouldn't be considered RS. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
From WP:VERIFY, the test is, is it a
  • Academic source
  • Third party scrutiny
  • Respected mainstream publication
  • Is it a wiki
  • Is it a Questionable source
It is not very obvious that it fails WP:RS because of the above. It is obviously a POV source so we can use it as long as it is attributed. But when it is in conflict with a clearly RS source you cannot use it to counter the RS source. We should keep in mind, western encyclopedia’s such as Britannica as used without any question. How are we sure that they don’t have a bias ? just food for thought Taprobanus (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is indeed a wiki, then it is obvious that it fails. Wikis (even Wikipedia) are not considered reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the negative to mean that it is not a wiki, as you can see from Banglapedia, its contributers are all eminent scholars of Bangladesh, some internationally well known. It's effort and working plan is no different than any encylopedia project except their language requires further refinement. Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Using Banglapedia in Bangladesh related issues is similar to using New Catholic Encyclopedia in Catholic related articles. Use it with a grain of salt and attribute when saying controversal facts.Taprobanus (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone a martyr is a matter of point of view, not fact. However, the article should say "xxx from Banglapedia says..." in regards to a controversial statement (ex. martyr). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly see here about Attributing and substantiating biased statements Taprobanus (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
However, there are legitimate issues when we start writing stuff like "According to xx of Banglapedia, Ayub Khan had a tyrannical rule." The statement is attributed, but that would not make it neutral in that case. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The initial question was, is it RS? The answer is it is borderline RS. Then how you use it in any article depends on the context. Obviously what you just pointed out will not be acceptable even if it came from say Britanica which is clearly RS. Taprobanus (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Brittanica would not make a statement like that. There are some inaccuracies with that encyclopedia, but there are no neutrality issues. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd only use it where there's absolutely nothing else, and then with a disclaimer (per Nishkid at 21:06). Daniel (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We are digressing away from the original question. Is it RS or not. The short answer is it is. Whether it uses NPOV langugae or not, can be be used in any sentence or not is not the purpose of this discussion or this board. Alwaysr remember for a source to be RS, it has to be verifiable. To be verifiable, it has to pass a few tests (I have listed them above). Neutral language is not one of the requirements of verifiable source test because all sources have some sort of POV. Some show it like Bangapedia and others hide it very well under neutral langugae. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the source can be used but should be attributed, and claims from the source should not be presented as facts.Bless sins (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd quote

I'm actually kind of embarrassed to bring this somewhat trivial here, but I'm involved in a stale dispute here and would require some "official" clarification on the quality and use of a quote.

The text in question is a passage in the Hamas article which reads:

Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to Robert Wistrich,

"Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant [18 August 1988], there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace."[33]

As I state in the article talk page, this quote has several problems:

  • The quote presented does not substantiate the claim that "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews."
  • The quote itself is factually false, since the Hamas Covenant refers to the Protocols exactly once (check it out here).
  • The source itself is heavily parsed and the quoted statements appears in an ellipsis, and is hence probably not part of the statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  • The original, unedited statement is itself not catalogued by the United Nations. The only two documents in which the author, Robert Wistrich, is mentioned are here.

The most pertinent problems are the first and the third. The first is trivial and regarding the third, the quoted text is part of an ellipsis stretching, in the source, from "Not only that..." to the end of the quote and is therefore presumably not in the original, which was read at a meeting of the UNCHR.

Now, judging by the language in other ellipses in the text, it is probable that Robert Wistrich himself penned those lines. If this is effectively the case, however, the source should be rejected as self-published, since, as the initial page of the hosting site itself states, Robert Wistrich is the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, which published the document in question.

Any thoughts? Am I completely wrong in this assessment?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 08:30

All I can say is that something as egregious as Hamas mentioning the Protocols in its charter is likely to have been covered by many, many considerably more reliable sources. Replace this reference with one of those, and nobody has a leg to stand on if they want to object. Relata refero (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's already in the article (Hamas' mentioning of the Protocols), which is why I didn't think this quote was necessary... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 14:44
Oh, I know why its necessary. Someone ran a google search for Hamas antisemitic to justify keeping "antisemitic" in the lead. That's how Wikipedia works in these areas.
I think you have made a sufficient case that this quote is from a self-published source by an acknowledged authority. Whether that qualifies it for inclusion in the article then becomes an undue weight issue. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your input :) Anybody else want to weigh-in? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 17.03.2008 11:20

y!m

Is Yahoo! Movies a reliable source? I know IMDb isn't, since—akin to a wiki—it's a user-generated production; but I was under the impression Y!M isn't. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section edit to prevent archival. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing Yahoo Movies, which I'm not all that familiar with, I would disagree with the suggestion that IMDb is an unreliable source. Parts of IMDb are user-generated without editorial involvement: the message boards, user comments, plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outline or plot summary), parental guides, resumes, and FAQs for individual entries (as opposed to the FAQ for the database as a whole). But the rest of the content (as far as I can recall) is reviewed by the IMDb staff before going live on the web site. They do have editors who are full-time employees to review the user-submitted content such as the actual credits for the films. Obviously, IMDb does contain some errors even among the edited content, but the same could be said for almost any book, newspaper, or magazine. I would trust most IMDb content (other than the user-generated sections without editorial review) unless I had reason to believe the particular information was inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd always been under the impression that IMDb was an unreliable source, I was even told such at WT:RS (Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 15#IMDb.3F). But moreso, I need to know about the reliability of Yahoo! Movies as I've used it extensively as sourcing for several articles. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As regards Yahoo! Movies, it looks like it depends on what aspect of Yahoo! Movies you were planning to cite. The content there ranges from articles from the Associated Press and Reuters, which are reliable sources, to user reviews, which are not reliable sources at all. It is true that someone at WT:RS said IMDb was an unreliable source, but I disagree with that person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made heavy use of Yahoo! Movies' actor biographies, and basic film statistical information. Wherefrom is that information; is it reliable? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To check the notability of an actor (e.g. for an AfD discussion) I wouldn't rely on IMDB alone, since how the screen credits are listed may differ among sources. I'd trust the film's own web site more. If a film is reviewed in US newspapers, then metacritic.com will usually offer an excellent set of reviews in what we consider to be reliable sources. This is good information on films though often individual actors may not be mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But I'm not really talking about IMDb, I'm asking about Yahoo! Movies here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further section edit to prevent archival.

Does anybody know one way or another whether Yahoo! Movies' biographical and film statistical information constitutes a reliable source? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Emporis

Hi. Is http://www.emporis.com/ a reliable source for building data? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

They make their living by providing accurate data, so we have to assume that they have an inbuilt sytem to check their facts. But it is not an academic source so how they collect data and how it is scrutinized for accuracy is not transparent for others to judge about unless someone else says so. Hence I will use it but attribute it to the website. Taprobanus (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

David Fasold

I wonder what people think of the sources used for this article about a now deceased Noah's Ark searcher. In particular,

a usenet posting by the subject
a scanned letter about the subject
Wyatt, Ron (1989). Discovered: Noah's Ark!. Nashville: World Bible Society Publisher's website; [34]
Dawes, June (2000). Noah's Ark: Adrift in Dark Waters. Belrose, NSW: Noahide no information about publisher available
Deal, David Allen (2005). Noah's Ark: The Evidence. Muscogee, OK: Artisan Publisher's website [35]

These books appear to be books written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push. What could or should these be used for in referencing the article.--Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the scanned letter. You can decide about the usenet posting. As to the other three, you are correct, they are "written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push." But, aren't all "history" books "pushing" some agenda? Just because these are odious "creationist" books, and might offend empiricist, scientific sensibilities doesn't mean they aren't on point and help the article. I point you to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." I think this applies here, and as they are buttressed by other sources I believe they are perfectly acceptable.
TuckerResearch (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Tuckerresearch. My problem is that this is not an article "about themselves". ie it is not about World Bible Society or creationism or whatever. And in fact, in this particular case, Fasold actually testified in a court case on an anti-creationist "side", , making the use of the book material very problematic in my view using this argument. But mine is just one view, and I am hoping that others can give guidance here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Discovered: Noah's Ark! is about the Durupinar site, and Fasold is a "main character" in the book. Noah's Ark: The Evidence is a biography of Fasold (actually, it is not well-written at all, it is comprised of cobbled-together bits of newsletters and news stories with chapter-sized segues of "biography" in between). Noah's Ark: The Evidence is about the Durupinar site and contains info about Fasold (I haven't read this one yet, just looked at bits and pieces). That is, at least, tangentially "about themselves" I admit, but you can't expect an article about a biblical "scholar"/"creationist" to be made up of stellar scientific sources. But, then again, their are notes about Fasold from Science, and he "co-authored" a piece in about the Durupinar site in a peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Geoscience Education). I think these considerations should allow these three to stand as published sources for this subject. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For my two cents, I'm surprised that the alleged Fasold e-mail cited from a Usenet chat forum is being cited in any article on Wikipedia. With Fasold dead, there is no way to confirm that he actually wrote it, and even if he did write it, so what? It shouldn't be used as a reliable source for much of anything on Wikipedia. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the usenet posting, it was added by someone who wanted to torpedo the article. Whatever you think is best on that. Perhaps put it in a footnote in a highly questioning tone? TuckerResearch (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, if you are talking about the Usenet quote I added (with a link to it), I liked the guy (we were in email correspondence before he died) and I certainly didn't want to torpedo the article. There's no question that it was him, it's a direct quote from him and there is nothing comparable available. I normally wouldn't use Usenet, but anyone who knew him would be able to confirm it was him and it is one of his last statements about it. There is no email cited in the Usenet quote. I thought I was getting on with Tuckerresearch until he just accused me of trying to scupper the article, I said keep Fasold as a separate article and beef it up.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I confused you with the other guy editing the article with a a name that started with "D" named "Dab". I apologize. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
More outside opinions on the reliability of a Usenet quote and how to use the Creationist books would be gratefully received. Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Usenet posts are definitely NOT reliable. We have no way to verify that the writer is who he claims to be. We can not take the word of a Wikipedia editor that it was him (meaning no disrespect to Doug), as that would amount to Original Research. The books are a harder issue to give a definitive answer on... they do not seem to be the best sources, but they seem to pass the basic verifiability test. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you asked for more opinions, I would like to second everything Blueboar just wrote, he stated my opinion very well! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. Re the Creationist books, I was wondering whether the best solution in the circumstances might be to attribute the information clearly. I am particularly worried about the following sentence, [Quick background... Fasold had loudly disavowed his earlier identification of Durupinar as Noah's Ark in an Australian court case. There are many newspaper articles [36] about this (as well as the peer-reviewed journal)]

"Still, those closest to him note that before his death he believed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark, including fellow ark researchers like Don Patten and David Allen Deal. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote: He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark."

.
The references given are from two of the books above. It seems to me that the sources of these retraction of the retraction claims needs to be at the very least signalled as coming from the Creationist camp. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas?

Is the Handbook of Texas (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/) a reliable source? It's an online archive from the Texas State Historical Association, and their articles do provide bibliogaphies, presumably of sources. I want to beef up the Ima Hogg article. Corvus cornixtalk 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that article Handbook of Texas exists. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We do cite the Handbook of Texas a lot, and it has been discussed at WT:EL. There is even a template {{Handbook of Texas}} for citing it properly. (Creation discussed here). See for instance this edit which converts an old-style Handbook reference to the new form using {{Handbook of Texas}}. I personally believe the template is better, since it avoids an unwanted extra link to the home page of the Handbook's site, and instead provides a link to our WP article on the Handbook. For what the resulting citation looks like see Ref 1 of the article on White Rock Lake. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it is reliable, and it has passed FAC before (can't recall where). But ... please don't use that citation template, as it doesn't return a complete citation (no last accessdate). Do you have quick plans for Ima Hogg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quick. I do plan on doing some work on it this evening. Corvus cornixtalk 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that why I thought I would tackle Ms. Hogg. Corvus cornixtalk 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would definitely consider the Handbook of Texas Online a reliable source. It's published by a scholarly historical association, with co-sponsorship from various universities and a board of academic advisors. The only problem is that it's a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the epitome of historically reliable. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook and US Department of State

I am inquiring whether the following tertiary or secondary sources are valid or "reliable" for use on Wikipedia, specifically in the article French people. Two users, User:Ramdrake and User:Enric Naval, have been pushing their POV by keeping these sources in one part of the article but removing it from another part. Here are the following links to the sources in question: CIA Factbook - France and Background Note: France.Epf (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... It has been some time since someone asked about these sources... you ask a question that used to pop up a lot. In any case... These are certainly considered reliable sources. The best way to handle the dispute is to directly attribute any statements. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The source was taken out because it was being used on the lead to state things not supported by the article, by WP:LEAD. The source is being used once on the body of the article to illustrate how the ethnic groups on France are described on the CIA factbook, and that's all. Thus, using it as the sole source for the lead was giving it undue weight, specially since it was being used as an excuse for deleting the references to norman ascentors that appear on another part of the article and that epf's doesn't seem to agree with and calls POV and unsourced, because he says that normans are not part of the french ethnic group (which brings us again to the controversial and disputed problem of defining the ethnic group).
Also, the reliability of factbook is put on doubt for the especific topic of ethnic groups for France, not for all the rest of stadistics which are probably trustable, but are not actually used on this article
Also, I made the argument on the talk page that the "french ethnic group" topic is a controversial and disputed issue, and that we should find secondary verifiable sources, and not a tertiary source that doesn't indicate sources, like the CIA factbook. If the factbook is really right, it should be easy to find secondary sources supporting the statement, like, for example, the ones used by the factbook, but this has not happened yet. This was brought out by me when I discovered that all 3 sources provided as support appeared to be copied verbatim from the factbook itself. Given that's is a controversial and disputed topic, Per the Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data use of statistical data on WP:RS, we should be discussing the survey methods with sound secondary sources, none of which are provided neither by the factbook, nor by epf.
In other words, this is more of a content issue and lack of secondary sources than a reliable sources issue, and the reliability of CIA factbook on ethnic groups should be evaluated on the context provided. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Enric... no need to shout (ie no need to put things in bold). Now, as to your comments... remember that reliability is not the same as factual accuracy, and it is especially not the same as "truth". You can not call a source "reliable" for some facts, but not others. It is perfectly acceptable to question whether a reliable source is factually accurate or not, but please don't invoke WP:RS to do it. The question was: are the sources considered reliable?... and the answer is a definitive "Yes, they are". What you are arguing about are follow-up questions: Should the sources be used in the article and, if so, are they used appropriately?... the answer to those questions are not really in the scope of this notice board, and should be discussed at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but just to note that while the CIA factbook is RS it is also a tertiary source. Its comments on French ethnicity seem to be very cursory and introductory in nature. There should be much more comprehensive secondary sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Again like Blueboar suggested, that would me something you have to hash out in the talk age of the article or take it to mediation if it fails. Taprobanus (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the advice, and sorry for bolding --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Lawsuits Original Research When Text From Them are Inserted Into BLP's?

Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but it can inherently violate neutral point of view for exactly the reasons you state. A lawsuit should never be included in a BLP unless it is covered by secondary reliable sources. In such a case, content should be lifted from the secondary source itself, and not the lawsuit. One can still make an external link to the lawsuit in this situation (so long as it's not hosted by an attack site, which is often the case). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the issue is whether the source is sufficiently reliable to verify. A lawsuit has issues similar to quoting a blog or personal website because court papers are only the view of the parties, not the view of a reliable expert or authority on the subject. Agree it's best not to mention at all unless a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper or law review) considers the lawsuit notable. If the lawsuit has been covered by reliable secondary sources, I believe it can sometimes be OK to use the judge's final decision (or the decision of an appelate court) as a source for some additional details. Even here one has to be careful not to go beyond what the judge actually determines, many kinds of decisions (like summary judgement decisons) accept one party's view of the facts and do not actually evaluate them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And a judge's finding can be overturned on appeal. For this reason alone we should not quote directly from lawsuits. 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We have had this question before... Official court documents are considered reliable for statements about what is contained in the document. There are numerous ways that one can verify them (at worst, someone can go to the court house and obtain copies). The key is to clearly attribute any statement, and make it clear who is saying what. A lawsuit is a notable event. If a lawsuit has been filed against the subject of one of our articles, I would think it appropriate to mention this in the article. And it would be appropriate to cite the Complaint (or the Reply) in doing so. However, we must remember that what is stated in a Complaint or a Reply are NOT fact... they are allegation and response. Thus we need to attribute any statements taken from such documents. I see nothing wrong with saying something like:
  • "According to the Complaint filed by Joe Schmoe on August 21, 2004 in the Northern District of Ohio, 'Mr. BLP molested small kittens' <cite to Complaint>. In his Reply papers filed on November 3rd, 2004, Mr. BLP stated 'I never did' <cite to Reply>. The case is still before the court."
This said, we must be carefull to cite the actual court documents, and not some third party who may take snippets from the court documents out of context. This is one of those rare situations where citing the primary source is actually better than citing a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But if no secondary source has believed Joe Schmoe, is this Undue Weight? In particular, if Schmoe v BLP has been thrown out as frivolous, the judge doesn't believe it, and we have an obligation to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source or no?

I'm looking for sourcing re: the Postcards from Buster controversy. Is this [37] a reliable source? Thanks!Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The organisation clearly has a viewpoint and agenda but would seem to be reliable for the chronology of how the controversy played out unless it is contradicted by another account. Best to make sure you attribute to FAIR everything you use from the webpage. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We really don't have a better source than a Mormon apologetics site? (I assume it's that FAIR - the link won't work for me right now). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Not the one you're thinking of. This FAIR is a liberal organization with no Mormon connection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Since [38] is heavily referenced, you could go to library and track down the sources they use and use them yourself. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't even need to do that. Sources like articles from the New York Times are online. Just take the quotes they use and run them through Google and you can find the original sources. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Visual Novel News sites.

Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Issue_with_H-Games, I'm trying to figure out if http://www.visual-news.net can be considered a reliable source with regards to news about the existence of unauthorized translations of various visual novel-style games (like Utawarerumono and Tsukihime). I believe this site to be a reliable (if small and specialized) gaming news site, as opinion seems to be relegated to a separate review section. (Alternatively, would it be appropriate to cite the translator's web site?) — PyTom (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Low impact journals used to POV-push

At Talk:Tired light#Fringe sources removed, pro-fringe editors have been insisting that certain sources from extremely low impact factor journals are acceptable for inclusion in the article despite not having received any notice from the scientific community. I insist that we only use papers from high impact-factor journals and comments from notable astrophysicists. I beleive that pandering to the fringe elements in the way that is being done for the last year in article space is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. What do you think about the sources? Should low-impact sources be used when high-impact sources are available?

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency across the whole encyclopedia is important here. In general, greater weight should be given to high-impact publications. But it is also important to remember that there may be systemic bias in the impact factor calculations. This was recently discussed in the UK higher education community, in relation to the question of how metrics can be used in assessing research quality for funding purposes, so it is a serious consideration. So long as they are peer-reviewed, papers in relatively low-impact journals can still be excellent and non-controversial sources for WP in many different subject areas. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that high impact journals should be given substantially more weight... but am hesitant to rule out low impact journals completely. That said, SA raises a valid point... the line between low impact and Fringe can be a bit blurry. Ultimately, I think we have to decide such issues on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not limited to natural science articles; political science and economics articles have similar problems. For example, the most often cited "journal" in all of comparative politics on WP is the Middle East Quarterly. This has an impact factor of - well, nothing, as it isn't even considered a journal, and is left out of the Web of Knowledge. In other words, its a non-person. If someone publishes an article in journal X that gets the MEQ all excited, it wouldn't matter. And yet....
What can one do about it? People who prefer the "appearance" of legitimate scholarship ("look! it calls itself a journal! And people sit on a board! Some of them have degrees!") will clearly use these things. If they wish to push non-mainstream views, in pseudoscience or pseudohistory or political advocacy, such apparently above-board "journals" are of great use. Relata refero (disp.) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Middle East Quarterly is a very special case because academics have gone into print to argue that it is not an academic journal. There are, however, some very respectable journals that are not listed by WoS. Perhaps it is more common in the UK for journals to go unlisted. I would say that if it is published by one of the major houses, e.g. Taylor & Francis, University of California, then it should be considered RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARA&A, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Wikipedia. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We might have to discuss the journals that you do not consider credible on a case-by-case basis. What are their titles? Who publishes them? Who is on their editorial boards? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW even in a talk page you should not refer to someone in the terms that you have described the person you mention above. See WP:BLP. If someone's writing is outside mainstream science, then that is all you need to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list:

  1. Astrophysics & Space Science
  2. Physics Essays
  3. IEEE Trans. Plasma Science
  4. Physics Letters A

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest, but IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is certainly no fringe-theory outlet and has a decent reputation within the field [39]. Impact factors should be judged within the relevant field, and I can't think of a single journal published by reputable professional societies such as IEEE, APS, AMS, SIAM that would qualify as a fringe journal, even though traditionally the covered topics have relatively low impact factors especially compared with journals in medicine and biosciences. While I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of every paper in any journal, we should be careful that we don't paint with too broad a brush. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is definitely the most fringe of them all in terms of cosmology and astronomy. Aside from being listed only in the noise at the site you give for plasma physics and fusion, they routinely publish papers by Velikovskians and other way-out-there fringers who believe in all sorts of nonsense with regards to astronomy. I think it's because the editor in chief has trusted all the cosmology publications to be reviewed by Perrat and Eastman. I've sent them a request for information but they have replied that they believe in [40], and that's what I should refer my questions to. So they're conspiracy theorists in charge of IEEE's journal. However, the rest of the community ignores it. If you look at actual papers dealing with astronomy published by that paper, their citation rate is close to nil. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, that's utter POV rubbish, sorry to say.
  • "No, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is definitely the most fringe of them all in terms of cosmology and astronomy. Aside from being listed only in the noise at the site you give for plasma physics and fusion, they routinely publish papers by Velikovskians and other way-out-there fringers who believe in all sorts of nonsense with regards to astronomy. ... ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"
Have you even *read* more than one article from IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, (aside from the couple you seem to take exception to)? Anyone with the slightest interest can page through the journal at the link above and see that what SA has said above is complete "conspiracy theory" nonsense (rather ironic, I think, considering he accuses the editors themselves of being conspiracy theorists, POV-pushers, or the like).
I've paged through at least 10 pages (volumes, releases, whatever you prefer to call them) of recent abstracts from "Transactions..." and could not identify the purported "Velikovskian" papers SA claims are "routinely published" by the journal (in actuality, they seem to be anything but common). Complete fabrication (or at the very least a gross over-statement) on SA's part. He seems to take issue with one or two specific papers whose subjects or authors he has a personal beef against and has been antagonistic toward in the past, and then attempts to use those specific items to claim that the entire journal is unworthy of mention (thus he can safely ignore *any* papers in the journal, when others bring them up, or dismissively ignore the person bringing up the papers simply because they're in a journal he personally finds distasteful). Mgmirkin (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles typical of the journal (a random sampling of articles from 2007) actually include:
Fundamentals of Capacitance Property in Tokamak
Surface Discharge in a Microwave Beam
Experimental Research on Inactivation of Bacteria by Using Dielectric Barrier Discharge
Spatially Resolved Temperature Measurements of Atmospheric-Pressure Normal Glow Microplasmas in Air
Electron and Ion Kinetics in a DC Microplasma at Atmospheric Pressure
Expanding Plasma Region of an Inductively Driven Hydrogen Discharge
Simulation of the Thermal Process of Anode in Drawn Vacuum Arc
Laser Plasma Experiments to Simulate Coronal Mass Ejections During Giant Solar Flare and Their Strong Impact on Magnetospheres
Selective Deposition of Silicon at Room Temperature Using DC Microplasmas
Carbon Nanofibers Synthesized by Glow-Arc High-Frequency Discharge
Smoky Plasma
Effects of Dielectric Barriers in Radio-Frequency Atmospheric Glow Discharges
  • My methodology here was pretty basic. I opened each "Transactions..." entry for the Year 2007 and scrolled to a random spot in the middle of the page, and copied the title and URL of the abstract. Thus far, no Velikovskian fantasies to be found, much to the detriment of ScienceApologist's overly broad / sweeping condemnation of the journal as "fringe" ("peripheral" to cosmology perhaps, though the journal does list amongst its aims a discussion of "space plasma," regardless of whether cosmologists themselves read it; considered "fringe science" among physics / plasma journals? Certainly not!)... Unsurprisingly, it appears to be nothing of the sort. In fact, some of the articles looked rather interesting. I might have to sit down and read them for a lark, when I get some free time. Mgmirkin (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To sum up, it is peer reviewed (no evidence to the contrary). It appears to be notable within the field of plasma physics, and is associated with IEEE (a respectable institution in its own right; though that, as others have said, does not necessarily guarantee quality in and of itself). For being frequently published, SA's asserted "Velikovskian fantasy" papers are extremely difficult to find (I didn't see any in a year's worth of "Transactions..." releases [randomly sampled above from 2007]). Frankly, everything I saw was pretty mundane EE and plasma physics research.
  • While IEEE's TPS is not specifically tasked with "cosmology issues," it does include "space plasmas" as a valid area of research and publication within its pages, should plasma researchers choose to publish on such a topic. Again, cosmologists may not read IEEE journals and vice versa. But does that make the respective journals any less peer reviewed or notable sources of scholarship on the topics they've tasked themselves with? I tend not to think so. And, inevitably, when we get closer to a true understanding of the fundamental forces, processes, etc., various fields of study will inevitably overlap. IE, as plasma physics grows in its knowledge base, it may well be applied to astronomy, biology, electronics, etc. (or vice versa, new understandings gained from other fields may affect plasma physics). So, it may well be that a specialist in one field will publish in journals of their own specialty for other specialists in their field, even if the implications do spill over into other related fields. The fact that something may have been published by someone in the EE or plasma physics field in a journal from their own specialty, does not make it any less applicable to the domain it reports on (even if that domain is traditionally studied in another field), such as astrophysics or cosmology. I think that more than summarizes my view, so I'll leave off there. Mgmirkin (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, this article about Velikovskian pseudoscience was written this year. Done and done. Not to mention that Mgmirkin is just about the worst person we could find to discuss these matters ever. Axe to grind? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that Physics Letters A or Phys. Rev. Letters A? The latter is notable, and clearly not reviewed for content. I don't know about the former. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be Physics Letters A. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Published by Elsevier. I think we have to see it as a bona fide academic journal. Otherwise, what criteria will we have for deciding what counts as an academic journal? Its impact factor seems to be respectable, but then of course there is a question of impact in what field. This will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I also think it is going to be highly problematic classifying any IEEE journals as crackpot - it might enable a quick fix now but overriding criteria as to what counts as RS will store up problems for the future. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Case-by-case basis is the way to go here. Certainly there's no grounds for suggesting that a journal with an impact factor of 8 is automatically a better source than one with an impact factor of 3. Impact factor is, as has been noted, an imperfect metric. On the other hand, there is a real issue at times with obscure journals being used to "rebut" the conclusions of major mainstream bodies. Examples include vaccines and autism, where the Cochrane Library review was "rebutted" by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a non-PubMed-indexed political organ. Interestingly, this same journal has been cited at abortion-breast cancer hypothesis to critique the findings of the National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization. But now I'm on my soapbox. MastCell Talk 16:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that it would be too much to brand an IEEE journal WP:FRINGE (at least, I have no qualms citing some of their other publications for solid state). It does seem reasonable, though, that an engineering plasma journal would be "fringe" (little f, on the outskirts of) to the cosmology field. (Nobody takes Plasma cosmology seriously.) I think publishing journal needs to be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for academic respectability - there are plenty of papers in PRL that I would feel uncomfortable citing.
Physics Essays, on the other hand, looks like it should default to not RS, to be included only on a case-by-case basis. My institution does not subscribe to PE (maybe it is one of the database services, I did not check), so I would not want to blacklist the journal without further discussion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
IEEE is a well-respected organization and we shouldn't dismiss its journals lightly. But the fact of the matter is that their transaction journals are handled at the discretion of the individual editors. There is no oversight board, external standards set by the IEEE, or consistent set of rules for handling editorial or review policy on the subfield journals. It so happens that Plasma Transactions is peer-reviewed, but it is peer-reviewed only in the sense that alternative medicine journals are peer-reviewed: it is believers who share the agenda of the editors who are reviewers (and I get the impression that it is actually just the editors that do the review and no formal process of asking for independent or external reviewers even takes place: though they do not admit to this). ScienceApologist (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, the issue is not whether these journals are "academic". They are. They simply are so fringe as to be questionable for citation sources for major content in the article. I'm not comfortable even having them simply cited as they direct readers to simply awful papers when there are much better ones available. Certainly if we write an article on plasma cosmology, citing to IEEE Plasma Transactions makes sense to give an idea what the people who believe in plasma cosmology say, but in the tired light article, the notability of the topic is derived from Zwicky and Tolman's interest in the idea in the mid-part of the last century. It is an obsolete theory and has only been "resurrected" by fringe elements grasping at straws. Their efforts have gone unnoticed by the mainstream community including people that usually pay attention to such things (e.g. E. L. Wright whose critique of tired light cosmology refers to earlier versions and not the Marmet, Accardi, Masreliez nonsense). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think the conclusion on this noticeboard must be that both are peer-reviewed academic journals and therefore RS. You will need to discuss on the talk page of the relevant article(s) whether they are being used appropriately and whether due weight is being given. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the conclusion of this noticeboard is that just because a paper is in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean that it is necessarily a reliable source. Thanks for playing. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the position you've been advocating, but your assertion that it is also "the conclusion of this noticeboard" appears to me to be a mischaracterization. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that you are wikistalking me from forum to forum. In any case, welcome to the discussion. Perhaps you would like to explain what's wrong with the position I'm advocating? Or maybe you just have some magical metric for determining consensus here. In any case, maybe we should get away from making bald statements about what the conclusion of this noticeboard is. I'd say that there are enough people who agree with me that I'm going to move forward with imprimatur. Thanks everyone for their input. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Is it acceptable to cite an otherwise WP:RS-worthy book that you only have access to via Google Books preview? The library the book came from and the date it was scanned are noted in the preview page - should that be included in the cite template somehow? I'm talking about full page previews, of course, not the 'snippet view' that only gives you a few lines. -- Vary | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Indeed, if it was not even on Google Books, it would still be usable (unless I am misunderstanding your question). It is not a necessity that other people can view the work on the web, or we would never be able to use scholarly books that aren't fully searchable in HTML. --David Shankbone 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I understand that a book doesn't have to be available online - I'm wondering if I'm allowed to cite a book that I've never physically held in my hand, but have accessed through Google Books. -- Vary | Talk 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, as long as you are not taking information out of context--that you have enough pages of the book available to understand the context of the bit you want to use, in order to use it accurately. Cite away! --David Shankbone 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. -- Vary | Talk 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aerobatic Teams web site - Why the site is bloked

Hello, My name is Alexander, and I'm the owner of the Aerobatic Teams web site http://aerobaticteamsDOTnet. My site is dedicated to Modern Aerobatic Teams, like yours same section. Why my site is blocked to adding links. This is not spam, because my site is relevant to wikipedia Aerobatic Teams section. Exaple: in you Blue Angels page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels have External link http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html which is relevant with this thematics, but my Blue Angels http://www.aerobaticteamsDOTnet/BlueAngels.html is relevant too, but my site is blocked. Also my page is more informatible then this page, but this page not blocked, only my site. How can I receive rull from you to adding links to all aerobatic teams pages in Wikipedia? As you can see my site is not commercial. I know that you media is not web site promotion tool, but you are education organization and peoples must have access to more inmormation that needed. My site is education site and have education role about Aerobatic Teams past and present. For that reason I think that must have link to my site in you Aerobatic Teams pages. You passed a lot of unuseful site links, but not mine. Can you help, and help to aerobatic teams fans to learn more about this teams joining to my site.

Thanks Alexander— 84.1.47.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

You can see the reason here. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Patricia Jasen

Dr. Patricia Jasen, Professor of History at Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, wrote a paper entitled, "Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States."[41]

On one hand, the paper contains a considerable amount of useful historical information about research into an hypothesized link between abortion and breast cancer ("ABC"), and numerous citations to other sources, many of which are certainly reliable sources.

But, on the other hand, the paper contains numerous severe inaccuracies, and editorializes strongly for a particular POV: namely that the pro-life movement is characterized by a strategy of violence, and that the supposed ABC link is mainly just a political strategy of right-wing fundamentalist Christian political activists.

My question is: can such a paper be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles?

Here are some examples of the inaccuracies in the article:

1) "...the coalition was founded with the support of Concerned Women for America, a national right-wing Christian organization which defines itself as anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education (as well as anti-Harry Potter)..."

But that is not at all how CWfA defines or describes itself. It is a misleading caricature, not an honest description. CWfA's actual self-description is on their web site, and their measured position on Harry Potter is, "CWA takes the position that parents know what is best for their children. ... Scripture speaks strongly about the occult, so parents should explore the Harry Potter books themselves to decide whether they’re appropriate for their children."[42]

2) "The evangelical leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their support to the violent strategies of such groups as Operation Rescue."

In fact, Operation Rescue has never employed violence, and neither Robertson nor Falwell have ever supported violence.[43]

3) "Conclusion... As the [political] conflict [over abortion] intensified and anti-abortionists replaced violent strategies with a more acceptable “woman-centred” approach, they adopted the “ABC link” as a means of fighting abortion in Congress, state legislatures and courts of law."

Actually, there is no evidence at all that any abortion opponent has ever switched approaches from violence to promoting the ABC link. Although a few pro-lifers have been guilty of violence (and others have been victims of violence by pro-choicers), Jasen's characterization of abortion opponents as having a strategy of violence itself does violence to the truth. Incidents of violence by pro-lifers have always been rare and isolated, and universally condemned & renounced by all the leading pro-life organizations, including even the most radical/hardline organizations, such as Operation Rescue.

4) "in the early 1990s... the anti-abortion campaign had reached a stage in its increasingly violent history when new strategies were needed"

Actually, violence by abortion opponents has always been rare, and had nothing at all to with the ABC issue.

5) "...supporters of direct action rose to prominence [in the anti-abortion movement], first employing tactics, such as sit-ins, inherited from the tradition of civil disobedience, but moving on by the mid-1980s to clinic break-ins and bombings."

Actually, no one who committed or supported clinic break-ins or bombings has ever been prominent in the pro-life movement. Not even one person. Jasen just made that up.

6) "Before abortion was legalized, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been the force behind most of the lobbying [against abortion] but, following Roe v Wade, they were joined by increasingly militant, and increasingly numerous, Protestant fundamentalists dedicated to the anti-abortion cause."

But the "fundamentalist" label is inaccurate. Protestant pro-lifers are mostly evangelicals, but they come from many Christian denominations, not only (or even predominantly) fundamentalists.

7) "...by [1988] a majority of Americans had come to accept the right of adults to seek early abortion."

Actually, polls have consistently shown that most Americans think that abortion should be permitted only in special cases, such as rape, health complications to the mother, or fetal abnormality.[44] The poll numbers today are not much different from what they were in 1988. Gallup polled Americans Sep. 25-Oct 1, 1988, and found that 24% supported unrestricted abortion, 57% said abortion should be permitted only in special circumstances, 17% said abortion should always be prohibited, and 2% expressed no opinion. By Jasen's math, 24% is "a majority."

8) "Within a year of the publication of Daling's report, legislation had been passed in two states and proposed in several others, either directing authorities to investigate the cancer link or taking the form of “Women's Right to Know” acts requiring that women be advised of a possible cancer risk."

That makes it sound like the ABC link is the motivation for "Women's Right to Know" laws, but that is not so. Actually, the ABC link is of very minor importance in "Women's Right to Know" / "Informed Consent" laws and bills. These laws and bills always require that a wide variety of information be given to women by abortion clinics prior to an abortion, including information about fetal development, legal rights, alternatives to abortion, available social services, and the medical risks of both abortion and childbirth. Information about the evidence for an ABC link is a very small part of all that, and these laws and bills always require that all information supplied be unbiased and accurate.

9) This example is less obviously inaccurate, but it is the most insidiously misleading. After describing a study which found an apparent link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, Jasen wrote,

"interpretation of such figures would also be complicated by the fact that cancer patients who had never had a completed pregnancy were being compared with a control group of parous women."
The reason that is misleading is quite technical, so please bear with me. "Parous" means "having given birth." Jasen's implication is that the appropriate control group to compare with women who have had abortions, when trying to determine whether or not abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer, is nonporous women -- i.e., women who have never given birth.
That is wrong. The ABC debate is over the relative risks of the two choices available to pregnant women: to give birth or to obtain abortions. That means only parous women should be included in the control group of women who did not obtain abortions. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges: women who had been pregnant to women who had never been pregnant.
The reason that is important is that women who never have a full term pregnancy are well known to be at substantially increased risk of breast cancer. In fact, the later in life a woman has her first full-term pregnancy, the greater her risk of subsequent breast cancer. So including nonparous women in the control group, as Jasen implies should be done, is a way of distorting the results to justify understating the increased risk of breast cancer which results from an abortion obtained before a woman's first full-term pregnancy.

So how does WP:RS apply to a paper like this? NCdave (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the paper received any published reviews? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The paper is certainly reliable for an attributed statement reguarding Prof. Jasen's opinion on the matter. And where her opinion is contested, counter statements expressing the opinions of others can and should be included. But we should note that the good professor is a PHD in History, not a doctor of medicine. For statements of medical fact she is less reliable. Where her opinion is countered by medical experts, I would lean in favor of the medical experts. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and can certainly be used. If there is specific contradictory information in equally reliable sources, they can be contrasted as differences of opinion. However, the personal blog-style "fisking" you performed above has no relevance to the reliability of the source. In at least one case, you're arguing against your own [rephrased insertion] rather than against the actual paper. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for improving my vocabulary. (BTW, it's a journal of history, not a scientific journal.) NCdave (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The paper was published in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal by an academic. NCdave's personal objections to the paper's word choice are not relevant to its usefulness as a source on Wikipedia. It's a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines the term. The attempt to impeach the source as a whole based on editorial arguments and semantic hairsplitting isn't appropriate. I'm sure you can imagine the result if we allow editors to discard reliable sources because they personally disagree with the source's conclusions or wording. MastCell Talk 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing on-line EB as a source

I was under the impression that WP was generally trying to avoid citing to on-line EB as a source - otherwise WP simply becomes "EB lite," and editors will not do the real work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources. Is there a guideline/policy that addresses this question?

Second, on-line EB is paid, and I was under the impression that WP was steering away from paid sites. Again, any guidelines/policies on this topic? Thx! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Having to pay is not an issue. As for our generally avoiding citing other tertiary sources such as the EB? yes... as a broad general concept we prefer to cite secondary sources. But it is understood that there are times when the best source is a tertiary one. So... while citing to the EB is discouraged, it isn't prohibited. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - is there a WP policy/guideline somewhere that sets out that tertiary sources are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available? NorCalHistory (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS (although the current version does not seem to have any recommendations against tertiary sources). Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Does EB still publish a paper version? There are certainly plenty of (older) paper editions of it in public libraries. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FromOccupiedPalestine.org

Is http://FromOccupiedPalestine.org a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal website. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a blog by http://jonelmer.ca/bio. Zeq (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to serve as a repository for newspaper articles, most of which are reliable sources.
That being said, we can't link to it under WP:C. Relata refero (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That said, editors might be able to mine it as a source of citations (but referencing them to the original publication, not to this website). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Only if they read them from the original source; there's no guarantee the material on this blog is unedited. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point; it might be useful in pointing to reports on newspapers' websites, but any quotes should come from the original newspapers, not from the copies on this blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

justice4lebanon.wordpress.com

Is justice4lebanon.wordpress.com a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It self-describes as a blog, has a self-admitted ulterior motive, and provides no information even suggesting the existence of any form of review. Short of some exceptional reviews from mainstream sources or proof that its writers are some kind of experts, I wouldn't even consider it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It also sets off my anti-scam alert (using Norton). Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. http://justice4lebanon.wordpress.com/about/ lacks any info on who's actually running it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Self published / Google video?

I'm working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and there's currently a citation of a Google Video (it's the last paragraph in this section). What's the consensus as to the reliability of this source? Should it be allowed as a statement of the author's belief, or removed as unencylopaedic? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it proves anything. Someone made that video - that's all we know. We would need a separate reliable source to say that it was "Pilots for 9/11 truth" and that it was the named person. If we have a separate source backing up the provenance of the video then I think it should stay. If not then it might be some guy in his basement who doesn't believe that stuff but is trying to wind us up. On the other hand it might be worth leaving in the article as an example of the sort of thing that exists - without attribution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be very careful about linking to any Google/YouTube video. We usually don't know the copyright status of such videos; see WP:YOUTUBE. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help please

On the section Documentary above. Please? pschemp | talk 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please? I'm going to ask every day until I get some help. The person who originally answered is on wikibreak. pschemp | talk 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo Election Central

Problems at the Ronald Kessler article. Kessler's in the news currently for a story he wrote about Barack Obama; that rebounded pretty badly and then User:KesslerRonald turned up and removed the criticism section from his own bio. (The section was pretty badly sourced and overly negative at the time.) The website Talking Points Memo Election Central picked up on this, and someone wrote a post/article, which was then cited in the Kessler article. (Following all this?)

I came along to the article in response to a complaint and did some cleanup. Most of my changes have stuck, but objections have been raised on the talkpage to my removal of the TPM-EC article about Kessler and WP.

These objections are:

  • TPM - specifically its main contributor and editor Josh Marshall - won a Polk award last month.
  • "We wouldn't treat the blogs or opinion columns on WashingtonPost as reliable sources either, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss all their news reporting. Can you direct us to a Wikipedia guideline that everything published by TPM Media, which does employ a small staff of paid journalists and editors and has won a journalism award (as noted above), is to be dismissed as a blog here on Wikipedia. Or is that simply your personal view? "
  • "I'd like to point out that this wasn't published at TalkingPointsMemo exactly, but at TPM Election Central. Election Central is considerably less blog-y and more news-y than TPM proper. Is there really any bright line difference between an online-only magazine like Slate or Salon and TPM Election Central? The piece in question was written by a paid professional journalist and Election Central is described as a "website" in his bio rather than as a blog."

As this is too much information for my brain when St. Patrick's Day is barely over, I'm bringing it here for advice. Relata refero (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP editing seems like a very low-level event of marginal significance to Kessler's notability as a whole; I also think that Kessler can hardly be faulted for removing a section sourced to various left-wing blog postings and open publishing sites. The "controversy" section as it stands now, with reference to the "hate sermon" gaffe and subsequent retraction, is better-sourced, and appropriate. It's our job as Wikipedians to write neutral biographies, it's not the job of our biographical subjects to salvage neutral biographies from cruft and dross. You handled the situation correctly. <eleland/talkedits> 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, TPM is hardly an "open publishing site." Nor is it really a blog, under the "online diary" meaning of the term. Whether or not it is left-wing really has nothing to do with it. eaolson (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of this edit, which removed a "controversy" section sourced to "TPM Muckracker," Daily Kos, and a semi-reliable blog affiliated with The Atlantic. Kos is the "open publishing website" I had in mind. Oh, and TPM calls itself a blog. Of course left-wing has nothing to do with it, centrist or right-wing blogs are no more or less reliable. <eleland/talkedits> 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The question here on the Reliable Sources noticeboard is whether TPM Election Central is a reliable source. Whether the material itself is sufficiently noteworthy is a question for the article talk page, and has nothing to do with source reliability. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to believe TPM as a whole is reliable for most purposes. This bright line between blogs and non-blogs is fuzzier all the time, with news sources like Red Herring (magazine) using a blog-like publishing format (leading some to question its reliability despite a history that predates blogs and, in point of fact, the web), while The Register regularly publishes rumor and tripe (such as the laughable claim that the space station is run on Windows NT) and continues to be treated as reliable, with only minor formatting differences from blogs. My point being that it is not the blog format per se that is, or should be, the issue. In the case of TPM it was a one-person blog in 2001, but in 2003-2004 moved to NYC offices and hired a staff. In a strict sense the main TPM page is still a "blog" roughly half written by Josh Marshall, and half written by David Kurtz or another employee, posts that mainly point to TPM-owned sites like TPMMuckraker. If you squint you could call any of them blogs (exception: Parts of TPMCafe, a forum, with some blog material to spark discussions) simply because they post stories "when ready", but my local newspaper does that now too. It's a bit of a strain to call TPM self-published, since Marshall appears to have investors and acts as a professional editor and publisher. Simply put I don't see how TPM fails any reliable source metric you care to use, unless you don't want your reliable sources touching the word "blog" with a ten-foot pole, which seems like a backwards way to go about making those choices. (Heck, I see people wanting to throw out the New York Post -- one of the oldest newspapers in the U.S. -- as a reliable source because it's a tabloid. Others merely want to exclude all alternative newspapers.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading this recent New York Times article about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights:

  • TPM won the Polk Award, one of journalism's highest honors, for "tenacious investigative reporting."
  • the NYT refers to the website as a "news operation"
  • the NYT describes "a style of online reporting that greatly expands the definition of blogging"
  • the NYT describes "a newsroom in Manhattan and seven reporters ... including two in Washington" (paid journalists)
  • the NYT describes Marshall's activites as "full-time online journalism"
  • the NYT makes a distinction between Marshall's liberal "personal blogging" and the nonpartisan "reporting" that happens on the site (much of it at TPM Election Central)

Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As the line between journalism and blogging increasingly blurs, we are going to get questions like this more often. For a long time we held firm to "NO BLOGS". Even the websites of major news organizations were not considered reliable, because they were in blog format. About a year ago, this began to change. More and more Wikipedia Editors made the valid point that news sites are reflections of what is printed in the print edition of the paper, or of what is aired on the TV broadcast (in the case of sites like BBC.com). We began to differentiate between "blogs" and "news sites that used blog format". For the news sites, we also differentiated between reporting and opinion pieces. The reporting is now considered reliable in almost all cases... the Op-ed pieces are considered reliable only for statements about the writer's opinion (and should be clearly attributed as such).
Pure blogs (ie those that do not have a print or broadcast equivalent) are still in the "No blogs" category. The problem with blogs like TPM is that the line of seperation between reporting and opinion is still blurred. It is still too difficult to distinguish between the parts that are "Journalism" and the parts that are "Opinion". I suspect that the consensus to not allow any blogs will eventually change... but it is going to take time for that consensus to change, and we are not there yet. Blogging is still a new form of journalism, and we do not have a consensus on what makes one blog acceptable and another blog unacceptable. Until we reach such a consensus we can not allow blogs... even a highly reguarded blog such as TPM. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We certainly do allow some web sites that don't have print or broadcast equivalents. Slate and Salon for example. Ironically enough, also NewsMax. Plus sites like Media Matters. And so on. Format is irrelevant to reliability. The issue is journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM demonstrably have both. The basic problem is with your statement that there is a problem with "blogs like TPM". Define blog. I'd say it's essentially a self-published op-ed piece. The reason we don't treat blogs as reliable sources is the same reason we don't treat Bill Kristol's NYTimes editorial as a reliable source. It has nothing to do with publication format, and everything to do with journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM clearly have both -- it has paid journalists (real ones with real journalism backgrounds); it has won a major journalism award; it is describes as a "news" site by the NYTimes; and Marshall is a real editor with experience as the associate editor of a major news magazine. Where does it fall short of any reasonable standard? Yes, it has opinion pieces and we should not allow those any more than we allow any opinion piece (newspaper op-ed, or self-published blog). However the news part has as much or more credibility as a great many other sites we routinely allow. The dividing line on reliability should not be, and demonstrably has not traditionally been, solely publication format. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But TPM's sources, which they usually link to, are a different question (it would be civil to include a reference to TPM in the process of citing them). In this case, if I follow correctly, they assert that Kessler's own blog said something; which it did. See WP:SELFPUB for mroe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, there's no reference to Kessler's own blog. TPM is asserting (a) that the article history shows a change by a user that appears to be Ronald Kessler (he has confirmed himself as such on the talk page), and (b) that a TPM reporter called Kessler on the phone and interviewed him about making those changes. Item (a) can be verified by checking the article history. The reliability question goes to item (b): Do we believe that TPM's reporter picked up the phone and called Kessler? I think the answer is clearly yes given the general reliability of the reporting aspects of TPM, as confimed by the Polk Award and NYT story. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, we are evalutating the reliability of this particular report at TPM election central. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems a reasonable limitation of WP:BLP. In effect, we are using TPM only to confirm that User:KesslerRonald is indeed Ronald Kessler, and since he uploaded his own image, asserting that he was indeed RK in the process, this seems small. see Image:Kessler author 2005 med res.jpg and its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Blueboar, regretfully. Without some scientific process to gauge how TPM's writing is influenced by the real or perceived needs of their readership, it's hard to know where to draw the line, and we've dealt with that so far by not drawing the line at all. I invite people to join the discussions at the wikiquality mailing list about ways to measure how accurate a source is. Generally the discussion there is about ways to implement WP:FLAGGED, as early as next month, but the same methods could apply to any source, such as TPM. WP:SPADE requires me to say: I hope we will find a way to better judge our sources at Wikipedia, because TV news sucks, and TPM doesn't. The announcer on CBS News on Logo last night said that the number of casualties in Iraq just reached 4000. TPM would never make any one of the many mistakes in that statement: they wouldn't confuse deaths with casualties, or imagine that deaths of contractors, or allies, or enemies, or civilians don't count. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

I have a documentary, composed of interviews from published academics and experts, and a little bit of filler material in between. Is this a reliable source? I can list out and name all the experts interviewed, and what they published.

I've been told this isn't good enough because the producer of the documentary isn't an academic. pschemp | talk 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to quote what the academics have directly said during the interviews, it would be acceptable as a reliable source; however other details may not be used. If there is an online link to the documentary, it would be useful to provide that as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I did quote what the academics said...but have been told I can't use this as a source because the citation format cites the documentary and not every academic individually. And there is a link to it, but I was still told it isn't good enough. Not only that, the article lost featured status because one person (the FAR closer) decided that the documentary wasn't a reliable source, but never gave me a chance to fix the cites (no one else has an issue with the source, the FAR was for other things, and that wasn't even brought up). This seems a bit extreme to me, but I suspect because of the content, the decision was biased. pschemp | talk 08:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
When citing the documentary, I think you should mention the relevant minutes (e.g. min 15-18). This makes it completely verifiable. Otherwise, it seems clear to me that there is no legitimate ground for removing the quotes. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You know his exact words were that it was an unreliable source and that that wasn't even "debateable." Its verifiable as it is...anyone can get the documentary and watch it. I have to say that after the way this has been handled, I don't much feel like spending more time trying to improve the project only to have one person's ignorance turn it all to waste. All the crappy drama here doesn't bother me, but this just makes me want to quit. pschemp | talk 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the name of the article? Can you please provide a link to the FAR? You might also want to notify the FAR closer regarding the discussion here.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
He insists it isn't a reliable source. You can see for yourself on my talk page. A link to the source is here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498445/ listing all the cast, (note the Dr. titles). I think because this deals with pornography he can't conceive that people involved in it are sources. The FAR was hugely messy...it was a content debate, none of which even applies to how it was closed. Link to that is here [45] ...see the closing though...that's the important thing. pschemp | talk 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Link on amazon with review by seattle times movie critic: [46] and describing the film makers here "They are also the makers of the world-class documentary series Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization (C4 and HBO)" [47] you can note that it was made for Britian's Channel 4 and also broadcast on HBO. Here [48] you can see that they are documentary filmmakers of some repute...having won multiple awards for their documentaries, giving them a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. pschemp | talk 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And here [49] we have an abstract from a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that uses it as a source. "Museum and society was launched in March 2003 as an independent peer reviewed journal which brings together new writing by academics and museum professionals on the subject of museums. It is both international in scope and at the cutting edge of empirical and theoretical research on museums. museum and society is edited by Gordon Fyfe (Keele University), Kevin Hetherington (Open University) and Susan Pearce (University of Leicester)."pschemp | talk 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And here another academic who quotes it [50]. pschemp | talk 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...some help here people? I am not on crack. pschemp | talk 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here - it is used as a source again and discussed in a peer reviewed journal "One local expression of this new-found prominence of previously illicit sexual material on mass market television in Britian has been the Channel Four television series "Pornography: the secret history of civilization" This series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard involved in the championing and expansion of popular taste (against the obstacles put in their way simply by puritanical and prejudiced social forces.)" [51] pschemp | talk 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the links you provided, including the fact that the series aired on Channel 4 and is referenced (approvingly) in academic literature, I agree that the documentary qualifies as a reliable source for wikipedia, but may need to be used with care. Here are my comments and suggestions:

  • The documentary may be presenting a POV ("series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard"), so its content should be attributed and not stated as fact (depending of course on what exactly is being referenced).
  • Similarly, if the documentary contains interviews with scholars, the scholar should be cited by name in the article, either in the maintext or the footnote (using Harvard referencing may help here). Something like, "Prof. xyz in Rodley et al (2006a)" with 2006a-> Segment 1 etc
  • It may be a good idea to create a wikipedia article on the documentary and then wikilink to that page, rather than the page of the publishers. That way the reader knows why he should trust the information attributed to the documentary.
  • Are there other examples on wikipedia where a TV documentary series is used as a reference ? I can imagine Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth or the many Ken Burns's series being used as sources. All those series have associated print publications, but it may still be a good idea to look if and how the documentaries themselves are referenced.

Please note that I haven't seen the doc. myself, so some of the above comments are based on a guesstimation of its content (I am imagining a series of interviews; snippets from historical works; and a voiceover). Anyway, I hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what it is. Thanks for the input. It was never used to back up opinions on professional pornographers and such as that isn't what the article it is used in is about, just used to cite the facts extracted from the academic interviews. pschemp | talk 05:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

the film itself

For the purposes of propagating an actor's filmography, can the film itself (a primary source) be used as a reliable source the that actor's work? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, how pertinent is the accessibility of the source? If a film itself is referenced as a source for a fact, are others expected to rent the video (if available) to corroborate that sourcing? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For a blunt statement of fact as to whether an actor appeared in a given film... Yes, the film itself can certainly be cited as a source. This looks like yet another misrepresentation of WP:PSTS. I can not stress this enough: WP:PSTS states quite clearly that Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia... They have to be used with caution, and there are limitations in how they can be used, but there are acceptable uses of primary sources. This is one of them.
As to accessibility... The fact that someone might have to rent the video to verify the citation does not matter. The ease of verifiability is not reason to disallow a source (an apt analogy is having to go to a bookstore and purchasing a book to verify a citation). Nor is cost (Wikipedia articles often cite to pay-to-view websites, and even public libraries may require paying for a library card to access material). What matters is that it can be verified. Indeed, assuming that the film is not rare, and is available at the average film rental outlet, it is actually likely to be more accessible than many print sourses that are cited. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't stating that as a primary source, I didn't think it acceptable; contrarily, I came here asking such. However, if a reliable secondary source is available as opposed to using the primary, that is much preferred then? Also, is there any mechanism to prevent the false citing of unavailable primary sources aside from two editors arguing that "it is there" and "no, it's not" ? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Secondary sources are definitely preferred, if there is one. As as to your second question, it depends on what you mean by "unavailable". Is it "unavailable" because you can't find it right now (by, say, a quick google search)? Is it unavailable because in it isn't in the average library/film repository or book/video store? Is it unavailable because there are only two copies in the entire world and they are both in private collections? What do you mean by "unavailable"? Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Say somebody has cited a primary source for a hard fact; to use my above question: citing a film to say that somebody performed in it. If I can't find that film available locally (my Blockbuster or Hollywood Video doesn't have it) and I can't corroborate that fact otherwise, should it just be left alone? Or is there a tag or something that can affects saying "this was cited by one user, but could not be corroborated by another"? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
{{verification needed}}? — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that tag might work, although I think it is meant more to indicate that a statement needs to be verified rather than a request for the citation to be checked. If you do add a tag, I would follow it up with a comment on the talk page explaining what you are looking for (a third party to obtain the film and look at it), and when you add the tag include an edit summary pointing to that talk page discussion.
Remember that WP:V does not say that something has to be verifiable by any one particular editor (ie you) ... simply that it has to be verifiable. There are a lot of ways to do this... if it is rentable somewhere, if it can be purchase somewhere, or if it is publically available somewhere it is verifiable. Have you thought about asking the editor that wishes to include the information where he obtained his/her copy of the film? Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I rented it first from Netflix, then I bought it from Amazon.com. This is not such a rare film. See here. For An Angel (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Travel sites

Hi. Are references to tourism sites whether they be the likes of Fodors or Frommers, government tourism sites such as www.goisrael.com - an Israeli government site, or www.visit-tlv.com - a municipal site, or sites such as www.TravelGuides.com or www.telaviv-insider.co.il good enough to cite about sites or cultural events etc/general facts about the city. To what extent can they be used? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable by or rules. However, they do have limitations. We have to remember their purpose, which is to give a very quick overview of the site and events discribed, and to encourage tourists to visit them. They will gloss over many facts (especially negative ones), and editorial review may not be the best. If information listed on a tourism sight is contrary to what is stated in more scholarly works, we should defer to the scholars. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymologocial sources

Sometimes it's hard to find the etymology of words, especially in a (suitable?) online format. OED is a paid subscription. I'd like to submit the following two sources for scrutiny on reliability:

The fact that the OED is pay-to-view is irrelevant. The Word Detective site seems reliable due to the fact that it is an online version of collumns that are published in various newspapers. Since we would be able to cite the printed collumns, I see no reason to challenge the on-line version. Online Etymology Dictionary is questionable... it is a personal web-project run by an accademic. The reliability would thus depend on the reputation of the author. I would say that to use it, you would have to establish that the site has been reviewed or cited by reliable third parties, and that they found it to be accurate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I mentioned that OED is PPV is that it makes it harder to get a cite. Off the topic, how does one get a cite for something to which they don't have access? I hope I'm not coming across snide, that is not my intention, but that's a hurdle which I've bumped into many times already, and I haven't found a solution.
As for the second site I listed, the Online Etymology Dictionary does have a Wikipedia entry which lists some of the places it has been cited. I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of itself, but the sources in that article are. I also checked Google books and a number of cites appear for the site (no pun intended). I won't list them, unless some examples are requested. On second thought, maybe I can just cite them in the article given. Yngvarr (c) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK... having taken a look at the article, and the reviews mentioned, it probably can be considered reliable. As to your question on "How does one get a cite for something to which they don't have access"... Options are to get access (ie subscribe), find someone who has access and ask them to cite the material, or look for another source. If you are planning to do a lot of editing on Etymological topics, it probably makes sense to subscribe to the OED (it is considered the best)... but that is up to you. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

V2rocket.com

Is V2rocket.com RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I get a "site does not exist" error message when I search for it (on both Google and Yahoo), which leads me to think that it is not. Did you put the correct link info? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. My confusion here is that the site has no scholarly text. Which is why I think it may not be RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The link works for me. Anyway, it's your classic good-looking site that unfortunately provides zero information on who wrote what, what their sources were, and whether any kind of review is exercised. If you'd very much like to use the content from that page, I'd suggest you email the guy who maintains the website, and ask him what his sources were. Someguy1221 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on including personal blog in the article on intelligence

See Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen

Is discoverthenetworks.org a reliable soure? My instinct is to say no. Corvus cornixtalk 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Activist site; okay perhaps to represent a minority view, but not as the main source for an article. (Note that Discoverthenetworks.org redirects to David Horowitz Freedom Center. David Horowitz is widely described as a "conservative activist", "right-wing political activist", "conservative crusader" in mainstream newspapers; on right web (kind of the mirror image of discoverthenetworks.org, it seems :-)), he is described as "far right".) Jayen466 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per Blueboar, this has gone about as far as we can go. Consensus demonstrated that The Nation is reliable enough for BLPs. Relata refero (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the follow paragraph below, is the source from The Nation reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views.[1] He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most,"[2][1] and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."[3][1]

  1. ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
  2. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
  3. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.

Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to violating WP:RS, it violates WP:BLP. Something this poorly sourced might be all right for a Pokemon article, but not for a living person, when it contains potentially defamatory material. IronDuke 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Wikipedia thinks of him. The Nation column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:

In a column in The Nation, writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views.[1] McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most"[2][1] and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers".[3][1]

  1. ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
  2. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
  3. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
Note that McNeil's bionote on The Nation web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work, M90. The Nation is a reliable source, and material from McNeil's piece may be used without violating WP:BLP as long as the attribution is clear and accurate (as you have done). NSH001 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that looks acceptable by wiki standards.Bless sins (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly acceptable :) Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, is it ever not acceptable, drive-by ditto-heading aside. Metro, would you consider saying "Writer Kristine McNeil does not believe in evolution, preferring to explain biology in terms of intelligent design" in the evolution article? Why not? She is, after all, a writer, who actually managed to get one article published in a partisan magazine six years ago. You see how silly it looks? Is she any more of an authority on Pipes than she is on evolution? As far as I know, she isn't. IronDuke 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If it was an article - one of not very many - actually published in a reliable source discussing evolution itself as opposed to mentioning it in passing, then yes.
Please be civil about community input. "Drive-by ditto-heading" is people taking time out to review a problem and give their opinion. It is reasonable in such a situation to accept that the community seems to disagree, and attempt to either change its mind or to move on, instead of being rude. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition to what RR said, there is a mature and robust scientific consensus behind the theory of evolution, which has stood for at least 85 years (to put it conservatively.) Thus, it would be a violation of NPOV to dote on this or that contrarian writer, even if they were an expert on the subject matter (cf Michael Behe.) There is no such robust consensus behind the claim that Daniel Pipes doesn't habitually bash Arabs and Muslims. In fact, a number of reliable sources have reported on his being called anti-Arab or Islamophobic; USA Today, Jerusalem Post, Public Radio, etc. To say nothing of al-Ahram and Dar al Hayat, which are notable enough sources even without the more reliable Western papers. Clearly, Pipes is an extremely controversial figure who has been accused by many Arab and pro-Arab sources of being an outright bigot. WP's biography of him should reflect that, while not taking sides in the controversy. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note I don't like the rather vacuous phrase "Anti-Arab", nor do I really believe it is applicable in this case, but as I have subsequently mentioned (and provided) on the article talkpage, there are several academic sources that use the phrase in Pipes' context as well. Relata refero (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I’ve been neither rude nor uncivil. I don’t believe people posting “yeah me too” in such a situation is useful. I would say, further, that false allegations of incivility ratchet up the temperature and also, given that you just responded to me on the Daniel Pipes talk page with an edit summary of “rot” – actual and obvious incivility there -- you might consider practicing before preaching in future.
As to the substance of your points, we have more than enough sources which are critical of Pipes. We don’t need any fringe ones. And that you would be willing to publish a non-scientist’s view as a legitimate criticism of evolution is troubling; it suggests to me that you fail to understand some core policies.
Eleland: I’m all for reliable sources, whatever they may say. Kristine McNeil is not a reliable source: does anyone here want to dispute that? IronDuke 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Pipe's listing of dangerous academics was a political act and within the realm of politics, I find the source in question reliable. But also make sure to include the possible praises Pipes has received from his friends for doing this and give it a balance. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You just heard five independent editors disputing that; forgive the bluntness, but what is your <personal attack deleted>? <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll actually not forgive the "bluntness" if it's all the same to you. Five users? You mean 4 POV-pushing editors and a drive-by amen can overturn core policy? News to me. And you haven't answered my question. IronDuke 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Core policy hasn't been violated; you haven't made a case that it is even affected here. The Nation is considered a reliable source; please re-read the footnote to WP:RS that deals with the various meanings of "source". This McNeil person, whoever she was, nevertheless was considered a notable opinion by a reliable periodical, and her piece was subject to editorial control and fact-checking that we expect. Also note that this is far from a marginal viewpoint, however incorrect it may be. (Ample evidence has been provided here and on the article talkpage.) Please also explain who precisely are "the four POV-pushers" here. It would be nice for those of us with no opinion to know. Relata refero (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Nation is indeed a reliable source (allbeit one with a distinct political slant). How one phrases the information (so that it comes across in a NPOV manner) can be worked out in the article talk page... but the information itself comes from a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
One more time, show of hands please: who here thinks that Kristine McNeil is a reliable source? On any topic? IronDuke 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be misinterpreting WP:V. It's not the writer who's the reliable source, it's the publication: a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You might not like what the writer has written, but the piece in question is clearly one that has successfully made it through the publication's editorial process. As such, it counts as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only was McNeil's article considered noteworthy by a reliable periodical (The Nation), the article is also included as reference in Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby", a controversial yet nevertheless serious and reliable source. [[52]]. BernardL (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Bernard, thanks for that. Can you say in what context they referenced her work? Also, do you believe she is a reliable source? And if so, why? IronDuke 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kristine McNeil is certainly a reliable source for her own opinion, and the fact that the opinion was published in the Nation makes it notable. In my opinion, User:Metropolitan90's phrasing complies with all the sourcing, attribution and WP:BLP requirements. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
But by that standard, all published writers everywhere can be quoted in any article, BLP or no, as long as we make it clear it's only their opinion; we must have a higher standard, I think, especially in a BLP. IronDuke 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that is a slippery slope straw man argument, becuase WP:RS is just one criterion for inclusion of content and not everything that can be reliably sourced deserves to be in an article. Some other guidelines that we need to consider are:
  • WP:UNDUE: for example if McNeil had written an article in the Nation on George W. Bush, it would most probably be undue to cite her opinion in the wikipedia article since we have so many other, more notable opinions and sources available. AFAIK, this is not the case in this instance.
  • WP:REDFLAG: if McNeil had made wild, out-of-the left-field or potentially libelous claims (such as "X is a drug addict" or "Y is a Arab spy") we would require multiple, unimpeachable, factual (i.e. non-opinion pieces) sources before even considering inclusion, and we would not simply phrase the content as "McNeil thinks Y is an Arab spy" etc. Again this does not seem to be the case.
The above list is simply illustrative, and not exhaustive. Hope that makes the picture clearer for you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
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." 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. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke- The reference to McNeil in The Israel Lobby is one of four references attached to the following paragraph:
"The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, for example, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neoconservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel.94 This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars prompted a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report alleged anti-Israel behavior at U.S. colleges."BernardL (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, Bernard. I would say 1) Walt & Mearsheimer are incredibly hostile to people like Pipes and 2) Even they do not appear to be using flagrantly loaded owrds like "Anti-Arab". IronDuke 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to go on record supporting a "Writer" with no discernible qualifications other than one article in a partisan opinion magazine six years ago please feel free to sign below. IronDuke 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke, I can see clear consensus here. 6+ editors have told you that the nation article is a reliable source. It is time that you respect consensus.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The source here is The Nation. To say that this article is merely Kristine McNeil's "own opinion" is saying that The Nation lacks editors and standards. Metropolitan90's wording seems like a good compromise toward Wikipedians who do not like what McNeil is saying. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, by publishing McNeil without severe editing The Nation indicated it has very low standards, and needs to be treated as a highly questionable source. Andyvphil (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, it is time to stop this. The question has been asked and clearly answered. The Nation (and by extension the McNeil article) is reliable. You don't have to like the answer, but that answer isn't going to change. I suggest that we close discussion on this topic. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Apologies

Hi all:

As I have recently been threatened with a block for posting here from an administrator with whom I have had frequent disagreements in the past, I can no longer comfortably contribute to this thread without the risk of what I think would be a huge, drama-creating incident that would drain far more resources than it would be worth. I’d like to both thank everyone who came here and contributed thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to what I wrote, and apologize for my inability to freely reply. IronDuke 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The Skeptic's Dictionary

I believe this question (about the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source) has come up before here, though I haven't looked through the archives. It would be worth seeing what people said last time - I seem to recall that the Skeptics' Dictionary was borderline acceptable so long as it was attributed in the text ("According to the Skeptic's Dictionary...") But that was on a different article - this situation may be different. MastCell Talk 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The article cited seems to me to be hopelessly inadequate as a summary of what is both a political movement and an academic current. Try academic writers instead. Mary Lefkowitz is suitable to use but is at one pole of the argument and needs to be balanced, e.g. by Martin Bernal. Vijay Prashad might be a useful source also Henry Louis Gates Jnr or if you can find anything by Stuart Hall (cultural theorist). Wikiproject Critical Theory might have some leads. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Link to the above discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic's dictionary. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Martin Bernal has some valid and well-researched observations on classical historiography. On classical history itself, he is WP:FRINGE, although extremely entertaining. I would not use the Skeptic's Dictionary to say so; his books have been extensively and negatively reviewed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the discussion, but basically what was said was that Robert Caroll is a published academic and indeed the Skeptics Dictionary is also a published book by a respected publishing house. This makes it by Wikipedia definition a reliable source. You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. And policy (not guidelines) says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." What was suggested in the discussion is that when used it would be best to write 'Robert Todd Carroll, in his (or maybe the) Skeptics' Dictinary, says...' So he may be right or he may be wrong, but either way, it doesn't matter, it can't be excluded. Where it is put is another matter. Please note that I am not saying he is wrong or right on this, just that using it is definitely allowed by Wikipedia policy, see WP:V.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Carrol is an academic and the book is published. It's contents may be right or wrong, but I can se no reason why it should not be citable. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that few sources should have a blanket approval as a reliable source -- and that in most cases they should be evaluated regarding quality and accuracy and expertise. In my experience, regarding a topic that I'm familiar with, Carroll's coverage of that topic was problematic, mostly relying on the sort of sources that Wikipedia disallows. Even as we were debating whether specific information from Carroll could be used in this specific article, Carroll removed the problematic material from his web site. I'd use Carroll with caution, and I'd look closely at the sources he uses. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. -- actually, the policy says exactly the opposite: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Dlabtot (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As so often, there seems to be confusion about whether a source is citable as a legitimate academic opinion or whether it's citable as an accurate source of facts. The only issue is whether Carroll's is a citable opinion, not whether he is right. By the way, his main source on this topic is quoted at the top of the article, the very well respected critic of Afrocentrism, Clarence E. Walker. As for his having "removed the problematic material from his website", what do you mean? It still says what the quoted words say it says. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Carroll is not a creditable source. His specialty is philosophy, where he advocates atheism, scientific skepticism, and critical thinking. He is not a reliable source for african historiography, so he isn't reliable for this particular article. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So you answer your own questions now do you? What he 'advocates' is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I offer my opinion into the discussion. Is that allowed (even if I did start the thread)? Yahel Guhan 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper link between two sources

I'm working on List of Alpha Phi Omega members and have a question about linking two sources. Documentary maker focused on blacks states that St. Clair Bourne was a student at Georgetown in the 1960s before being expelled for participating in a Sit-in. The list of members of Alpha Phi Omega at Georgetown lists a St. Claire Bourne as a member of the Spring 1961 pledge class. I'm not that concerned about the difference between St. Claire with an e and without an e as the page at imdb shows him with the e, but having done work as St. Clair Bourne. Is this enough to fit the reliable sources for Wikipedia given that *theoretically* there could have been two different St. Claire Bourne's at Georgetown University at the same time. Yes, I know that this is *significantly* less likely that two Joseph Brown's there at the same time, but I'm trying to bend over backwards here... Thank You.Naraht (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The obituary uses both spellings of the name. However, making this connection feels like the synthesis form of original research to me, and thus should be excluded on those grounds. YiLFS, GRBerry 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RS?

Can anyone tell if the following RS or not?

I want use these for geographical location related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Using verifiability, it kind fails some tests such as as academic, third party review but it is borderline on is it a mainstream publication , it is definitely is not a wiki. So if I have to use it, I will attribute it. But it should not be used to contradict any facts that are supported by RS sources. Just my opinion. Taprobanus (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotten.com

I'm looking for some feedback about rotten.com, specifically its library section, regarding whether it's a reliable source.

It seems to me that this falls under the category of self-published websites. While the site is reasonably popular and has been mentioned in various newspaper articles, the library articles are written by an unknown person and there is no evidence of or reputation of fact checking and such. A question: how exactly do we go about distinguising between a popular website which is not considered reliable, and one which is? (Such as slate.com) --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's for a "pundit" reference or external link for some pop-culture topic, that's one thing. But not for BLP articles. Which article was this in reference to? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Any article, actually. I've removed the rotten.com references from about 50 articles. If it's basically nothing more than a self-published website, then it isn't acceptable as a reference for any article, other than Rotten.com itself. Or so I believe. If a rotten.com webpage says "Ronald Reagan liked to wear green socks", why is this any more reliable than if I put up a geocities webpage claiming the same thing? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe Rotten.com is self-published. While citing Rotten is not the same as citing the Wall Street Journal, I feel that it is appropriate to use in some areas. For example, the "teabagging" article cited both a book and Rotten to back up some punditry about teabagging happening in some movie. The book was citation enough, but the Rotten article seemed to function as a "footnoted external link" providing additional perspective on the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Murdoch fired all the people at WSJ who knew what they were doing, so WSJ has more in common with Rotten.com than it used to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If Rotten.com is not self-published, then who publishes it? From what I can see it is particularly unreliable. Regarding Slate.com, this is an indication as to its reliability and editorial stance. Now, what do we know about the editors of Rotten.com? Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
According to our article on it, it's published by "Soylent Communications". At any rate, it appears to be a "them", not a single author. That said, it might not be reliable on every topic, but if all you want to use it for is snarky comments about a movie, i.e. "The humorist website Rotten.com characterized Rochelle, Rochelle as 'X, Y, Z'", I don't see a problem with that. It's like citing MAD Magazine as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, in this case, there doesn't appear to be any semblance of reliability or editorial oversight - to the extent that we don't even know the name of the author or authors. Soylent Communications is not a publisher, it's a web-hosting service - and it too is completely anonymous, leading back to a Post Office box. Your comparison to Mad (magazine) is not apt; we know exactly who publishes Mad, who the editors are, who the writers and illustrators are - in fact, most of them are fairly famous, with their own often lengthy Wikipedia articles. Rotten.com is essentially an anonymous personal website, practically the worst kind of source imaginable; it should not be quoted anywhere except in the article about Rotten.com, and even then with extreme caution. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
From the article on Soylent, "It is also the hub of several websites maintained by the company." It sounds like they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site. I also don't believe there's anything wrong with having anonymous or pseudonymous authors. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It "sounds like" they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site? Enough speculation. We know nothing about Rotten.Com, not its authors, not its editors, not who publishes it - nothing at all. It is an anonymous personal website, period, and completely unsuitable as a source for anything. It's the same as using http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a source - except that http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ is probably a better source than Rotten.com, since we at least know the author is "R. Stephen Hanchett". Please review Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable newsgroup posting

Newsgroup postings are considered lower than dirt as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. I think this case is an exception to the rule. In late 1994, the Intel Pentium FDIV bug played out mailing list and in the newsgroup comp.sys.intel. The posters were acoumplished scientist and engineers from major companies. While Intel was claiming the bug was minor, the readers of these newsgroups found out how serious the defect was. (I followed the posting at the time and was amazed at their quality.)

Tim Coe, a FPU (floating point unit) designer at Vitesse Semiconductor, read the reports of the Pentium division errors and was able to reverse engineer the cause of error. He wrote a C program to predict the errors. He did not own an Intel CPU, so he went to a local computer store to check his results. His error predictions were correct. He posted his results on the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, on November 16, 1994.

The original newsgroup posing can be found on Google groups. Here is a web site that has a good copy of Tim Coe's posting and some other valid links. [54]

His work was reported in the technical press at the time and here is a report from the MathWorks newsletter.

Tim Coe later wrote a paper in the peer reviewed journal, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering

  • Coe, Tim; Mathisen, T.; Moler, C.; Pratt, V. (Spring 1995). "Computational aspects of the Pentium affair". Computational Science & Engineering, IEEE 2 (1): 18-30. doi:10.1109/99.372929.  "The Pentium affair has been widely publicized. It started with an obscure defect in the floating-point unit of Intel Corporation's flagship Pentium microprocessor. This is the story of how the Pentium floating-point division problem was discovered, and what you need to know about the maths and computer engineering involved before deciding whether to replace the chip, install the workaround provided here, or do nothing. The paper also discusses broader issues of computational correctness."

Can the Tim Coe's original posting to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, be used as a reference?

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Andy Grove, the Intel CEO, responded to this newsgroup.[55] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already commented over at Talk:Pentium FDIV bug, but I don't see any need to suspend our usual disapproval of forum postings as sources. If any reliable sources actually reprinted the forum postings, it would be OK to use the reprinted versions. The notability of the people who posted doesn't make Usenet into a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of saying that Tim Coe wrote a journal article based on his findings that he originally posted in the internet newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. Andy Grove, President of Intel, wrote a big check to refund the customers and also posted a response to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. The article could explain how this was an early case where the internet allowed customers to force a large corporation to admit to a defective product. The newsgroup was an important factor and was reported in the press at the time. The current article has the vague statement that the problem was "verified by other people around the Internet". It doesn't name them or give details of how the problem was verified. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If these events lead to papers being published and press reports, citing the newsgroup seems entirely unnecessary. Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I got a copy of the IEEE Computational Science & Engineering paper today. In a sidebar, the journal editor states how important the internet was in uncovering the Pentium bug. The article mentions several specific posts to the newsgroup by various individuals. For example, "… reporters for major newspapers and news services had Xeroxed copies of faxed copies of Moler's posting." The newsgroup "comp.sys.intel" was part of the story. "At the height of the frenzy a month later, over 2000 messages a week were being posted to comp.sys.intel." All of the facts about the newsgroup posting can be referenced by traditional reliable sources. The 2 or 3 most significant posting themselves can be noted with a proper citation, {{cite newsgroup}}. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for using professional mailing lists as references. If the details are otherwise confirmed by reliable sources I see nothing wrong with referencing the USENET post. It's a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothamist LLC blogs

Resolved.
Right... could you explain that a little more please? Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If your question is whether we can link to sfist.com in the Gothamist article ... the answer is Yes... In that article, it essentially falls under WP:SPS. The article is (in part) about Gothamist LLC. sfist.com is included in a list of "city centric" blogs that are run by that company. I am not sure if listing all of these blogs is appropriate (it slightly smacks of turning the article into a promotion for the company and its various blog sites), but that is a different issue. If we are going to include the list, it is appropriate to provide a link to each of them as verification that they exist and are indeed owned and run by Gothamist LLC.
If your question is whether sfist.com can be used as a source in any other article, then I would say Absolutely Not. In other articles it falls squarely under our "No blogs" rule and is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to add other than to affirm what Blueboar just said. Sfist.com could not, however, be used as a source for other articles. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Blueboar, how did you read his mind? Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just another of my psychic Super Powers. No biggie. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero, thanks for the bite. Blueboar, thank you for answering my question, which I apparently could have been MUCH more clear on. DigitalC (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)