Archive 70 ← Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 → Archive 80

Microformats.org

Is http://microformats.org/wiki/ a reliable source for information about microformats? It appears to be an open wiki (I made an account and made an edit), yet with some kind of overseeing authority. Thoughts? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You've answered your own question, it's an Open wiki that anyone can edit, so it's not RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a pointed reaction to the refutation of OrangeDog's mistaken claims at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats . If the microformats wiki (which houses the canonical specs for microformats) is not a reliable source for information about them, then what is? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This was a genuine question, as I was looking at our articles on microformats and noticed some using this wiki as a source. Knowing that open wikis are explicitly disallowed as sources, I thought I'd check here as it seems to be a pretty official-looking open wiki. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
If it really is editable by the outside world, then, no, it's not a source. But it may be acceptable as an external link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Cameron Scott and Squidfryerchef. Open Wiki's do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability but it may be acceptable as an external link (in the 'External links' section). Feel free to post on WP:ELN if you want confirmation (or refutation) whether it's acceptable as an external link. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a person's LinkedIn profile a good enough source for what school the person attended?

For the purpose of added someone to the list of alumni of a particular school, is the person's LinkedIn profile a good enough source for the fact of their attendance? The person is Jay Hodgson , who seems to be a stellar young Canadian academic in the field of music, and the school is Upper Canada College (UCC), a prestigious private boy's school in Toronto. An IP-editor (not me) added Hodgson to the list lately, twice, but the addition was reverted as unsourced, twice. By some quick-and-easy googling, I turned up a fair amount of material on Hodgson, but among the online sources I thus found, his attendance of UCC is given only by his own LinkedIn profile. It seems to me that this should be a good enough source for the purpose of adding Hodgson to the list of UCC alumni, according to "Self-published ... sources as sources on themselves", within Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. (It would be most unreasonable to suppose that Hodgson has lied about attending UCC, in his own LinkedIn profile, or that the profile is really the work of an impostor who is otherwise accurate but gives wrong information on that one point!) However, the incipient edit-war over the adding of Hodgson to the list points to a need for care, so please give your expert opinions. Thanks.
-- 205.250.69.234 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you guarantee that this person actually wrote their LinkedIn profile? I've seen some cases where this was doubtful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I cannot think of any way such a thing could be absolutely guaranteed. It seems to me that any online profile or other self-published online source might, in principle, be the work of someone other than the purported author. Why, though, would someone other than Professor Hodgson put Hodgson's profile on LinkedIn? I can't see what use that would be to a hypothetical imposter. Nor is the information given in any way suspect.
-- 205.250.69.234 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In other words, to quote the 4th criterion at WP:IRS, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". -- 205.250.69.234 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to fit the criteria of "Self-published ... sources as sources on themselves" to me... SBHB could you please point us to the cases you posit as precedence? Dlabtot (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that it is really their LinkedIn profile, then yes, it's reliable per WP:SPS with all the qualifications that WP:SPS brings to the table. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph and badscience.net

[1] is presented as a reliable source because "Ben Goldman is an expert" (presumably on the newspaper? On Climate? On what?) I noted that badscience.net is a blog not under the editorial control of any newspaper per WP:RS. The edit does not qualify tghe claim as an opinion, but states it is a "notable mistake" on the part of the newspaper. The queries are: Is the blog a "reliable source" for a claim under WP:RS and WP:BLP (as it impacts "living people")? Ought the claim be presented as an opinion of the author if the source is relaible? Is the claim, if it is proper, properly worded as a "notable mistake" including the part about "despite allowing other comments"? Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Its been removed which I agree with, its basically a blog, self publiished source only good for quoting comments about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Goldacre also writes a column for The Guardian entitled "Bad Science", I assume that is the basis for the claim of expertise (which seems reasonable enough to me). Without looking into it further I don't know how much of a crossover there is between waht goes into his Guardian column, and what is published purely through his own site. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Under RS? Yes. Ben Goldacre is a published author in criticism of science journalism—e.g Bad Science—and his blog posts tend to be aggregated, after editing, on The Guardian's site, and/or appeared in his 2008 book. On the BLP judgement... I'm leaning towards yes, too, but not as strongly. Neutral on the last two questions. Sceptre (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In the case at hand, the material is not on any Guardian site - only on his own personal blog. Collect (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ben Goldacre is clearly an "established expert on the topic" (ie the topic of professional science), so his self-published blog is an RS except for information about living persons. The information the source is used in support of appears to be primarily about the Daily Telegraph, which is not a living person, so this looks basically okay. I would suggest removing the name of the scientist mentioned, even though nothing contentious is said about him. There may be a further issue about the notability of this incident, but that's not for here. --FormerIP (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
We had a discussion (now archived) of something similar with Gearslutz.com where a user referenced comments from an audio engineer *expert* on one of our articles. Forums are not WP:RS per our guidelines, however, because of ambiguous wording some users read it as "it's OK" in some circumstances. There is huge loophole, Yo. So when i get some free time Ima take this to the pump and fight to re-word guidelines. For now, and in this very particular case using our current guidelines on WP:SPS this blog meets the requirement for use 'cause it belongs without any doubt to the so called expert.Jrod2 (talk)
Its the guys blog and is not reliable for anything apart from comments about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not what policy says (it's not a "loophole", Jrod2, it's policy). See WP:SPS. The author is, there is no doubt, "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So his blog is an RS for the relevant field (science, and particularly media reporting about science), but may not be used to support statements about living people. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Bro, but ya forgot to read the last line on that G...its a gray area [2] (a loophole to me cause you can use forums to talk bout the subject himself). This policy is called Verifiability WP:V to be more specific. It says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer".
Some users like fall into confusion because of ambiguous wordings on this policy 'bout forums. Thats what Ima bring up to the WP:VP if thats ok with ya. Again, we cant use that citation.Jrod2 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
That's one of the loopholes I discussed. Anyways, I looked into that edit closely and I realize now i made a mistake. Under our present guidelines conditions, blogs (personal or not) can NOT be used to reference content that relates or discusses other living persons. The caveat is living. If the subject was dead, then the so called expert could under some circumstances talk about somebody else. Example: quoting the opinion of a music expert about Jimi Hendrix. Jrod2 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Never? From WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." There is a pointer to the next section covering when to use self-published sources of information, which clearly blogs are. There's a lot of gray area there, but I don't think you can toss a blanket "Bad Source!" on it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Re Jrod: Forums can be used as primary sources in very very limited circumstances, to cite a statement by a person when the identity of the person is verified and known (which is rare, but can happen). I raised this point regarding tweets a year ago, where the same applied; see: RSN A34: "Stephen Fry's twitter". Reading the Gearslutz discussion, my reading of it is that the same holds for forums, with the caveat that it should be a forum with proper administrative procedures. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep Sceptre, that's the gray area Ravensfire and I were referring to. U cant use something the expert said about a living person though, thats policy. OTOH, some users feel that if the public forum belongs to a verified expert (verified that he is also the publisher to this blog/forum thru his own web site's link page) and if the content is only about himself, then forums can be used. This is what i wanna bring up to the Village Pump for clarification on our guidelines. WP:VP . Jrod2 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This case is nothing to do with forums, though. --FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
For the last time...the author of this self published content here, violates our policy here 'cause it relates to claims bout a third party (Prof Fairchild) so correct me if i'm wrong. Jrod2 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Policy would be that we can't refer to Prof Fairchild on the basis of this source, not that we can't use the source on the grounds that it refers to Prof Fairchild. The basic information that has been added is therefore fine (the editor wishes to say something about the newspaper, not the professor), just the name of a living person shouldn't be included in the edit. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Correct, as long as theres no mention of that professor, i guess its ok. Jrod2 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the protagonist has now stated that I am not a "rational person" and since he has not given any actual reliable source for his claims, I consider this more a WQA type of situation than anything else. Collect (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A *WQA situation* as in Wikipedia Alerts?? Do you wanna clarify?? Jrod2 (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
See the talk page involved for the epithets used. Or see [3] for my post, which also points out the problems thta editor has had in the past about civility blocks, etc. The editor "knows" what he wants in the article, but that is primarily that he wants it to be a climate change denial fork <g>. IMHO, adding CC to the mix of an article where it has not been heretofore present is begging for dramah at best. Collect (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

India related articles - Maharashtra, Marathi and Pune

I'm currently in a dispute with other editors regarding content (one line) I would like to include in Maharashtra, Marathi (lead), and Pune. At an early stage in the dispute, the sources I presented were attacked for not being RS. I responded by providing the reasons that qualify them as reliable sources. But since then, despite 2-3 reminders, editors who are opposing my viewpoint have refused to say whether they consider the sources I am presenting as RS. The sources can be found in the table in this section [4] and the entire dispute starts on the same page.[5] I am seeking outside judgment validating or invalidating the sources. Detailed content from one of sources can be found at User:Zuggernaut. Please disregard the first row in the table as that is not being claimed as a RS. Thanks for your help. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is website "The Numbers" an appropriate source for film info?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Numbers (website) (2nd nomination). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you for pointing that out. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say it's good for box office numbers.[8] I haven't seen anything to say it's reliable for other stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it is even good for box office numbers. Those news links do not yield any helpful information about the website's editorial review or standards for research and/or how it even confirms these purported numbers. Certainly we are in agreement as of yet that the site does not have reliability as far as its commentary or analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that other RSs citing their info is one way to establish reliability, and for raw numbers, they seem to be cited quite a bit. I didn't see enough non-trivial sources to establish notability, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to use Box Office Mojo, and I have not really scrutinized The Numbers in the past. This is what I found, though. First, Bruce Nash and The Numbers is referenced on the Wall Street Journal website several times, with this explaining the The Numbers operator after an article about Box Office Mojo: "Bruce Nash, a Los Angeles software designer who spends up to four hours a day updating site with help from two contract assistants." This from The Times apparently considers The Numbers "Hollywood researchers" and quotes Nash a few times in the article. This from MovieMaker says, "Bruce Nash runs The Numbers Website (www.the-numbers.com), which serves up a comprehensive breakdown of weekly, monthly and yearly box office totals. Box office totals for new and old titles are archived all the way back to the heyday of three-strip Technicolor. Nash says that tracking the blockbusters is more science than art these days, with all the focus centered on a movie’s opening weekend." He's then quoted multiple times in that article. On its own, I do not think that The Numbers is that poor of a source. It is worth comparing to Box Office Mojo, though, which I think is more prominent and better staffed.

For comparison's sake, let's compare the websites on some films in the past few years.

  • Box Office Mojo reports $205,343,774 domestic and $167,366,241 foreign
  • The Numbers reports $205,343,774 domestic and $167,009,243 foreign
  • Box Office Mojo reports $533,345,358 domestic and $468,576,467 foreign
  • The Numbers reports $533,345,358 domestic and $489,000,000 foreign

Suspecting The Numbers's weakness with foreign numbers, I checked:

  • Box Office Mojo reports $37,634,615 domestic and $45,623,611 foreign
  • The Numbers reports $37,634,615 domestic and $45,600,000 foreign
  • Box Office Mojo reports $10,301,706 domestic and $75,973,087 foreign
  • The Numbers reports $10,299,782 domestic and $73,200,000 foreign

With this admittedly small sample, it may be worth assuming that The-Numbers and Box Office Mojo are pretty close when it comes to domestic (United States and Canada) figures. Considering Box Office Mojo's prominence, it may be better staffed than The-Numbers and be able to report overseas grosses more accurately. Its prominence is reflected in a search engine test (in Google News Archive Search) where mention of Box Office Mojo is easily in the thousands, where The Numbers barely reaches 100 with the various keywords I tried. So for Knight and Day, I would recommend Box Office Mojo as a reference instead but still caution that international (outside the United States and Canada) figures for both websites will tend to be estimates until the film's entire theatrical run is complete. In addition, I think The Numbers has a potentially useful difference from Box Office Mojo in having DVD sales figures, where the latter just has DVD rental rankings. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never had any problem with then being used for box office numbers, although as Erik points out there are some small discrepencies which are warning signs we should heed. All things equal Box Office Mojo seems to be more accepted as a reliable source so perhaps should be the default choice in this respect. Just this week I had to correct a budget sourced through The Numbers. The Numbers actually provided sources for this budget, but its own figure didn't match them! It was either entered incorrectly, or updated since without the sources being revised. I've added a lot of budget information and frequently found their figures at odds with those in The New York Times or Variety or whatever. Personally I find it incorrect too often to put complete faith in it, and always feel happy if I find another source to corroborate its information, but that's self-defeating because I don't need The Numbers source then. A useful resource and probably would serve Wikipedia better in the form of an external link. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Erik's and Cirt's points. In my opinion, we should stick with Box Office Mojo whenever we have conflicting data between the two. I would guess that 99% of secondary sources that I have come across cite Box Office Mojo anyway in that regard. If we do decide to drop The-Numbers, we need to reflect that on MOS:FILM because currently it permits editors to use either at their discretion. My main gripe would be that on some articles, I have noticed editors referencing both next to the revenue and simply taking the highest number between the two as the final count. I do not readily agree with this approach due to obvious reasons. DrNegative (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd stick with Box Office Mojo for the main box office figures, but encourage the use of The Numbers for DVD sales information (at least until BOM adds detailed home media sales/rentals). It's helpful to have multiple sources to cover the box office information, and although we predominately use BOM, Numbers appears reliable for supplementing information BOM does not cover. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

could someone comment on the :reliability of my sources

I would be suspicious of the source. It looks like SPS. Try looking thru this lot http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:a&tbo=p&q=black+slave+owners+in+the+USA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we only Use Google Book Review / Sales ,the website I use is a book Review ????? --Kimmy (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is Robert M. Grooms by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a better source link --Kimmy (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What we would need is the origianl magazine articel. Also your new source clarly akes this material form your old source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant who is he as in what are his qualifications, is he an academic etc. The Barnes Review seems to publish some pretty controversial material having looked at some of the issues in which Grooms work has been published. I would be surprised if they were regarded as an RS. A reprint at seanbryson.com doesn't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Slater that is because the source I listed is the original "Book Review" form Robert M. Grooms - The same Review is used In another Wiki page exactly how I used it link .

Please see WP:INDENT. It will make the discussion easier to follow. A citation being used in another article doesn't tell you anything about its reliability. I would say that citation needs to be removed from the William Ellison article and replaced. Sources are unreliable by default. Is there any evidence that the or Grooms are reliable for anything ? The Barnes Review doesn't appear to have been raised here at RSN before although it is mentioned here where someone describes it as an extremist site. It does seem to fit into the questionable sources category. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is hard as the truth is hardly main steam thinking in this case - - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:INDENT yet ? Can you provide a reliable source that says who Grooms is ? You aren't a reliable source. A wiki editor describing the Barnes Review as an extremist site is slander ? I think not. Someone will have to rewrite the whole William Ellison page then if that is what is needed. WP:V compliance is mandatory and I see no evidence that either the Barnes Review or Grooms are reliable sources. Can you present that evidence based on WP:RS ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is Strange how "Daivd Duke" pops up on Google with Grooms - You are correct "Grooms" is A ghost ? I did read the books he list though - They are good works - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kimmy, I am finding some of your comments difficult to make sense of, but I think your statement "It is Strange how Daivd Duke pops up on Google with Grooms" tells me what I need to know. Grooms appears to be a person without established notability whose work has been published, as far as we know, only in a far-right magazine dedicated to historical revisionism and on some personal websites which appear to be far-right and/or white supremacist in nature. In short, the work does not appear to come from a publisher "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:RS, so it is not reliable an cannot be used. --FormerIP (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time - Great detective work - Grooms, uses good Literary works to Justify his Article - Got you - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Barnes_Review, Willis Allison Carto (July 17, 1926) is a longtime figure on the American far right. He describes himself as Jeffersonian and populist, but is primarily known for his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial 

--Kimmy (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Grooms does appear to have written for them, yes. There is a scan of one of his articles I found on a neo-nazi site, but I am not going to link to it. What is more, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of him being published other than by this magazine, at least not under the same name. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Barnes Review - sourcewatch link --Kimmy (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, so I guess we're done here, then. --FormerIP (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Rangers Central a reliable website!

I have been editing the article Day of the Dumpster. I am in dispute with the user User:Ryulong as he believes sources like this [9] are useful. I believe the website Rangers fails as a reliabe source because its a fansite does anyone have an opinion. Is it a reliable source or not? 82.25.105.18 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable; it's a self published website that's not affiliated with any official organization or anything. I wouldn't use it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It falls far short of being a reliable source - it's self-published, no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy from third party sources, etc. First Light (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I just looked up the edits in question. The problem there was under external links, not reliable sources. The site shouldn't be used as a reliable source, and it probably shouldn't be linked to in the EL per WP:ELNO #11 - "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I was blocked for the entirety of this discussion and could not weigh in at all, I would like to point out that in the case of Power Rangers, as well as many other children's television shows which are notable in their own right, there will not be many non-trivial mentions in reliable third-party sources. As such, the only thing that editors of these articles have to get their information from is either directly reporting what happens in the show itself, or relying on self-published fan-created websites. As no one is going to be writing on the unaired pilots of Day of the Dumpster other than the fans, we should use their knowledge, even if it is below Wikipedia's standards of quality.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that WP:FILMPLOT allows you to cite the episode itself as a primary source so long as there's no interpretation or analysis involved. As for citing sources which don't meet Wikipedia's guideline on reliability, you have WP:IAR to fall back on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In this particular case, the fansite was being used as source or at least an external link to show that one of two unaired pilots existed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It is still not a reliable source so the information can't be in the article as it cannot be verified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for Prahlad Jani

There is a question that came up in a discussion on the NOR noticeboard in regard to use of a video from Youtube, specifically one, which is linked from an article from the Guardian. We're still wrestling with the OR issues, but at this point it seems to me worth asking for clarification as to whether the youtube video can be considered a reliable source. Editor Nazar has argued that the video is "used together with the Guardian article and is a constituent part of it, which makes it a special case". My view is that the video is of unknown origin (it appears to be footage from more than one source which has been subtitled in two different language and shown on news or discussion TV show, which has then been further edited prior to the upload to youtube) and should not be used. The article is a BLP, and it seems to me there may be copyvio issues as well. Any guidance would be appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is RS; the youtube video is not. As per multiple policies, guidelines and the consensus of many discussions of this topic. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur. --Martin (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian article is RS. The Youtube video might be allowable as a primary source because the Guardian article essentially quoted it for the story, but it would be up for debate whether any facts should be cited from the video or whether it would essentially be used as an external link embedded in the text.
As far as copyright issues, if these are short clips and snapshots, that should be fine under fair use ( remember, fair use under US copyright law, not the fair use policy for uploading binaries to Wikipedia ). If it's an entire news segment then that wouldn't be fair use and we shouldn't link to it unless it was uploaded by the TV station.
If there's concerns about original synthesis, it is OK to say "source A says X" and "source B says Y". But you have to word things very carefully if comparing/contrasting sources. There shouldn't be any deduced facts that don't appear in the cited sources, and the wording shouldn't promote a particular thesis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do take a look at the video. It's 7:41 long. I do not think it was uploaded by the TV station--rather, it appears to be a copy of a TV segment that has been edited and uploaded by the author of the piece in the Guardian. It is unclear as to who the sources are--we don't know, for example, who put in the polish subtitles in the one set of clips. I'm leaving the OR issues aside here, since that's already in discussion on the other notice board. Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In general, a youtube video is very rarely (never?) a reliable source, but usually it is necessary to know what statement is being verified in order to judge whether the source is adequate. The background is that Prahlad Jani claims that he has lived for 70 years without eating or drinking, and someone wrote an article in the Guardian to contradict claims by supporters of Jani. One of the statements in the article is "an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view...". An editor has performed an analysis of the youtube video to show what are claimed to be flaws in the Guardian article. The question is: is the video a reliable source for use as in this edit. The answer is no. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct I think. The Guardian article is an RS, but the YouTube video is not. --FormerIP (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Nuujinn for bringing the issue up here, as well as everyone for expressing their opinions. Leaving out the technical details, it is my view that an effort should be made to include certain direct citations from the video material to highlight the fact that all the footage used in it comes essentially from 2003 (which is confirmed by the subtitles, which happen to be in Polish and Hindi -- the languages not known to most readers of the Guardian), and not from 2010, as is claimed by the author of the Guardian article. This, in my opinion, is important for the WP:NPOV of the rendering of material in question, because the criticism included into the Guardian article severely discredits multiple entities, including governmental agencies, respectable accredited medical institutions, as well as numerous private persons, involved into the tests as medical experts. Of course, care must be taken to avoid pushing a WP:Synthesis, as well as WP:OR into the article in this process. From my point of view, there is sufficient information in the subtitles of the video in question to provide for the neutral exposure of the above issues. I'm sorry if my attempts were not perfect enough. And I'd appreciate if someone with more experience stepped in and amended the article to make the readers aware of the facts, which would help them judge the Guardian article summary included into the Wikipedia more knowledgeably and neutrally. I remind once more that the video in question is used in connection with that article and is claimed by the author to be his main argument, which supposedly reveals the facts he claims. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the Guardian article closely, the author does not claim the video is form 2010--he lists some possible loopholes, and then says "While the test was running, I exposed some of those loopholes in a live programme on India TV: an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view; he was allowed to receive devotees and could even leave the sealed test room for a sun bath; his regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored and so on." But I don't think that's really important for this discussion. My feeling is simply that there is too much uncertainty about the origins of the various component parts of the video to allow it to be considered reliable. As a far as I can see it cannot be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"there is too much uncertainty about the origins of the various component parts of the video" - agree. Still, the whole Guardian article is written in such way as to make the readers believe that there is an undeniable evidence in the video which reveals deception during 2010 tests. Also, in the video itself, there is an inserted blue screen with English headings (likely the result of Edamaruku's editing) before the episodes of supposed 'obstruction by devotees', which falsely claims them to be related to 2010 tests. It just pains me to see that a conman like that can mislead so many people, and we have to repeat his misleading claims here in Wikipedia, misleading the readers in the same way. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Nazar, with all due respect, you have a right to your opinions and your interpretations, but they are not suitable for inclusion in an article. We should stick to reporting what reliable sources say, and it is not our place to protect people from what we believe are misleading claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Do you think that using a con to discredit an exceptional claim is an acceptable option? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are used in a number of articles as reliable sources, most frequently on articles about YouTube personalities and producers - Category:YouTube video producers, though also on some of our most high profile Featured Articles, such as Barack Obama. The YouTube site is source holder for various videos from reliable and unreliable sources, so a video on YouTube may or may not be used as a reliable source depending on the individual video and the context in which it is being used. If the video itself is created by an individual it would fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH. In this case it appears that the video was created and uploaded by Rationalist International, who have this website, and of which Sanal Edamaruku, the author of the Guardian piece, is the president. There are a number of very respectable scientists and thinkers associated with Rationalist International, though they are "honorary" associates, rather than directly involved, and Rationalist International do not appear to be quoted by academics or news organisations listed on Google. The question then is, not about YouTube, but about Rationalist International. Is Sanal Edamaruku using his position within that organisation to self-publish the video - if yes, then the video comes under WP:SELFPUBLISH, and as this is a BLP article, the video would not be allowed. If it is felt that Rationalist International are a proper organisation, then the video is a reliable source. Having looked carefully at the website, I feel there is sufficient doubt that the organisation is anything more than a vehicle for Sanal Edamaruku, so WP:SELFPUBLISH would apply and the BLP clause would kick in, and the video be removed, even with the link in the Guardian. The Comment is free column in the Guardian is an opinion column, close to a blog, but that is regarded as reliable by WP:NEWSBLOG, so what Edamaruku says there can be used in the article - though used with appropriate care, as this is a BLP, and that is an opinion piece - so the use in the article should make clear that it is the opinion of an individual writing in the Guardian, and not passed off as fact. SilkTork *YES! 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, SilkTork *YES!! Your comment was very neutral and elucidative at the same time. I've learned something. -- Nazar (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Ron Kurtus's School for Champtions a reliable source

See for instance [10] which is used as a source for Antineutron, or [11] which is used in Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. Kurtus's own information about himself is at [12] and linked pages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

(This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests) were offered. CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources?)


The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

  1. "4He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
  2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate 4He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:
3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

HELLO? Only one editor above has indicated that the newly published Hagelstein paper can be used as a secondary source, for allowing certain primary sources to be used in the cold fusion article. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, that is not enough, by far! V (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any 4He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.
I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.
In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of WP:V, etc.
I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Commandment

Dear ladies, dear Sirs,

I have been blocked in the Ten Commandments article because my analysis of the 2nd Commmandment did not appear authorized enough with a pubication by Salem-News (Oregon internet press), another by the Editor of the British medical journal as an e-letter, and, eventually, a lecture given in the University of Keele (RU). I'm coming back with the support of one of the greatest modern scholars of the Bible: Professor Thomas Römer (Chair Biblical circles of the Collège de France, the highest academic French institution) who wrote me (http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/File:R%C3%B6mer.jpg):

"..., you are right asserting that Gn 17 presents another vision of circumcision than Gn 15 or the Deuteronomy. The "lay" writers were apparently less interested by this practice, and even opposed to it. The expression "circumcision of the heart" could even contain a polemic stand against "circumcision of the flesh."

Will this be enough to support my thesis inside the article Ten Commandments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.136.139 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Personal letters and e-mails are generally not acceptable as sources. See the Reliable Sources page for examples of what is or is not a reliable source. Your example posted on a wikia site would not meet the criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor Römer may be willing to provide you with relevant scholarly published literature on the issue if you ask him again nicely. Then the significance of your views can be verified. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have understood correctly, but this may be an RS for the same information (pp 138-9): [13] --FormerIP (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for QBasic program

Is http://www.green-life-innovators.org/tiki-index.php?page=SunAlign+Qbasic+version an adequate source for the QBasic program recently added to Equation of time? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that code really belongs in the page altogether. Why is the formula in Mathematical details insufficient? Seems to me that it's just giving too much weight to someone's code, and that it doesn't belong. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit sourced to an apparent reliable source

I reverted an edit to Nicole Alexander which says that she is engaged to Shaquille O'Neal, sourced to [14]. On face value, it seems to be a reliable source, but it's a gossip blog, and the source itself is just reporting rumors. Was I correct in doing so? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. It's looks like there are better sources, although nothing definitive yet.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This might be a better question for WP:BLPN, but a quick search of reliable sources fails to substantiate these rumors, so yes, I think that you did the right thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler the Jewish African

It seems that there are reports concerning Hitler's DNA, which assert thsat he had Jewish ancestry. This has been a popular claim since the 30s, but now journalists are making sensational assertions based on haplogroups supposed to be found lurking in the depths of the nasty Nazi's body - or rather of his relatives, since Hitler's DNA is reconstructed from relatives. Journalists play up the Jewish and North African ancestry claims. What reliable information can we derive from these reports? One editor wants to add this material with the claims of the journalists, others think it should be wholly excluded. (see Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_DNA).

The article in question is Adolf Hitler.

Paul B (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If DNA tests have been undertaken then why are they reporting their findings in a magazine and not in a scientific journal? Personally I'd say that scientific findings are suspect if they not peer reviewed. If thee findings work their way into the mainstream press then they are being reliably reported, but perhaps are not notable findings because they lack scientific validity. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article begins with "Belgian researchers say they have proof ....." We cant use sources that dont cite reliable sources themselves....Therefore i dont question YNET NEWS but the author of the article on it..... we should be careful adding highly controversial content such as this, Yo. Jrod2 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for leaving this question incomplete for several minutes. My computer froze up. Paul B (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no requirement that only peer-reviewed, scientific journals are reliable sources. Indeed, WP:RS says something quite different. Anyway, here's an article from The Daily Telegraph that is most certainly a reliable source.[16] I note that the language in this source is far more nuanced than "Hitler was a Jewish African". Instead, it says, "the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust."(emphasis mine). The article then goes on to explain in more careful detail that, "A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews." So, I would say that this is a reliable source but be careful on how you used it. Further, keep in mind WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait a bit to see how this all plays out before including it in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, there are some possibly (maybe I'm wrong here) disturbing comments on the Adolph Hitler article talk page that this is "anti-Nazi propaganda" and insinuations about the trustworthiness of "Jewish media". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
i'm afraid it's brought the neo-Nazis out, to defend the racial purity of their fuhrer. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I would agree to wait. I don't see any reason why this would fail notability., butthe fact its not in a science journel does raise concearns that the research has not yet benreviewd.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

I'm going to remove everything on this page which is sourced directly to a LaRouchie, rather than to a WP:RS about the LaRouchies. Thoughts? BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No. It's an appropriate use of a primary/self-published source in an article about itself. That's a very contentious article, and believe me any use of primary sources there will have been vetted many times over. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The verifiability policy reads
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The article definitely violates (2), (3), and (5) even if it doesn't fall foul of the other two rules. One (reliable) article source actually points out that LaRouche's public statements don't coincide with his real views. I think that Jeremiah Duggan found out the hard way that the movement's opposition to the Iraq war isn't actually the most important thing about it; and the WP:Balance of the article gives the impression that the movement's public statements are a good guide to its nature.
I tell you what: when I get round to it, I will rewrite the article in full, perhaps in my userspace. If the consensus of non-sockpuppet editors is against my version, then I'll take it down. BillMasen (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal website

Is this a reliable source for a death? It appears to be an official personal one and is already linked from the article http://graal.co.uk/index.html article is Laurence_Gardner Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is okay, since is is a self-published source used for information about its author. It might be argued that Gardner couldn't possibly have posted his own death notice, but I would say that this is a complication we can safely ignore, because there doesn't seem to be any reason to question the reliability of the site. I think the death of an article subject is somewhere where it is common sense for WP not to be over-strict in its application of the RS policy. Hypothetically, if no source other than this website ever reports his death, are we to pretend forever that he is still alive? --FormerIP (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, I did also do an archive search on the site and it has been in existence for a few years and it clearly is official in some close associated way, so sadly I have added it, thanks. (ec) Yes I have seen this can be a problem when people who are not very mainstream notable pass on and the sources reporting can be not mainstream and weak, I feel this one to be correct, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There are secondary sources available. Here is one [17]. Jrod2 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT. Especially for death notices! Death notices have to be treated with extra care and have to come from especially reliable sources. If the death is legit, it will be picked up elsewhere. Even if the other source cites a personal website/blog, it is incumbent upon us to wait until other sources announce the death notice. I'm not familiar with unknowncountry.com, but unless it is truly a RS, I would be reluctant to accept it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No. Dlabtot (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
AFIK there is absolutely *nada* on our guidelines that clearly says that a confirmed primary source can NOT be used as reliable source to verify the death of the article's subject. If anything, logic says they can be just as reliable. Example, *unreliable* news source or news blog *X* announces the death of a subject from a long illness with cancer while a very recent article on the subject's personal site reveals that he has gone on remission and is expected to survive. The primary source confirms that the information coming from X is a hoax. Assuming the subject's personal site was not hacked, we can't assume that reliable secondary sources such as Rolling Stone magazine, etc will pick up the death notice of a person, right away. WP:Notability doesnt mean WP:FAME. This means that a combination of primary and secondary sources should b enuff . Jrod2 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, the guys dead, its in his article a couple of days now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone succeeded in hacking an individual's web site, one of the first bits of mischief that might occur to the hacker would be to post a false death notice. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why a primary, secondary sources combo will fit the criteria. But not using the subject's personal site at all seems ridiculous to me. Jrod2 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And the notion that someone could self-publish their own death notice does not seem ridiculous to you? Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
nope, not if a secondary source corroborates it. Ya assume only the owner has access to his own site...what bout his web designer or the webmaster, ha??. Jrod2 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is just a simple and undeniable fact that you can't self-publish something after you're dead. If someone else publishes it, it's not self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What does that got to do with all this??....if ya dont like the wording at the guideline, change it, aight? i.e. "if subject is really dead, then his personal web sites are dead too and cant be used for s**t".... :)Jrod2 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The wording of the guideline is fine. It is your interpretation that is off. Dlabtot (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If the wording is fine then what's your point?? Jrod2 (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
My point is what I've previously articulated. That dead people can't publish their own death notices. Therefore a death notice can never be self-published and therefore would have to meet all the regular RS requirements. I have no interest in engaging in a pointless dispute with you about whether dead people can publish things. Dlabtot (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason self published sources are not considered reliable is that there is no editorial oversight and an individual could publish anything. You're arguing that because the owner of the web site is dead, they cannot be the one publishing this. True enought, but what that also means is that we have no idea who is publishing the data. The data is self-published, it's just we don't know at this point who that self is, thus the source cannot be considered reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop clogging n' making your own interpretations of guidelines with a non NPV....if ya found wording that states primary sources cant be used to corroborate the death of the author, just cite it. Jrod2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It is true that we don't have a policy that explicitly states that sources that are self-published by dead people are unacceptable. So in that sense, you are right. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot, I dont mind having long discussions bout guidelines ad nauseum with u. I kinda like ya ;) But me thinks the problem here is defining the word primary "sel-published" source. Should it change its definition of being primary SP source when the author dies?? Maybe, but if someone else is now publishing on there, then the source only becomes a secondary source...now whether is reliable and meets WP:RS or not, thats why we here for. Jrod2 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:SPS personal website are not considered reliable sources, and the web site in question is still a personal web site, even if the original author has passed on to the great wiki in the sky. We could call it a secondary source or a primary source, but it's still not a reliable source. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and this personal web site fails those criteria. Nuujinn (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, this GL is so confusing to so many editors, i better take it to the VP....Nuujinn read carefully the language, it doesn't say that self publish sources "can NOT be used as reliable sources, but that are "largely not acceptable". Then theres that caveat on the next paragraph saying basically that if a SPS is an expert then we sure can. This is the function of this noticeboard...to determine WP:RS. This keeps going round n' round in circles, Yo. Jrod2 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not really in circles, it's really very straightforward. It's a personal website, and we could take the owner of the website as an expert on themselves, although if we do so, we have to be very careful because it falls into BLP. But in this case the web site says the owner of the web site is dead. If we take it as not true, it's de facto unreliable. But if we take it as true, it's not a BLP, but the author of the obit is not the owner of the website, and the obit is thus self published material without any oversight, from an unknown author, and thus we cannot assume the author is an expert and the material is de jure not reliable. Seems simple enough to me. Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Read the stuff above again, your opinions are welcome, but they are just your opinions n' your own interpretation of guidelines. We all are the consensus and if most users feel the site can be used then it's used....if not, then not...it's not complicated. This noticeboard operates with consensus not vote, JIC so you don't misrepresent what im saying...U can post on and on n' until the cows come home what you think our guidelines say, but until the wording of that GL is spelled out, theres still nothing that says SPS primary sources are not acceptable to verify the death of an author. Peace out . Jrod2 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Jrod2, you are not only wrong, your position is entirely preposterous. And completely unsupported by any common sense reading of our policies and guidelines or any current or prior consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ya can say that if it makes ya feel smart but it doesnt change the fact that theres nothing written to support what you're saying [*largely not accepted* dont mean *not accepted*].... if they intended it to be absolutely not acceptable, then they wouldnt have used the word *largely*. Then theres the next guideline both of ya conveniently skip in this discussion :) Dont get personal like that again or ya'll know where it all ends up..;) Jrod2 (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Dont get personal like that again or ya'll know where it all ends up" - there is nothing personal in what I said. Your argument is ludicrous and absurd, but that is not a personal comment about you. Dlabtot (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." Jrod2, are you arguing that Laurence Gardner posted a note to his own website from beyond the grave? And if not, what do you think think the definition of self-published is? Nuujinn (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup Dlabtot, u make perfect sense...no question ya are playing with our board rules in good faith n' respectful manner ...LOL......And you Nuujinn, cant help ya understand that there ain't GLs that say ya can't use SPS as sources to verify death of subject. Thats why I kept saying that a primary-secondary source combo should be enuff. Jrod2 (talk)

First, the specific point is moot; The Independent has reported on Gardner's death.[18] In general, though, I would side with Jrod2 here. We accept someone acting as an agent for a person as part of self-published; after all, when someone puts a notice on their web site, do we require that they have personally edited the actual HTML, and brought up the server? When someone self publishes a book, are they expected to manually push the buttons that set the type and bind the paper? Surely not. Surely half the time they ask a secretary or spokesman or publisher or someone else to do it for them. The web server is maintained by yet another person, or even an independent web hosting company. We accept it as self-published as long as the orders come from them. In this case, I would argue that the person who put up the notice on the web site was acting as an agent for the person himself; yes, even though the person himself is dead. Whoever put up the notice is almost certainly the same person who put up all the other information on this website. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No we don't expect to be manually pushing buttons but we do expect them to be responsible for what's said. Anyway I don't understand the mad rush to report things instantly on Wikipedia, I don't see why there would be a reason not to wait for secondary sources, especially since hacking a website and putting up a death notice does seem like something a malicious prankster would do. It also seems like a lot more harm could come from Wikipedia spreading a false death rumor than could come from Wikipedia waiting until it was confirmed by secondary sources. Dlabtot (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yo Dlabtot, i dont think anyone would disagree with what ya said....the thing is.... this was already published by secondary sources almost simultaneously to that personal site (my initial logic to all this).....sooo like GRuban said, the point is moot. Jrod2 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dosa

is a breakfast eaten in South India for thousands of years. Pat Chapman in his cook book claims Dosa orginated in Udupi, Karnataka. Thangappan Nair, an Indian writer also argues the same in his book.

However, both authors do not attribute their claim. It is also possible Pat Chapman used Thangappan Nair's book as reference. Considering the venerable tradition among Indian writers to document hearsay as history, I am just urging editor User:Gnanapiti to be more careful.

it would be impossible to determine and definitely say Dosa or any traditional Indian food originated anywhere. First, there is no way the first person who made the first Dosa left any evidence behind and/or it is more than likely Dosa evolved from something else which had existed. For these reasons, wikipedia is better served if we attribute the use of the food "Dosa" in some old literature.

I have proposed either the removal of this information or attribute the opinion to the authors and the lack of citations in their book. English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka. However, both books do not mention the source of their claim.

Any suggestion will be appreciated. --CarTick 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too far into the source. The book is published by an actual publisher (i.e. it's not self-published) so the book isn't really required to say "I learned this from X". Saying English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka is acceptable; the However, both books do not mention the source of their claim is not. We're not here to challenge the sources, but rather only to state what the sources say. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
changed the text per your suggestion. but, I still disagree with you that being published by a publisher will make it any more reliable than self-published. i also disagree with you that wikipedia editors can not challenge the authenticity of what we choose to add. --CarTick 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Self-published versus published is one of the key aspects of reliability. If it's published by an publishing company, there's almost always some level of editing and verification done, whereas self-published is the exact opposite. You can challenge the authenticity of sources if there's some reason to do so (e.g. other people have written how the author is full of crap) but in this case, you've got a food writer and another writer coming to the same conclusion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you why I think Thangappan Nair whose 2004 book which predates Pat Chapman's 2007 book (so i believe Chapman bases his reference on Thangappan Nair) can not be considered a serious history book. T. Nair categorically says, "Idli (another south Indian food similar to Dosa), Dosa and Rasam all originated in Karnataka in prehistoric times" without any of the nuances you see in this article which reviews the book written by K. T. Achaya

To provide you some context here, steam vessels are required for Idli making. From the article,

so, how did south indians make Idli if they didnt have steaming vessels?

please compare the nuanced writings of A. T. Acharya with absoluteness of T. Nair. besides, the weasel word prehistoric is generally used by fake historians who hasnt done their research well.

If my words carry any weight, I have never heard of T. Nair being an Indian historian let alone authoritative. --CarTick 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll back up Annyong here, and I'll be even more direct. Wikipedia articles cannot contain editors' personal challenges of the reliability of what we choose to add. Our words, the editors' words, do not carry enough weight to go into articles. Only the words of the sources we cite do. We personally are effectively anonymous and have no credentials, no matter how right we might be. If you can find another published author that disagrees with Nair, we can say "Nair writes X, but Professor Jane Doe writes Y" ... but we can't write "Nair writes X, but an anonymous Wikipedia contributor writes Y", even though, of course, the anonymous Wikipedia contributor might be right. If you are convinced that Nair is wrong, go find a published reliable source that says so, and we'll be able to add that challenge to the article, but we can't challenge without that. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
well, there is a clear misunderstanding or misstatement of my position here. I dont want to be quoted in wikipedia articles and have been around long enough here to know that. I just thought the editing process involves debate about the reliability, authenticity and authoritativeness of sources we choose to use. --CarTick 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What GRuban and others are referring to is the proposed "However, both books do not mention the source of their claim" insertion. This is an argument that you, the editor, is making, and therefore it cannot be included in the article. Both sources meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hustler magazine as a source

Okay, I'm in a dispute over a link and I want to bring it up to the larger community. The specific link in question is this one:

http://www.hustlermagazine.com/features/band-interviews/wendy-lisa-women-of-the-revolution

This link is being used as source for the article on Lisa Coleman (musician), specificly for this statement: "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin". It has been removed by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on the grounds that it is not a reliable source. I contend that it is a reliable source in that it is clearly an interview done with the people in question. Additionally, the website has a number of other interviews with bands.

And just to be upfront, the only other debate I could find to Hustler magazine as a source was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs? where the debate (to my eyes) ended up as no decision.

So... what does the community in general think? Tabercil (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" There is no indication that Hustler has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, particularly as required for sourcing a BLP (and this discussion would be better served at BLPN). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What part of the Hustler article backs up the statement "introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin"? Are you citing it to show that Melvoin was Coleman's girlfriend, or that she was introduced, or what? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's the edit in question [19] — e. ripley\talk 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Browsing through what little (unrelated) discussion there is on the talk page, it appears that there's some question about whether this lady is LGBT, so I'm guessing this edit principally is intended to establish her sexuality. Also, this link is to a Hustler Q&A, so trying to cast doubt on its appropriateness as a source based on whether Hustler checks facts is functionally irrelevant. There's no writer interpretation here, either you believe that Hustler faithfully reprinted this woman's words, or you don't. I see no reason to think that Hustler would have falsified a Q&A. It's not the Washington Post, but it's not someone's fanzine, either. However, it should probably be attributed to her in the article, i.e., "Melvoin said Coleman introduced her to..." — e. ripley\talk 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I edit conflicted with e. ripley while trying to post a comment which essentially said the same thing: as an interview, problems of fact-checking and accuracy are not nearly as significant, especially in the lack of evidence that either of the subjects have publicly objected that they were misquoted. Given that, I'd say it's acceptable in this circumstance, and I agree that it's better that the action be attributed.

The only qualm I have is that the word "girlfriend" is not necessarily an indication of sexuality, since it's frequently used (although perhaps less so than earlier) between two female friends with no connotation of a sexual relationship. So, if the quote is being used as a source for a subject being a lesbian, I think that could problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually the lesbian bit is nailed down by a different cite elsewhere in the article to Out magazine. I remember that cause I was the one who introduced it (see here for diff). And Hullo, the issue is whether Hustler is a reliable source, thus this noticeboard and not BLPN, IMO. Tabercil (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliability is contextual not absolute. We have no reason to quote Hustler on the military career of Napoleon, but we can reasonably conclude that they accurately transcribe interviews, since that's standard journalistic practice. No-one would agree to be interviewed by Hustler if they had a reputation for putting made up words into people's mouths. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Mmmmm...looks aight :) Jrod2 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hustler is an insufficient source for a claim about a living person. It is doubtful that they are the only place this information (whatever it is; the context of the edit is unclear) will have appeared.--Cúchullain t/c 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Why? Because it has pictures of naked lasses in it? How does that make the content of interviews unreliable? Paul B (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No, because it is not demonstrated to be a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We ain't talkin' Playboy here. A gentleman knows the difference. If something appears in Hustler and in no other source, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it has a clear de facto reputation for accuracy in this area, since there is no history or lawsuits for misquotation, and the mag has to conform to norms of journalism if only to avoid being sued. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We have a much higher standard for what qualifies as a reliable source than simply "not having a history of getting sued". In any event the magazine has, in fact, been sued for (among other things) what one could easily call lack of journalistic integrity, if not for actually misquoting interviewees. The fix is simply finding a better source for the information, though it's difficult in this circumstance because it's not clear what exactly the cite is supposed to be supporting.--Cúchullain t/c 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagee. I cannot believe that if this were non-porn magazine that we would having this debate. Reputations are defined precicely by such matters as legal history. You are, I think, confusing respectability with reliabilty. The Daily Telegraph, for example, is deeply respectable, but has a reputation for tendentious unreliability in the reporting of some matters (eg global warming). I dont know if has been sued more or less often that Hustler, but it certainly has been sued. This is not a matter of having "higher" standards, but of relevant and appropriate ones. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of what is meant by "reliability", thank you. On the lawsuit issue, it's not just that the magazine has been sued (as it has, famously); it's that it has been sued specifically for libel, and lost. This has happened at least twice that I know of. I'd say being found guilty of publishing defamation is a pretty severe hit to the old "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Perhaps you could give us some concrete examples of why the magazine should be considered reliable.--Cúchullain t/c 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This describes a grudge match in which legal nicelties are being used to get one over on opponents. The terrible libel here is writing 'has' instead of 'had'. however, it indicates laxity nearly thirty years ago. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/guccione-hustler-magazine-flynt-distributing-37113881#ixzz0xd1z1fkm

You're greatly underestimating here. In one case Hustler was sued for falsely asserting the plaintiff committed adultery; the plaintiff won.[20] In another, a woman claimed Hustler had maliciously asserted she had contracted an STD and had published nude photos that it falsely identified as her; she won.[21][22] Additionally, Jackie Collins successfully sued Hustler's publisher Larry Flynt Publications, and Flynt himself, for publishing nude photos that they falsely claimed were of her. Not seeing a lot of editorial credibility in this outfit.--Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)h
So you have found two cases in a 30 year period. By most standards that's a remarkably clean record. Also, these cases date from the early 1980s, when Flynt saw himself as some sort of counter-culture warrior. That is a long, long, gone era. Virtually every newspaper has been sued at one time or another for mistakes. The Daily Telegraph, to continue the comparison, was sued successfully for libel in 2004 by George Galloway. [23] Is it therefore an unreliable source? That was 6 years ago, not 27 years ago. I think you are using double standards, but I'm sure you will never accept that. As far as I can see we have more evidence that the modern Telegraph is unreliable than that Hustler is. But I suspect you intuit that Hustler is unreliable, and so will hold to these decades old cases. Paul B (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Double standard?" Sorry, that's just a straw man argument. You're the one who brought up the Daily Telegraph, I never said anything about it. I don't know enough about that paper to comment on it, and it's quite irrelevant to this discussion anyway. For the last time, my argument is still that Hustler is a very poor source with no detectable reputation for accuracy; any source this poor should be avoided in a real encyclopedia, especially in a biography. I do not appreciate your comments about what you "suspect" my true thoughts are.--Cúchullain t/c 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be the only editor insisting on this view. I have already explained why the reputation is detectable. Yes, I brought up the Telegraph - precisely because it has been repeatedly asserted here to be a reliable source, including in a section below. I was attempting to demonstrate what I consider to be the unsustainability of your argument, since you asserted "On the lawsuit issue, it's not just that the magazine has been sued (as it has, famously); it's that it has been sued specifically for libel, and lost." If that's the issue, then the Telegraph is an unreliiable source. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's an interview with two people, and it's them talking about stuff they did. Doesn't that fall under WP:SELFPUB - "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the interview supports "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin"? I don't see the word "girlfriend" or "intro" anywhere in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That was actually the first question I asked before. I couldn't find anything similar to that text, but I thought I may have missed something. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article supports the statement. From the article: "WENDY:We grew up together in Los Angeles... When I turned about 15 years old, I came back one summer, and Lisa and I hooked up when we reconnected in our teens and both realized we were gay. (Laughs.) We started a relationship that lasted for about 20 years." So that's from age 15 to 35, or from about 1980 to about 2000 and her joining the Revolution fell in between those dates. And later "WENDY: I joined the band because of Lisa. I spent some time with her on the road during the 1999 tour. Prince’s guitarist [Dez Dickerson] wasn’t showing up to sound checks, and I just happened to be there at the right time. I had already been playing guitar since I was very young. Prince heard me play and asked me to join in on a sound check for “Controversy” with the band." Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think this is a reliable source for this article. I'm bit unsure about how it's being used. I'm not sure how exactly to articulate this, but it seems to require a bit of analysis to draw the conclusions you're getting from the interview, I'm not sure. I would be interested in hearing other editors' opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I can rephrase to more closely align with what the Hustler article states, but I'd first want to know if the source is deemed reliable before going through that effort. Tabercil (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the text above can be translated into "Coleman introduced her girlfriend Wendy Melvoin". It sounds more incidental; perhaps "Coleman was approached by Prince while on the road with Melvoin" or something like that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
While I applaud Hustlers adamant First Ammendment protection stance and the guts to investigate the Bush administration when the rest of the media was cowardly repeating the WMD mantra and playing the drums of war, Hustler does NOT have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and should only be used for non-controversial claims about itself. Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
?? Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself there? On the one hand you applaud them for doing investigative work, which (to me) implies doing due diligence and fact checking, and on the other hand excoriating them for not doing their fact-checking... and to HelloAnnyong: as I said, I can rephrase (your wording is probably close to what I'd end up with). Tabercil (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That someone can be an advocate for Free Speech and yet not be a source for Reliable information is not in any way a contradiction. And the fact that they in one or two instances have done important reporting does not overcome the fact that in general they are not a reliable source. Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Tabercil: Yes, in my opinion, this Hustler article is a reliable source for Lisa Coleman (musician). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
How does a publication come by a reputation for fact checking anyway? Is Hustler renowned for making unsubstantiated claims that turn out to be false? Does it often get sued for libel? It is a mainstream publication, so unless there is a reason for doubting the authenticity of its journalism then it probably meets the criteria for being a reliable source. Obviously, when it publishes an interview it is only reliably reporting what the interviewee is saying. Betty Logan (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Few things to note over here...Is it stating-implying that she is a lesbian a problem??....Is the subject famous enuff to warrant this guideline protection?? Whichever the reason for your inclusion-exclusion of that content, the point of all this is to find out if users think Hustler's circulation is wide enuff to be considered a major (maybe a mid level) reliable publication.... or if Hustler has been historically negligent for not conducting good editorial practices to regard it completely unreliable. I say Hustler, even though they have provocative images (ehmmm:)), it has made efforts to be a relevant entertainment publication n' it does have a full editorial oversight. Jrod2 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem. It's not at all clear what the citation is supposed to support. There are (obviously) other sources for for Coleman and Malvoin being partners; a very quick google news search turned up this interview on the St. Petersburg Times website.--Cúchullain t/c 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Turns out that source has already been added to the article. Problem solved!--Cúchullain t/c 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The question asked her was about the use of Hustler as a source for interviews. Surely, we do not "resolve" a question by evading it. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The question was whether that particular interview in Hustler could be used as a source for this material. Since we now have a source for the same material that is indisputably reliable, the question is rather dissolved. That is, the St. Pete Times backs up the information on her relationship with Melvoin; I think we're still all unclear on whether that's the bit the cite was need at or not.--Cúchullain t/c 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Agreed Paul. The Hustler interview gives details about how Melvoin came to join the band; the St Petersburg article doesn't. Tabercil (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then that's a bit of a different question. My arguments above stand: Hustler has no particular "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as is required especially in BLPs; it has been successfully sued at least twice for libel, etc.--Cúchullain t/c 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This is all still irrelevant. It's a transcribed Q&A with a subject. Either we believe that Hustler is reputable enough not to make up blockquotes from someone, or we don't. I have no reason to doubt that it's a faithful reproduction. So as long as the information being used is properly attributed (Melvoin said that something happened), it's fair game for articles here, subject to the rest of our policies. — e. ripley\talk 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm arguing that we should not be trusting Hustler to accurately reproduce anything, especially in a BLP. If material appears in this magazine and nowhere else, it has no business being in Wikipedia. If it is truly important to the subject, some other source will contain the information.--Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your argument, I just think it's wrong. Your position is far too absolutist. We rarely blanket-ban a source here, much depends on context. If this were an actual article that made these assertions outside of quotations, I could understand it coming in for more scrutiny, particularly as part of a BLP. But this is a binary question; either we trust this publication to make a faithful reproduction of someone's responses to a question, or we don't. My position is that we can trust the magazine to do that, absent some sort of uproar about being misquoted from the person they're quoting, which I haven't seen anywhere. I'm sure you don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. — e. ripley\talk 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I tend to agree with this. I think it'd be wrong to say that Hustler cannot be used at any point on any article ever. There's no reasonable reason to think that they've doctored this interview, so I think it's okay to use here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So.... in summary then: can it be used or not? Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the consensus is that the source can be used for this specific instance. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 16:42, August 25, 2010
This is the same Hustler that Robyn Douglass sued for falsely claiming that she was a lesbian page 410? Of course it's not a reliable source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because the magazine may not happen to have got something wrong in an interview does not make it a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: it makes it a source which can get things right occasionally. If the assertion is correct, it will be well-reported in other publications with a better reputation. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
And that article is being used to support negative claims about a different person and why they left the band. Clearly and unambiguously NOT APPROPRIATE. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Tabercil: Yes, in my opinion, this is a reliable source for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What?!? As best as I can tell, the only item in question that's a claim is that Lisa Coleman replaced Gayle Chapman in the band, and that Wendy Melvoin replaced Dez Dickerson. Which is to me a simple statement, and one which is pretty much self-evident. At the least, CNN viewed it that way because that's how their biography of Prince reads. The Hustler article is no different that that. Tabercil (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

India related article - Iyer

A while back I asked for a re-assessment of Iyer because I noticed many of the sources cited were either inaccessible or did not have good editorial oversight (no reputation of fact checking, no details of who the editors were, etc). One of the websites often used as a source in the article Tamilnation.org is now defunct.

Perhaps this board can help in determining if the sources listed are relable or not. Details at: Talk:Iyer/GA1 Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If a web site is no longer extant, it would be worth checking to see if it is still available in the internet wayback machine archives. Can you provide a couple of examples of sources you feel are problematic, bearing in mind that just because a source is not available via the internet, that does not make it unreliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict regarding source for Conservapedia

Hello. Recently, several editors have been discussing on on the talk page of the Conservapedia article regarding the correct interpretation of a source. The statement in the Conservapedia article that is in question is the following:

Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire.

The statement is sourced by this LA Times article, in which the following statement is where the statement in the article is derived from:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire [...]

The problem that has been brought up is whether or not the source backs up the statement that RationalWikians have vandalized Conservapedia by inserting errors, pornographic photos, and satire. The article states that members of RationalWiki have vandalized Conservapedia, and the article states that vandals have introduces errors, pornographic photos, and satire, but the question lies in whether the latter includes RationalWiki members or whether it does not. Thanks for you time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the latimes is clearly implying that at least some of the vandalism (errors, porno, satire) was done by RationalWiki members. However, the "and elsewhere" implies that others are involved as well. I suggest that this is a case where exactly quoting the source is in order. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"vandals" automatically refers to "interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere" unless otherwise stated. The comment you have currently is correct. I refuse to believe this is actually being argued about elsewhere on Wikipedia, and will now take the position that you have placed this here at ANI as some sort of joke. I am so confident in this I will not even go to the Conservapedia article to make sure it isn't really being discussed there.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Um... Wikiposter... this isn't ANI... this is the Reliable sources/noticeboard (RSN)... which was set up so editors could get guidance and second opinions on exactly this sort of question. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not totally clear, so use a quote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just a rewrite would do it: something like, "RationalWiki members and others have inserted vandalism edits into Conservapedia; such edits have introduced errors, pornographic images, and satire."--Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Cucullan's paraphrasing. "Hit" sounds a lot like a compact way to say what we mean by vandalism. Also a direct quote would be OK, but a bit less elegant. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Chattahbox.com

How reliable would you say chattahbox.com is? It is clearly a news website, and although it seems to have a left-leaning political viewpoint, it is written as one would expect a news site to be. Any thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be an appropriate source for anything. No idea who the people behind it are, no evidence of journalistic credentials, fact-checking or other editorial rigor. It's also described as a subsidiary of "Global EStore LLC" which doesn't sound promising. — e. ripley\talk 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No information on editorial oversight, no reputation for fact-checking. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ESOWatch.com

Can it be considered a reliable source? It has been used by an editor. In a previous discussion here another user said that "it's an open wiki with seven users and 21 articles. It's not a reliable source and we shouldn't be using it directly for biography information." The editor, however, persists in including the info. Please kindly advise. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:19, --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you answered the question right there - it's a Wiki (closed, actually; they don't have open registration) so the text on there is easily edited and easily changed. I would say it's not reliable and shouldn't be used. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If (my mistake) it's actually a closed wiki, and is merely the chosen publishing platform for a small group of people, then it may be acceptable under WP:SPS, depending on the authority of its writers. Note that it's up against a non-peer-reviewed comic-sans PDF, and falls somewhere under WP:PARITY for fringe theories. --McGeddon (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We'd have to know who the writers were to even use it as a self-published source, and they're not particularly forthcoming with this information at their FAQ. As it is it's definitely not reliable, but some of the sources they use may be; I see they link to an article from The Guardian.--Cúchullain t/c 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur, there's no realistic way of assessing the reliability of the authors on esowatch, nor to verify the information if they do not provide a reference to what we would consider a reliable source. It's no more reliable than we are. Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur, their general disclaimer states that As a consequence of our work, we name methods and products of quackery and deceit. The perpetrators don't like that at all. This is why EsoWatch works anonymously, to protect the authors from trouble". There is no way for us to understand who or what is behind the site and as far as I can tell, anyone can join and contribute. It's not RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is about Prahlad Jani who has lived for seventy years without eating or drinking, and an investigation has "confirmed" that he does not need food or water! We do not need gold-plated reliable sources to insert contrary views in such an article. Per WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG, the closed wiki is perfectly satisfactory for the modest statement (diff): "ESOWatch stated that Jani's doctors' claims of no evidence of dehydration were inconsistent with the test results." Obviously, no really reliable source would even bother considering the nonsensical claims made in the article, so we have to rely on other PARITY sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Why would Wikipedia care what ESOWatch states on this matter or any other? Wikipedia only cares what reliable secondary sources write about. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous closed wiki. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PARITY exists for exactly this purpose. These are the ingredients: (a) There is an obviously bogus claim (someone has lived for many years without eating or drinking). (b) An investigation has confirmed that the person does not need to eat or drink (WP:REDFLAG should rule out such absurd claims). (c) Any reliable source would not bother to even think about the nonsense. Wikipedia has to choose: Promote spurious claims unchecked (because no quality source will bother with a response); or, invoke WP:REDFLAG to rule out the claims (because exceptional claims require exceptional and multiple sources); or, invoke WP:PARITY to permit contrary views from corresponding sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with this reasoning. We cannot live with an article giving credence to the idea that human beings can live without food and water. A no-brainer. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the source is not reliable, I don't agree with the above reasoning--we're not about truth, but what is verifiable and reported in reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The point is about WP:PARITY. We cannot accept claims from fringe sources (any source that says people can live off thin air is clearly a fringe source) and then reject alternative points of view on the grounds that only marginal sources have seen fit to comment. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The current status of the Prahlad Jani article is unbalanced with great reverence shown to the sources which seem to verify his claims. And this is after massive reversals and counter-reversals of content. Just look at the history of the article. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) "any source that says people can live off thin air is clearly a fringe source" puts truth ahead of verifiability and policy regarding reliability, although I readily admit the point is moot, since ESOWatch is not reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the case may be with ESSO watch this article currently reads like a news outlet for Prahlad Jani's medical team. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course we cannot use this source, as it fails WP:RS. Nuujinn is exactly right, and we can't say "well, they say crazy stuff, so we can bend the rules to get back at them." WP:PARITY merely states that we need not always use "peer reviewed journals" as sources. And it's quite quick to add "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Wikipedia's purpose is not to proselytize or expose fraud. We're not investigative journalists, crimebusters, or debunkers. We are an encyclopedia, and we stick closely to WP:V and WP:NOR. We reproduce what reliable secondary sources say, that's all. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
These points you are making are self-evident. I don't think anyone here spoke about busting crime or exposing fraud or getting a free pass on policies. If you are happy with the current state of the article that is altogether another matter, but still it is your prerogative. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for participating. I agree with the view that we can not use any means just to debunk exceptional claims. All the reasoning suggested by the detractors of Jani's claims above is their own reasoning, based on their own analysis, outlook and personal logic. We do not even know if it can be trusted outside of their own imagination, because they have absolutely no credible proofs to support their views, except for the fact that the claims they oppose are rare and exceptional, and don't fit into their own understanding of how the things should be. If we start bending the neutrality principle based on such feelings of individual editors we never get a reliable encyclopedic reference, because everyone will try to push his/her own understanding, imagination and views into the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, that article is shocking - I'll take a closer look after the bank holiday. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

haha. that article is glorious, it shows the true power of The Great Mother. सत्यमेव जयते -- Nazar (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis & www.aquaticape.org

There has been a near-perpetual conflict on Aquatic_ape_hypothesis concerning a single source - www.aquaticape.org [24] by Jim Moore. The conflict is "resolved" only when one group or another simply gets tired of arguing and the page lapses into stasis, only to re-emerge with the next editing activity. The problem is that AAH is, depending on how charitable you are, at best an unverified hypothesis which is not taken seriously by the scholarly community and at worst pseudoscience/fringe completely lacking in coherent hypotheses, testable predictions or any substantial evidence. The entire origin of the theory (which we cannot ignore, obviously) is from a non-peer-reviewed science magazine article (spawned from a purely speculative lecture at a non-technical setting) and a non-scientific text by a non-academic publisher, so right there the bar gets set fairly low - all scientific, peer-reviewed sources are either inconclusive, extremely brief, or critical of the idea, including a prominent paper by Langdon which basically tears the theory apart bit by bit. Unfortunately, several claims are not addressed by Langdon, and other sources must be found. Myself and other users have included and argued for the inclusion of the above website due to its extensive nature (printed out, it would take hundreds of pages), excellent use of citations (as much as possible is properly cited to legit scientific papers), prominence (I've never seen a debate on the topic where it *isn't* cited, in part due to the fact that, as a website, it's far more accessible than journal articles), and detailed criticism. Opponents object based on the fact that it's not a peer-review publication (ignoring that the original texts of the idea aren't either), that the author isn't an anthropologist (ignoring that the great recent popularizer of AAH isn't either), that it's unfairly biased against AAH, and simply that it's a website. In the context of this topic (a theory most reputable scientists consider too laughable to bother with), I contend that those who oppose it are simply looking for an excuse to exclude it. However, any argument about it inevitably devolves into the same argument between the same 4-5 people. Requests for help at numerous Wikiprojects have met with either total silence or drive-by opinions.

Frankly, I'm sick of the whole argument, and I'd like a final ruling on whether http://www.aquaticape.org/ is a reliable source or not, especially given the fringe nature of the page topic as a whole. Mokele (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance specifically states "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed." Mokele (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If Moore used good sources, then we can always use his sources.
The exception for fringe ideas is made because there often is no RS for a lot of it. But when there is, we use that. For example, there are plenty of RS's debunking astrology, so we don't need to stoop to self-published websites. For the AAH, we have Langdon. The contrast between Langdon's paper, worthy of a peer-reviewed journal, and Moore's rant is extreme, and nicely illustrates why we prefer peer-reviewed papers. Even when we use non-peer reviewed material for fringe theories, we at least try to keep them reputable, and Moore fails on that account. It's not a matter of censorship, but only of using quality sources. Your argument that we need crack-pot sources to debunk crack-pot ideas cannot be taken seriously.
So, if we cannot find a RS to refute that element of the AAH, we can either leave it as 'citation needed', or remove it. As you've said, Langdon "basically tears the theory apart bit by bit", and we note that it's essentially ignored within anthropology. Isn't that sufficient? — kwami (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
How, exactly, is Moore's site "not reputable" or "crack-pot". Further, point to anything that's actually a "rant". Your sole criterion for the exclusion of Moore is that he disagrees with you and you can hide behind selective application of the rules (which, in fairness, show AAH as a whole is non-notable) to exclude him. Mokele (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, firstly it's at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing_and_attribution. Secondly, WP:SPS is part of WP:V, which is policy and WP:PARITY is only a guideline. Thirdly, it calls for a "reliable website", and presumably that means, at least, "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- which isn't the case here. So it's still no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see this - the guidelines for WP:fringe state that we can use lesser sources when peer-review consideration of the topic is lacking, yet you're applying the non-fringe level of scrutiny to the source, which defeats the purpose of even having a separate set of guidelines when dealing with fringe topics. Mokele (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The exceptions for fringe topics are to allow debunking when we cannot find RSs, not when we can. The requirements for quality/expertise hold regardless. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So if we cannot find a refutation of a particular point in Langdon, but can in Moore, why not use it? You should also know that there's a *tremendous* amount of WP sources to websites considerably less authoritative than Moore - huge sections of the reptile/amphibian pages are sourced to "big name breeders" who have zero academic standing. A quick search reveals 61 separate pages on WP with references to one particular (very helpful, very reliable) self-published website by a non-academic amateur herpetoculutrist. Conversely, the AAH page cites Medical Hypotheses, which is a NON-peer review "medical" journal whose output is nothing but bullshit and newage woo, and that's being charitable. It seems that not only are the rules being inconsistently applied on the AAH page, but also throughout WP, with the stricter versions only being applied if a source becomes the issue of a conflict. Mokele (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If an idea is not controversial, we often don't bother to source it at all, and if we do, no-one's likely to care about the quality of the ref unless the article's up for GA or FA. If the amateur herp sites are being used irresponsibly, then you should delete the refs and mark them 'cn'. I haven't seen the MH ref at AAH; perhaps it should go to. But saying 'these other articles use shoddy research, so I should be allowed to use shoddy research too' has never been considered a valid argument.
But you're exactly right: people only get particular about sourcing when there's some conflict about the claims. The vast majority of WP articles have no sources whatsoever. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
All I ask for is consistency. And my argument is far from what you claim, but rather that sites such as Moore's and anapsid.org should be regarded as reliable sources. Knowledgeable non-academics *can* have meaningful contributions, and to simply discard any website, however well-researched and knowledgeable, over whether they've got nifty abbreviations after their name is a serious flaw in the RS guidelines, IMHO. Mokele (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have half followed the issues at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and want to point out that the problems with the article would disappear if the anti-AAH views could be toned down because the AAH is not anti-science in the same way that is evident in many other mistaken ideas. The Moore source is fine for use in opposition to any equally unreliable pro-AAH sources (such as Morgan herself), but it should not be used as a contradiction in every sentence, and it should not be used to dismiss the subject before the lead manages even to describe the topic. In summary, the Moore source would be ok if used judiciously, but you cannot rely on it to rubbish the topic (it is not that reliable, and as a matter of fact, it is not a reliable source but might be used infrequently per WP:PARITY). Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
'Parity' is specifically about fringe ideas, however, and the AAH is not fringe. (It's marginal/unprofessional, but not WP:Fringe as we use the term.) It's simply an amateur hypothesis which is not inherently unreasonable, but which has never been substantiated, never gained academic acceptance, and which most of the field can't be bothered with. Langdon summarizes that well. The whole point of Moore is to rubbish the idea, rather than to actually evaluate it, and since we have a balanced and peer-reviewed critique, there's no need to stoop to that level. As Kenilworth pointed out, Moore is not even a reliable website, which it would need to be even for the Parity guidelines. (If Leakey had written that site, or even responded to it in a blog, that would be a different matter.) — kwami (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:Fringe, fringe ideas "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", which describes AAH perfectly. It further specifies a list of examples of fringe ideas, including "...ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support...", which again perfectly describes AAH. So yes, AAH is fringe, and claiming otherwise won't make support for it materialize out of thin air.
As for Moore's "rubbishing the idea", it's called "criticism". Science is not the media; we have no obligation to 'present both sides'. If we think an idea is rubbish, we say so. Hell, I've seen someone stand up at a conference and disprove 3 years of a student's work with a single sentence. We are under no obligation to be nice, nor to give author's a pat on the head and a gold star for trying. Welcome to science; if you can't take the heat, go watch cartoons.Mokele (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
'Fringe' has not been used on WP to mean marginal ideas with little support, but for demonstrable nonsense like crystal power and UFOs building the pyramids.
Then why does the official page say otherwise? We're being all official about this in terms of WP:RS, WP:PARITY, WP:Verify - well according to the rules as laid out explicitly on the page, AAH is WP:fringe. Deal. Mokele (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
What Moore is trying to do is not science, but rhetoric: make the other side look bad by any means necessary. Langdon doesn't stoop to that: his criticisms are deserved and fair, and he doesn't attempt to prove what he cannot. Anyway, the point is moot, because we have RSs for the article that adequately illustrate why the AAH is not taken seriously by academia, and even if we didn't, Moore's site would not be acceptable for the reasons Kenilworth gave: We don't pretend to give expert opinion from non-experts. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Show me where Moore makes and unfair criticism. Link to it. Show me where he engages is ad hom. Link to it.
Furthermore, Kenilworth never explained why, in spite of the WP:fringe page indicating relaxed guidelines on sources, this page is unacceptable, nor have you aside from your knee-jerk dislike of Moore.

What I came here for was actual explanations, and if it turns out that Moore really isn't a reliable source even under the relaxed WP:fringe rules, fine. What I did NOT come here for was yet another argument with you, kwami; I can have that on the AAH page. You've managed to once again drown out any other conversation in a torrent of bias. Now please, shut the hell up and let someone who ISN'T INVESTED IN THE ISSUE get a word in edgewise. I hoped for a discussion on this topic and outside opinions, not the same old fight with the same old person, something more sophisticated that blindly reading the rules to me.

Hmm, it's a bit difficult to discuss the issue at length as you demand and shut the hell up at the same time. But as you've said, I can have this level of discourse with you on the AAH page. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, discussion reboot: AAH is a WP:fringe idea not taken seriously by any reputable scientist. However, it is also notable enough to warrant it's own page. This creates a problem in terms of sources - most only mention it in passing (a few lines here and there), with the entire origin of the theory in two sources (neither of which meets WP:RS), and only a single substantial critique that does meet WP:RS.

So, when a WP:Fringe subject clearly warrants an article, but sources are thin on the ground, what then? Is it acceptable to use a potentially non-RS website to address a claim from a non-RS book? Especially when leaving the claim unaddressed leads to problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:PARITY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokele (talk • contribs) 03:03, August 26, 2010

Per my comment above: The Moore source fails WP:IRS because it presents commentary on evolutionary topics written by an amateur ("I don't have any formal credentials in evolutionary science"[25]). However, the source may be sufficiently reliable (per WP:PARITY) for judicious use: do not use it to rubbish the AAH (Moore is not sufficiently reliable for that); do not use it counter every point in the article (one unreliable source is not sufficient for that); do not use it to dismiss the subject before explaining the topic. Moore's source is a self-published site dedicated to attacking the AAH, so even if you know that everything on the site is correct, it is still not a suitable source to conclude that the AAH is rubbish. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so we've got one absolute against (Kenilworth) and one OK if used sparingly (Johnuniq). Anyone else? Mokele (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think no. To reiterate what others have said already, WP:PARITY says that debunking sources don't necessarily need to be as high quality as a peer reviewed journal (though those are preferred if available), but they still need to be reliable. I don't see any support for this site being an RS.--Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
First as to the WP:FRINGE issue... WP:FRINGE is more about what fringe material may be included in Wikipedia (and how to include it) than it is about what can not be included. The guideline states that we may include Fringe topics if mainstream sources (not necessarily academic sources) have discussed it (even if that discussion is to rip it to shreds or disparage it). So the very fact that Langdon has ripped it to shreds means that it is worthy of a Wikipeida article.
So we now come to how to write about it. It sounds as if people are trying to use these sources to either "prove" that AAH is correct, or "Prove" that AAH is rubbish. If so, that is the wrong approach (see WP:NPOV)... What we should be do is bluntly and neutrally state the facts about the theory: Starting with a basic outline telling the reader what the AAH is a theory proposes. We can then move to neutral discussion of what proponents say about the theory and then what critics say about the theory. End of article.
Since the main proponent of AAH is Moore, his opinion on the AAH matters within in the context of this article. NPOV demands that we state what his opinion on AAH is (giving it due weight). In doing so we should phrase any discussion of his opinion as being an opinion. The same goes for Langdon as the main critic. NPOV demands that we discuss his views on AAH (giving them due weight), however we should also phrase it as being an opinion. Don't attempt to "prove" anything... just give the bald narrative facts. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Moore is an opponent of AAH, along with Langdon (Moore's site simply covers more stuff), with Morgan being the main proponent. Does that change your view on using his site? Mokele (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Johnuniq and Blueboar. I think the source can be used, but with extreme restraint, to document Moore's view of AAH in view of the controversy surrounding the topic. We're outside the realm of hard science here, and the AAH proponents also lack credentials, so I see no reason to exclude Moore on that basis --Nuujinn (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Moore is a critic, not a proponent. But he's still not a reliable source as far as I can tell.--Cúchullain t/c 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps part of the issue is simply the structure of the article which "allows " fringe theory claims because no mainstream scientist has taken them seriously enough to debunk them and a restructure of the entire article will allow the "theory" and its "impact" to be placed in appropriate context and addressed in an valid encyclopedic fashion that is solely based on WP:RS wihtout WP:UNDUE. I am not sure what that restructuring might looke like, but those more familiar with the sources out there may. Active Banana  ::::( bananaphone 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with WLU and your assessment of the article structure. Unfortunately, I'm *swamped* with RL work at the moment, and the thought of a sustained fight with kwami, chakazul, and the other AAH proponents over every slightly critical sentence is just too draining; I have *real* science to do. Mokele (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we've got some more No responses and more Limited Use responses. Anyone else? I'm hoping for some stronger level of consensus, to forestall future arguments on the page. Mokele (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what Moore can and cannot be used for in the general sense. For example, Johnuniq's list of how Moore should not be used above seems reasonable to me at first blush. Nuujinn 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Quarterly

Can the Islamic Quarterly, and more specifically this [26] be considered a reliable source in history of science-type articles? My own feeling is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. It is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed publication on the subject, nor do its articles provide bibliography. It was heavily used by User:Jagged 85, subject of this RfC/U [27] for using shoddy sources for agenda-based editing, among other things. As part of a proposed cleanup following the RfC/U, I would like to know if this source should be allowed to stand or be removed. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a RS, for the reasons you give. If valid, those claims should be verifiable in peer-reviewed articles or respectable books on the history of Islamic science, but the lack of a bibliography makes them problematic.
I don't know about IQ, but I've seen other religious publications claim that their religion predicted later scientific findings, so such claims need to be taken with a lot of salt. For example, in the case of Islam, I've seen claims that the Koran correctly describes the Earth orbiting the Sun, though I've never seen a translation which reflects this, and with my limited Arabic it would appear it does not say it. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a piece of propaganda designed to "prove" the superiority of Islam in a backhanded way. The claim that the al-Jahiz influence Lamarck and Darwin is, frankly, laughably absurd. It's a revisionist piece created to support a predetermined outcome. Having read that one article, i'd consider the whole publication suspect.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Why would we want to use something like that when there are scientific journals on every subject under the sun? Looking at the home page, I can't find anything about the editorial board, editorial policies or well.. anything, it seems to be a black-hole. I would remove as non-RS unless someone can make a convincing argument otherwise. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The best link to use for people wanting a quick overview of the problem is WP:Jagged 85 cleanup.
No, the source is not reliable for such WP:REDFLAG claims. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a website authored by an English professor, an Arabic translator/Qur'an teacher, and someone who has written several "How to" books on Islam from obscure publishers. It would not qualify as a WP:RS for science or history (or history of science) topics. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the others; it would appear that the site itself isn't reliable, and the "evolution" article more so.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blog reproducing the Irish Daily Mail

I made this revert on the basis that it was wasn't sourced correctly. The source is a reproduction of an Irish Daily Mail article in blog. The paper itself doesn't reproduce online. Could this info be re-introduced in the basis of the current source? GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific source being cited? Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's reproduced in a post on a forum, which is ultimately the source regardless of where it originated. However a quick google on the story brings up a copy archived at "Findarticles.com" so you can replace the source with that: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8003/is_2010_Feb_21/ai_n50161869/. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Forum posts are almost never reliable for anything, even for convenience links to what might otherwise be considered reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorted, another source has been found, thanks folks! GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Central bank

An editor recently added a POV tag to the top of the Somalia article based on a few sentences in the economy section, which he suggested advanced an 'Austrian economic' agenda. Although the statements in question were actually factual assertions and not value judgements, after much arguing back and forth, I nonetheless attempted to accommodate the user's concerns by replacing those sentences altogether with material from the Central Bank of Somalia, among other reliable sources. However, according to the user, the Central Bank of Somalia itself is now apparently also an unreliable source. In his words, it represents a "source with a conflict of interest in describing Somalia's economy" and is "also not an organization of economists, not necessarily reliable". Basically, it's like arguing that the Federal Reserve is not a reliable source on the US economy; it's a tall order. I have tried reasoning with the editor, and explained to him that the Central Bank of Somalia is actually the nation's monetary authority and that the former Governor of the Bank [28] is also the Alternate Governor of the Islamic Development Bank Group. However, to no apparent effect. I would therefore like to know what is Wikipedia's policy on this issue, and whether economic material from a country's own central bank indeed qualifies as unreliable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be perceived as not being impartial, especially if its policy and decisions impact on the economy. The best type of sources for economic appraisal are economists who write for high quality newspapers, especially those with an economic specialism like The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times. Obviously news organisations aren't always impartial but at least they are third-party. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've already cited material from reliable third-party sources such as the CIA and the British Chambers of Commerce, but he has complained about those too as being 'unreliable'. That same "conflict of interest" argument could also conceivably be leveled at most other government agencies/publications, although ironically those are more often than not the very source of most economic information on a given country; no other authority has quite the insight into a country's economy as its own chief economic agencies. This is why, for example, the US article repeatedly cites various figures and economic facts from the Federal Reserve regarding that country's own economy. The same goes for the Malaysia article and its central bank. The user specifically claimed that it's a conflict of interest issue; however, I've consulted the relevant WP:COI policy, and it only pertains to editors, not to sources. So I don't think a policy actually exists which forbids the use of government publications/material vis-a-vis a country's own sectors. Middayexpress (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Material from the CIA World Factbook, the British Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Bank of Somalia would all be considered reliable sources for these purposes, particularly the first two. Jayjg (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. That is precisely what I figured. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that it may seem obvious that a Central Bank would be a good source of information on the economy. However, if you actually take a look at the [Bank of Somalia page] cited by Middayexpress, it is very descriptive and has good statistics, but is also clearly entrenched in marketing the Somalian economy. He is not citing it for statistics, for the most part, but rather, is using it to say that the Somalian economy is not impoverished. That is not included on that website, because they do not want people to know. In the majority of other reliable sources, the poverty of Somalia is always stated. That includes the BCC, a World Bank paper he removed (after I pointed out that it conflicted with the point he was trying to make), and other sources on the Somalia page (and other sources in general).
By the way, he or she added that after what I said without telling me. He or she seems to be trying to claim that I disagreed with that as a reliable source, most likely to discredit me, but that is misleading because I never criticized that source. He also removed other sources that I pointed out stated that Somalia was in poverty, such as a World Bank source previously included) state that Somalia is impoverished. This user is engaging in highly aggressive tactics of obfuscation, intimidation, and filibustering. Nikurasu (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I know that second paragraph sounds testy, and it is not directly relevant. He is basically harassing me though, trying to incite me, and doing subtle ad hominem and defamation. He's also violating numerous other Wikipedia policies, especially generally doing bad faith editing to try to enforce his viewpoint, and no one is doing anything about it. If the evaluation is sound, is that not a legitimate concern? I am not sure what the point of policies preventing harassment or ad hominem are if being upset is a criteria to exclude you from saying you are feeling harassed or being attacked personally. I would think being upset, at least briefly, is a direct result. As you can see though, I have cooled down. Where can I take these concerns? To the RFC page?
I also never cited WP:COI as Midday claims I did. I merely mentioned that a conflict of interest is a way to judge bias. I have seen administrators decide that a page was biased for taking the description almost directly off of a coroporate website, for example. I am pretty sure that is against some policy. Middayexpress also did not change the substance of the economy section. He merely added statistics solely supporting the point of view that was already in place, and changed the citations that I criticized as biased. In one case, he did not even change the wording, but just removed sources. I specifically stated that the exclusion of the fact that Somalia was impoverished did not reflect most reliable sources, and it was not NPOV. He did not address that concern. He did not debunk. What he did was change the sources on the page, and deny every source that said Somalia was impoverished. He would not even discuss them, eventually. He would just get a new source, and refuse to acknowledge the other source. I would also like to mention that none of the changes he has made have been consensus. All have been unilateral action. Nikurasu (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried to discuss it on the article page? If you have done, and there are just two parties involved in the discussion then request a third opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There have actually been about 5 or 6 people participating in this discussion, but Middayexpress has scared every single one away aside from me with intimidation, filibustering, and harassment. At the moment, only he or she and I are left. To be totally clear though, I came in after those people had left, and one came back (albeit briefly) to state that he or she would not continue the discussion. I could request a third opinion, but there already is a third opinion. Midday is essentially just ruling the page with his unchecked inappropriate behavior.Nikurasu (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, all of those previous discussions on that talk page pertain to earlier versions of the article, not to the present. The page has been majorly rewritten since then; this is something I have repeatedly pointed out too. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So many factual untruths. For starters, the user indicates that the Central Bank of Somalia (or "they" in his words) "do not want people to know" that the Somali economy is apparently "impoverished". This is rather interesting, since the Central Bank itself voluntarily cites Somalia's GDP per capita as well as the percentage of the population that lives on less than a dollar a day -- both of which I've in turn cited in the Wikipedia article (also note that the GDP per capita that the Central Bank cites is actually lower than that reported by the CIA, odd for an apparently self-serving institution). Contrary to what has been suggested, the British Chambers of Commerce likewise does not in any way contradict what the Central Bank of Somalia asserts; it actually summarizes the economy as follows: "Despite the absence of a state structure, many sectors are operating successfully and entrepreneurs are making good in Somalia". Furthermore, the World Bank source that the user alludes to is a very old one, which is why I removed it in the first place as I already explained to that user. It describes the state of the economy from over seven years ago, not the present. The "scarcity of capital" it alludes to caused by the "absence of any formal banking" sector, for starters, is a thing of the past. The Central Bank of Somalia was of course recently re-opened by the Transitional Federal Government that was established in 2004 (also after the report was both prepared and published), and as the CBS itself points out [29], money transfer operators have acted as informal banking networks: "Besides the outright cash transactions, the payment system in the country is fairly advanced despite the absence of a Central Monetary Authority over the past fifteen years of civil war; thanks to the investments in telecommunications network by the private sector that have enabled operations of private remittance companies to make both local and international monetary transactions possible". Many of these money transfer operators are even "expected to seek for licenses so as to graduate into full fledged commercial banks in the near future and thereby broaden the scope of payments system in the country to include cheques which will reinforce effectiveness of use of monetary policy in the macroeconomic management." As for the user's claim that he "never criticized" that British Chambers of Commerce source that I added to the article, even if it were true (it likely isn't since his very next edit after I had added material from that source and the Central Bank was to indicate that they represented "fringe viewpoints" [30]), it still doesn't make it or what it asserts any less reliable. Lastly, I never indicated that he "never cited WP:COI", as the user falsely claims. As can clearly be seen in my comments above, I said that the "user specifically claimed that it's a conflict of interest issue". And of course, the relevant policy for that is WP:COI, which only pertains to editors, not to sources. Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
You are right, you did add that to the article. I no longer have any dispute. Thank you. I apologize for being so aggressive.Nikurasu (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. We all make mistakes. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:No footnotes

This is not directly about what is a reliable source, but rather where in an article a reliable source may be considered to be cited.

There is a proposal to alter the Template:No footnotes from

to

The request was initially made back December 2009 in Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification. I made a bold edit to remove "related reading or external links," but it was reversed.

The conversation is split over two talk pages and a user's talk page

It would be most useful if people who regularly contribute to this talk page were to discuss on Template talk:No footnotes#Clarification whether the string "related reading or external links," should or should not be removed from the template. -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Danielle R. Sassoon, The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242

The Security Council Resolution 242 article contains a subsection, about a common law maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which is sourced to Danielle R. Sassoon, "The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242: The Story of how Resolution 242 was Undone Before it was Even Finished", New Society, Harvard College Student Middle East Journal, September 7, 2007.[31]

The author was an undergraduate (class of 2008) majoring in history and literature. The article was posted to the student blog by the founding editor of the "New Society, Harvard College Student Middle East Journal", Julia Bertelsmann, a junior at Harvard College studying Economics.[32] I think the article gives undue weight to the legal opinions of an author with no apparent qualifications.

Sassoon says "The legal principle “expression unis et exclusion alterus” affirms that excluded terms must be understood as deliberately excluded and the document’s interpretation must be tailored correspondingly." She cites an Abba Eban quote from Sydney Bailey, The Making of Resolution 242. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985. page 155. Neither Bailey nor Eban mention the common law maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius". Many UN member states do not have legal systems that incorporate the maxims of English common law. In addition, many legal scholars have written that the inclusion of explicit clauses about the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, and the requirement for respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty of every state in the area demonstrates that the Security Council did not intend to create loopholes in the norms of international law for Israel's benefit. See The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions', by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1 [33]

Sassoon incorrectly claims "the condemnation of territorial acquisition is confined to and separated in the preamble, detached from the actual outline of principles for a negotiation." The official 'Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council' [34] contains an analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968 which explicitly states that the preamble of resolution 242 contains several substantial measures that govern the settlement. See for example "IV Measures for Settlement" - "E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement" - "1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement" - "(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, Situation in the Middle East(II): decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble", on page 5, column 2:[35]

Sassoon argues that the French version of the resolution is not authoritative: "As the official document, the English text holds the authority, but the French and Soviets maintained otherwise." In fact, US Secretary of State Rusk and UK Foreign Minister Brown both stated the French version was equally authentic and legitimate. Brown said that he had discussed that issue with the Israeli government, and that they were aware of it. See Rusk "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389; and Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209 [36]

Sassoon argues that the omission of the definite article in the English version makes the intention clear and that Ambassador Goldberg's remarks to the Security Council on 7 November 1967 confirm that fact. However, Goldberg was instructed on 9 November 1967 to make a statement to the Security Council on behalf of the US government that the text of the resolution would not prejudice the position of those directly concerned, See the verbatim minutes of the Security Council, para 190, page 22: [37] and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 521, para 5 & 6 [38] harlan (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a RS to me - I would remove it myself but that would then involve me with batshit crazy I/P mentalists and I try and avoid that at all costs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a blog post by an undergrad can be considered an RS for something as contentious as an opinion on international law relating to I/P. --FormerIP (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree it is most likely not an RS, she is not qualified in the field. However, the sources she cites may or may not be useful. Agree with CS, I also avoid the area having been burned by it years ago. I take it we are talking about the bit in Res 242 calling on Israel to withdraw from "territories" rather than "the territories" in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The source that Sassoon cited is Sydney Bailey's book on resolution 242. It does not mention the legal maxim "expression unis et exclusion alterus". harlan (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LIterateur.com (Interviews with authors)

The online literary magazine Literateur publishes interviews with poets, novelists, etc. containing biographical material that is often not available elsewhere. As per WP:IRS, it seems to me that these interviews would be an acceptable external link or reference for author biographies in Wikipedia as long as (quoting here from the policy)

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In the course of an editorial dispute resulting from the publisher of Literateur adding links to some interviews, later links made from other accounts were dismissed as spam and the site listed for blacklisting.

To quote one contribution to the discussion there, "This might meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Even then, I think any decision to use an interview from such a site should be only made by trusted, established, neutral editors after a talk page discussion as to how that source uniquely benefits the article in providing information not otherwise available." I feel that such a requirement presents an unnecessarily high hurdle. I would prefer to see "trusted, established, neutral editors" discuss the matter here, and reach a decision. The following thread also references this source: [39] Questionic (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to advocate for a site that has been spammed into Wikipedia. I have given the person who is promoting the site some good advice at WP:ELN#I am not Pohick2! (take a break, do some other editing, approach a WikiProject, proceed slowly). It would be better for Wikipedia if other editors were to support that advice because it is disruptive when someone arrives and does almost nothing other than to add links in multiple articles to one website. Actually, it was two registered users and eight IP addresses who added links (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#literateur.com). Suppose you are correct, and the site is great, and should be linked from multiple articles. The best strategy is still what I outlined above. There is no deadline and we do not need these links added urgently. Even giving it a rest for a week, then starting slowly, with discussion on an appropriate subject talk page, would suffice. There is no need to ram it through. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the appropriate place to seek the opinion of experienced editors about interviews published by the site literateur.com. Looking back at the history of this dispute, it was on April 1, 2010 that Youngpossum complained that all links to Literateur.com, whether posted by himself or by some other person, were being systematically hunted down and deleted as spam by one editor. The fact that over a period of at least 5 months, 2 other registered users and 8 IP addresses who are presumably not experienced editors tried to add links to the magazine -- is that the threshold for declaring a spam attack, worthy of blacklisting the site? I agree that spamlinks are disruptive and am grateful that admins work hard to block them. If the Encyclopedia Britannica had first been linked to inexperienced enthusiasts, would that make it "a site that has been spammed into Wikipedia"? The issue of which sites are good sources of information should be entirely separate from the strategy of educating or punishing newbies who have violated Wikipedia policy. Questionic (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
First, my bona fides: I have no connection to Literateur.com and only marginal interest in James S. Shapiro. I'm also an opponent of spam and self-promotion. But when I read the Literateur.com interview posted at Shapiro's article, I liked it. It is quality work. It seems unreasonable to me that an interview that might have been published in a major print journal should be disallowed just because of the way it got to Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources mentioning fan-created content for video-game

I know the headline is confusing, but hear me out. I primarily edit video-game articles on Wikipedia, and I've found that a lot of the articles contain info about "unofficial" content, whether it's unofficial patches or "mods". Most of the time, such content has not received any coverage in by independent, reliable sources, while some do, but in a way that I'm unsure about, like the article Precursors. This link [www.gamebanshee.com/news/99349-the-precursors-and-white-gold-war-in-paradise-english-translation-patches.html] was used to support keeping mention of a translation patch in the article, and I see three problems here: The editor who added mention of the patch, is the patch's creator. The next one is the most important: The source, GameBanshee, has been listed as reliable, but the article was written about a week ago, and says that the creator contacted them. Having had disputes with the same guy on other pages about similar patches he has produced and added mention of to other articles, I'd say that disqualifies the source because he himself contacted them to get attention for the patch, and, most probably, to get a chance to re-add the patch with a reliable source. Am I off-base when I think this is a violation of WP:SPS? I don't think that's fair play when you cite a reliable source that you yourself contacted to get your content listed/noticed, in connection with a content dispute. This might seem awfully specific for this section, but this is a situation that I find myself in often when I clean up video-game articles, and that's why I'm drawing on this particular example: I need to know if coverage similar to the article above -- very short article with mostly info from the patch/creator -- acceptable? And does it make a difference if the author of the content is shown as having contacted the site/source? Another example of what I mean can be found here[40], and [41]. These are sources that are currently being discussed in the Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, and I'd like to get some feedback on these kinds of sources -- short mentions in reliable sources, often instigated by the authors themselves. I'm gonna run into this situation again, so I need to clear this up first. Sorry if this was written in a confusing way, but it is a confusing issue. Eik Corell (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Eik Corell: What makes you think that gamebanshee.com is a reliable source? It looks like a fan site to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

World (magazine)

Is the Christian news publication World (magazine) a reliable sources for reporting facts about another Christian publication, Sojourners? It reported on issues of the funding of Sojourners by outside groups. An editor has challenged its reliable source status. Drrll (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick-check and it wasn't so much a general RS check on World as on the particular use. The editor here seems to concerned with the use of an opinion piece as a reliable source for funding, and I'd have to say I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps there are better sources for that information? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I could use other sources, but as far as I know, it was World that first reported this information in the opinion piece, and my understanding of WP:RS is that opinion pieces can be used as long as there is attribution to the author of the piece. Drrll (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you're using the source as proof that Sojourners accepted the money, which goes beyond the exception carved out in WP:RS#Statements of opinion. Also, we don't worry about who published something first--if there's another, reliable source, that source should be cited instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The language in WP:RS#Statements of opinion seems to clearly allow use of opinion pieces for statements of fact, as long as there is proper attribution:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
Drrll (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Reread the sentence you just quoted, concentrating on not for statements of fact without attribution. If an op-ed column attributes the statement of fact, go look at their source; if they don't, it's bloviation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So the "attribution" refers to others sources, and not "attribution" to the author of the opinion piece? Drrll (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, to the sources the op-ed uses; if we meant to distinguish anonymous op-eds (which are extremely rare) we would have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ghanaians in the United Kingdom

Over at Ghanaians in the United Kingdom, this book is being used as a source for a statement that there are 1.5 million Ghanaians in the UK, according to the Ghanaian High Commission in London. That's a very high figure. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 93,000 Ghanaian-born people in the UK, and the total number of black Africans in the 2001 census was only 485,277. Moreover, the source states that there may be 850,000 Ghanaians in London alone. If this were true, they'd make up 10 per cent of the capital's population. I'm a bit suspicious of these figures, to say the least. It seems odd to me that the source states "estimates suggest that the number of Ghanaians who are officially registered with the Ghana High Commission...". Surely this isn't something that would be estimated? People are either registered or not, so no estimate needs to be made. What are people's thoughts on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Larry, we should take care to represent official figures and if they are disputed then possibly comment about them with attribution but a excessive figure that sits in isolation is undue to report. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the book's estimate could be mentioned in a footnote or something (because it's from a seemingly reliable source), but it seems implausible and probably inaccurate nonetheless. According to Black British, there are only about 1.5 million Black British people total, and surely not every single one of them is Ghanaian. I agree that "estimating" the number of officially registered people doesn't make sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Internet Movie Firearms Database

Is the imfdb considered a reliable source? My guess is that it is not, considering that it is a Wiki, with entirely user-generated content. I removed it from the external links of a film article, and wanted to get some opinions from other editors about its appropriateness. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this was in the external links section and wasn't being used to reference material, the designation of being a "reliable source" doesn't really matter. WP:EL applies instead of WP:RS. I do agree with the removal since the link was to an open wiki and (at least in my opinion) contains an objectionable amount of copyright violations (unless they have permission to host all of those screenshots). ThemFromSpace 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
External links have their own criteria. The one that applies here is WP:ELNO:12 which states "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." So the only consideration is whether the IMFDb fulfils those criteria for inclusion. Personally I don't have a clue. Maybe the best way to look at it is to consider whether the link leads to something that is informative and could enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe it would "enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic." What it amounts to, it seems to me, is a great deal of speculation and original research (I just took some time and perused the site and their standard for inclusion are very low) on the part of movie fans. It's interesting, perhaps, but is one's understanding of the film enhanced by knowing what sort of pistol Al Pacino was carrying? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess it would depend on what you want out of your movie experience. Some people do like that sort of minutiae. However I picked a few articles at random and none of them are sourced, so I'm not sure how useful it really is. This probably isn't a very helpful comment, sorry about that. I guess given the lack of sourcing I would place it somewhere in the same camp with a fan site or fan blog. — e. ripley\talk 02:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR does not apply. It would be a case by case basis thing. What's the article, and what's the link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Also, there's a difference between maximal fair use (which we don't allow), and copy vios (which we can't even link to). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The page is Heat (1995 film), the site is http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=Heat, one of the edits in question is [42]. I'd say it looks beyond fair use to me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That's probably not appropriate to link to, but you'd be surprised how many screenshots you can use if you comment on each one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
imfdb.org has existed since May of 2007, the main page of which has over 6.5 million hits, and has in excess of 1,700 named movie articles, as well as 900 individual weapons articles, contributed to by over 900 editors. I am not even a registered user there - but as a firearms enthusiast - it is very well known in the community as the go-to place for cross-referencing weapons and tv/cinema. It is clearly obvious that the site is quite significant and with valid substance. While being far from complete - it is of course growing, and might I remind you all that WP started small once - with even fewer articles and editors - and is just as open of a wiki. Just because it isn't WP doesn't mean it isn't a valid resource. The fact that it is using screenshots in violation of copyright is inconsequential to WP, and is far from the first sourced site to do so. Just my $.02 Srobak (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
My main problem is that it seems almost completely unsourced. As such there's no way to check their work, so to speak. — e. ripley\talk 18:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Screenshots of the actual weapons from footage would serve as a pretty good source, no? There are enough contributors who are very well versed in the weapons listed that it would be corrected or edited as needed - much like how WP is. Besides - it is the first real resource of it's kind, short of the WP List of Firearms which can also be used to verify particular firearms themselves, but lacks any cross with film or tv. Sorry - I just don't think it is exactly fair to discount something like this as a frame of reference just because it has never been done before. Another resource of this nature simply does not exist - and if it did it would be the result of the exact same methodology. There simply are no other resources to cite other than your very own eyes. It is obviously the work of some very dedicated individuals who do see a need for something like this, and honestly functions very much in the same fashion as the IMDB - 99% of which refers to itself for its references - yet is sourced very frequently here on WP. Other resources like IMDB and WP exist due to the very same roots. Srobak (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think screenshots are acceptable as a source. Wikipedians aren't sources for anything, and unless you're some sort of recognized firearms expert, I don't see why I or you or anybody else here should be relied upon to give their opinions based on their viewing a photograph of a gun. Just because something else doesn't exist, doesn't make what does exist a WP:RS. Also, IMDB often is not considered a particularly good source, so that's not such a good comparison for the purposes of supporting your argument. Beyond which, isn't this an open wiki? That disqualifies it on its face, any other arguments aside. It still doesn't pass muster with me, I'm afraid. — e. ripley\talk 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If you ran a search on the number of times WP articles cite IMDB articles as sources - you would probably crash the whole darned thing. :) Shall we begin pruning now, or do we want to re-think that point of invalidity? Yes, I'd like a serious answer to that. WP is as much of an open wiki as IMFDB is. Other than clarification on the IMDB thing - I can see we are going to get nowhere on this, and that is truly disappointing. Who is anyone here as individuals or a collective to invalidate the work of someone else or another group of people whose mission and goal is the same as that of WP? Srobak (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is all really irrelevant, since as an open wiki it's not considered a WP:RS. Incidentally, Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source, either. — e. ripley\talk 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for not answering. I'll start pruning IMDB links and refs immediately, citing your statement for foundation. Thanks! Srobak (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I have answered; this is not a reliable source. Please don't put words in my mouth (though I have no love for IMDB as a source on a personal level). If you want a consensus answer about imdb as a source, search the reliable sources noticeboard archives (here's the last discussion about it [43] although it's by no means the only one). Also, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — e. ripley\talk 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not making a point, no one is putting words in your mouth (your exact words are cited), and it is no more of a disruption than removing IMFDB is from articles. It's called applying equal logic. If support for an argument works in one case with certain criteria, then it works in another case which has the same or similar criteria. Bending arguments to suit needs is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to the WP mission. The same logic that applies to that archived consensus for IMDB applies for IMFDB. This isn't about having your cake and eating someone else's too. Uniform Logic & Application of Standards is a Good Thing (tm) Srobak (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
IMFDB can only be considered as a reliable source only if documents like original fee receipts of the firearm rented for a movie are included as a pdf in respective articles. Otherwise just by viewing a photograph of a gun does not even prove if a metal replica was used. Had this website been published by expert (and established) armorers only then also it could have been taken as a reliable source. never stop flying (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

SpikeTV and Asia Carrera

Is this source reliable for this birth information? Another editor has opined that it is not, and that it may have simply gotten that info from Wikipedia itself. Nightscream (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking blogs aren't reliable sources of information. Especially not for living people. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider pro-football-reference.com reliable?

I'm considering bringing an NFL article to FA, and many of the existing cites are to Pro-Football-Reference.com. Here is a link to the "about" page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: Yes, I would consider Pro-Football-Reference.com a reliable source. This site is operated by Sports Reference which has been previously found to be reliable at WP:RSN.[44][45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this book be ok to use?

[46] for this edit, In their book Climate of Extremes, Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling wrote "For our money the best climate blog out there is Climate Audit" mark nutley (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For what edit? Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
For the edit i proposed above :) now in italics so it`s clearer :) sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, for what article? Might be okay for some, coatrack for others. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry again, it`s for Climate Audit comments and crit section mark nutley (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews from rpg.net

It has been suggested at Talk:Master_of_Magic#RPG.net that rpg.net site is not a reliable source. User:Jappalang wrote: "rpg.net has nothing to demonstrate its reliability in the Wikipedia sense. It is simply "an independent web site about tabletop roleplaying games" with no editorial policy nor heavy reliance by academic, scholarly, or media sources." I agree with Jappalang second sentence, but I do wonder if this makes the site unreliable? It is a notable website that posts game reviews; in fact our article on the website even has a section dedicated to their reviews :) Sure, it is not peer reviewed, but is it not a valid source of uncontroversial game information? PS. If the consensus is that it is not a reliable source, those links need to be checked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

SpicyNodes

The creator of this article has asked if the 'notability' tag can be removed, and I'm not sure; they've added lots of references, but most are probably not reliable sources, and e.g. the BBC reference really is the barest of passing mentions; it will take some time to check through, hence asking for input from others here. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Project

I think it has been asked already, but I have to ask this question: Is Joshua Project project reliable? It does not seem to be neutral. Can it be used as a source? For example, White Argentine and Kurdish diaspora articles use this project for finding the numbers of particular ethnic groups. Kavas (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed here in the past, but without any definitive conclusion. It is in the website's interest to have as accurate information as possible, and, despite their "mission", they would not have any particular reason to distort the numbers in any way. However, their authoring process, and editorial oversight and controls are unclear to me. I'm having a hard time assessing this one. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations of Transformers

There is a mass nomination of Transformer related articles such as Buzzsaw (Transformers), Alice (Transformers) and a few others. My concern is some article use websites such as [47] and [48] as third person sources. Surely these websites aren't considered reliable or independent sources of information are or they not is the question. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard William Hunt

This article (not a BLP, the subject died in 1979) has been flagged for notability. The only source used in it is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2001/hunt-autobio.html, which is the autobiography of the subject's son, Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt. Would that count as a reliable source given the author's reputation, or does WP:NOTINHERITED still apply regardless? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if he did not win the nobel i don`t see how he can claim notability for it :) I`d have to say no mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In the end, the issue became moot, as additional references were added by someone presumably alerted by this very thread. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Swedish language source

I want to use this Swedish language source on the List of best selling music artists article. The source which is on Norrköpings Tidningar's (newspaper) website states Roxette has sold 60m records. How reliable is this source ? thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mattg82: Yes, Norrköpings Tidningar appears to be a daily newspaper with editorial oversight. Unless there is some reason to believe that 60 million records sold is wrong, I don't see a problem using this source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Roxette - I wouldn't use it on its own to present the figure as if fact. As I have seen it most of the record sales figures are estimates, informed guess and promotional exaggerations . Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
After reading Off2riorob's comment and taking a closer look at List of best selling music artists, I see now that the article's criteria requires multiple third-party reliable sources and notes that sales figures are frequently inflated by record companies for promotional purposes. It looks like you'll need stronger sourcing that this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
A second Swedish source from Göteborgs-Posten (another newspaper) which also says 60m. Roxette is already on the list with 70m but that seems like a figure that is used for promotional purposes. I wanted to add on a more realistic total. Mattg82 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

weeklywire.com

This magazine is now defunct but is used as a source in the lede here Old Souls. It is a review of the book [49] and appears to me to be ok, but one user has tagged it so we need a consensus on it`s reliability mark nutley (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley: I'm not familiar with weeklywire.com, but I don't see any evidence of any editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article in question seems to have been taken originally from the Weekly Alibi (you can see this if you find the navigation page linking to the article [50]), so I think there is a case for saying it is an RS. The question is whether we can take this at face value - but I don't know which way to call that. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine as sources in a WP:BLP

Would the following two articles be reliable sources in a WP:BLP article of an American individual about his connections to American political groups?

What the articles are used to source is the fact that the individual has financed certain organizations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true - the use of "coke" as being their name is clearly not supportable, WP has pronunciation guidelines for all of this, and the claim that they have ulterior motives uis also opinion at best, as is almost all of the material being cited here. Including the claim that the American Liberty League was somehow subversive under the control of the evil DuPonts <g>. When face with clearly editorial claims, they do not belong in a BLP. Collect (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The first case, if it is an essay, it is probably only worth including if attributed and identified as an opinion piece (if it is indeed such). The 2nd one would seem to be reliable. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Petri, is this the edit in question? [51] — e. ripley\talk 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The New Yorker is noted for the rigour of its fact-checking. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, if the matter is clearly opinion, WP:BLP requires it be clearly stated as opinion. Also if the claims are contentious, an opinion piece is likely unsuitable at all. Collect (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces should not be used as citations for facts. Dlabtot (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the conventions of the American press. I can only comment based on what I know of the Finnish press.
In Finland any printed journal, tabloid or not, is considered reliable. If a factual inaccuracy was printed of any importance, it would be revoked in a printed correction. The ultimate guardian of factual correctness is the Council for Mass Media in Finland. It would not make any difference if the factual inaccuracy was printed in the news section or in an opinion column.
Some ten years ago a letter in the opinions section of the Finnish tabloid Ilta-Sanomat claimed that my three sister had somehow acquired council flats in downtown Helsinki. In fact all three of them owned their own apartments in the housing cooperatives. The implication was that they had somehow used their influence in Helsinki city politics to get an unfounded benefit. In what may have been a landmark case, the Council decided that the newspaper's responsibility for fact checking even extends to letters from the public. The paper had to print half a page of the Council's damning ruling.
Based on this insight I cannot see what difference it makes in which section of the paper a certain statement of fact is printed. I would believe the fact checking of The New York Times extends equally to news and staff opinions. Let's say for example, that The New York Times printed a statement that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was the chief financier of the Communist Party of the United States of America. Would it make any difference from the point-of-view reliability if this statement was published in some news article or on the op-ed page in and opinion by a long time editor with critical commentary? On such a major issue I would in fact argue, that op-ed column was more reliable.
The opposition here seems to argue that the American press is not reliable. The New York Times has no established standards for fact checking. The press has the liberty to lie as they please. If they are taken to court, they can always do as Fox News and argue that lying is their First amendment privilege. No other safeguards exist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The New Yorker piece is a news item from a publication with an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is clearly BLP-appropriate, subject to conscientious representation of its content. The New York Times piece is essentially an opinion piece, which does not make it categorically inadmissible, but which does mandate a much greater degree of care and circumspection in how it's used. Without specific examples of article text and citations, that's the best I can do with generalities. MastCell Talk 20:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
MastCell has it right... and his last point is important ... these are generalities. We are not at this point saying that these sources reliably support the information stated in any specific Wikipedia article. For us to do that, we would need to know more specific information. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I have intentionally left out the context to get uninvolved opinions without political bias. You can replace John D. Rockefeller, Jr. with David H. Koch & brother and the Communist Party of the United States of America with the Tea Party movement. The two sources are these (the New Yorker article appeared first, despite its date):
Sticking to these two sources is no longer necessary, as according to Google, the story seems to have been repeated "about 328,000 times" (search for Koch "tea party") -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Google hits are not a "reliable source" for any claims at all. Collect (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Jayjg (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No source, one source or several independent sources?

I have a general question concerning sources. It relates to a problem with certain page I am dealing with. Here is the situation:

Someone had a conflict with a person and wrote his own book describing the matter. Five years later someone else wrote a book, and paraphrased the info about the conflict using an original book as a reference. So, now we have two books writing about the same situation...
Ten years later someone else wrote another book mentioning the conflict, and used the two previous books for references. So, now we have third book talking about the same event, but quoting the original and second book in footnotes.
My questions is. Do we have three independent sources as a proof of the conflict or do we have one? The first one is written by a person in conflict, so can we say that it is objective reliable source? So, maybe there is none?
I am asking, because such sources are being used to accuse someone, but do we really have a proof? And can subsequent books, which only quote previous ones, be considered independent sources?
If this is a matter in BLP this is serious issue and problem. Not so many editors have time to go around and research every single source for reliability.Spt51 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you be a little more specific about which books we're talking about so we can look into them? Or where we can see some history of the conflict? And is this a question of asserting notability of the subject, or just to determine which sources should and shouldn't be used? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This Noticeboard can't answer general questions. The best place to discuss general questions about sources is WT:Identifying reliable sources.
Also, it doesn't sound like a general question. It sounds like a very specific question with all of the relevant information stripped out. Dlabtot (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not want to go into details because the discussion about this contentious page has been going on for months now. Please take a look at my last comment today in the BLPN [52] and at Talk page in Eido Tai Shimano. Original source of the allegation came from the book by Aitken, published by him in 1996, though he much earlier published essays included in several magazines. The other author who did some more research was Tworkov. As I looked through other references these two sources, Aitken and Tworkov are included in several books as references published much later. All the later books are included as additional citations. But really all they rely on the two first books. There are not many independent sources to prove the allegations. As far as I am concerned only three, at most. And I am not sure about Aitken book too. Therefore my question.Spt51 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a difficult question. On the one hand, each later book citing the previous is theoretically a sign of additional editorial oversight, which would make the original more reliable, and thus all three valuable. In practice, however, it's quite rare that a later author would actually check the credibility/factuality of the claims made in the earlier work (unless he was actually responding to claims made in the work, rather than simply citing it). I don't think there is a good general answer. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sudhirneuro.org

Please kindly advice if the site in heading can be used as a source of information about the tests and investigations performed by a group of researchers, of which Dr. Sudhir Shah was one of the participants. The tests were to verify the ability of Prahlad Jani and Hira Ratan Manek to survive healthily without food and eventually water for the period of testing. http://Sudhirneuro.org has been used to publish official updates and press releases from the team of researchers on both cases. I'm bringing the issue up here per advice of Nuujinn, as expressed in this discussion. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like garbage to me (typical content Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy. Aren’t you excited?), I wouldn't consider it a reliable source for... well anything. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. can you please provide an exact link to that citation? is it somehow related to the subject of Prahlad Jani, which has brought up the issue? while I do believe it might be somewhere there, I don't really think that the press references used in the same context are any better. actually, in most cases they are even more sensational and not academic at all. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
also, is it really civil to call legitimate opinions (even though sensational) published by respected authors a 'garbage'? Isn't that a bit too much of a baseless personal offense? -- Nazar (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that this site is essentially a case of self-publishing. If you read the about us page, there's no mention of anyone but Dr. Shah. I can't find any other contributors to the site, there's apparently no editorial review of the material, and the impression I get is that the purpose of the site is to promote Dr. Shah and his clinic. Without peer review (as would be the case in a scientific journal), we have no way to evaluate the validity of his experiments or claims, and I think this would be considered pseudoscience. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

unreliable source. Non peer-reviewed pseudo-scientific self-published hookum out to cover it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this is unreliable, except maybe for statements Dr Shah makes about himself, so long as they are not self-serving. I can barely read the article because of all the red flags in the way.--FormerIP (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see the trend, and it does make some sense to me, though, as I said, I doubt that the press refs we can use are of any better quality. In this connection Nuujinn suggested to remove the refs to a few more sites, based on the same reasons as Sudhirneuro.org. I'm bringing them up below to have a future reference in case of any doubts. -- Nazar (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It would still be nice to have a few more opinions, as I feel the informative value of the article will significantly decrease when we remove all these refs and leave only press information. Yet, I'll respect the expressed consensus in any case. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Skepdic.com and rationalistinternational.com

The reasoning for them to be unreliable is the same as in the above discussion about Sudhirneuro.org, as suggested by Nuujinn. Please kindly comment. -- Nazar (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationalist International appears to mainly aggregate material from other sources, so in each case it will depend on the reliablity of the source the material originally came from. Those websites should be cited, rather than rationalistinternational.com. This looks like an RS: [53], although it is also an opinion piece and should be treated as such.
Skepdic.com appears to be the personal website of a published expert on hoaxes, possible hoaxes and scepticism. So it should be considered a reliable source, but not for claims about named third parties. --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"Skepdic.com appears to be the personal website of a published expert on hoaxes, possible hoaxes and scepticism. So it should be considered a reliable source" -- shouldn't we consider Shah's site a reliable source based on same reasoning? It's a website of a published expert on research into neurology and other medicinal research. Shah is an internationally known and recognized scientist and researcher. We also have independent reviews and endorsements of his publications and press releases related to Prahlad Jani's testing, both from India's governmental agencies, and from independent organizations like SRISTI... -- Nazar (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Shah's site might in some situations be reliable if he is considered to be an established, published authority on a topic, if the material is not unduly self-serving and if the material is not about a third party. So material where he either makes positive claims about his research methods or talks about any other person (such as Jani) would not be allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
What about his describing of the testing procedure he was involved into, as one of the experts? These are not 'claims about his research methods', neither his opinions about a third party (such as Jani). -- Nazar (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine how the testing procedures could be described without the material not being about Jani in some sense (he's the subject of the observations after all). --FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, based on that reasoning I can just go through all the articles where Skepdic.com is used and massively remove it all (and I don't think you'd wanna me do it, because there are literally hundreds of skeptic refs to this site in multiple articles here), because you can hardly find any subject where the skepticism from that site is not in some sense related to a third party... Unless you want to be tendentiously selective and push a skeptic POV into PJ article, I think we need a bit more neutral acceptance here... In my opinion, both Sudhirneuro.org and Skepdic.com are to be accepted as relatively reliable self-published sources. They both are attributed to an author of international renown. Shah's status is also confirmed by his multiple memberships and scientific titles... Shah also explicitly states that "we can not really comment for or against Mr. Prahlad Jani’s claims". The information published on his site focuses solely on an overview of the testing procedure, and also comes on behalf of the research team and not on his own behalf... -- Nazar (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
To put it a different way, neither Skepdic.com or Shah's website are reliable for claims about Prahlad Jani, because they are both self-published sources and as such cannot be used for claims about living third parties. Describing the conditions under which a third party was observed by doctors is pretty clearly information about that third party. You don't have the option of anonymising Jani, because his name is the title of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You must have forgotten that the press release in question comes based on Jani's own consent, and the tests were performed with his personal cooperation. He has explicitly expressed his "desire to be useful to the cause of humanity(and Indian soldiers in particular) by offering his body for noninvasive scientific tests". While Skepdic.com obviously does not have any such consent to hypothesize about possible frauds and deception during these tests. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, it's still an SPS committing about a third party. What don't we cut to the chase here? What's your agenda, because it seems clear to me you aren't actually after anything but getting a POV article accepted on this subject. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The NPOV has always been my topmost priority. Check my editing. I never personally initiated the removals of any skeptic information. I'm an inclusionist as far as it goes. -- Nazar (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, both Sudhirneuro.org and Skepdic.com are to be accepted as relatively reliable self-published sources, I haven't read these other sites but it's clearly that there is NO consensus to consider Sudhirneuro.org as Reliable and for you to and do so would go against the discussion here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
We haven't finished the discussion yet. My personal view is that Nuujinn's logic here is sound and balanced. It will, however, have far-reaching consequences to many other articles, if applied without any mitigations. In my opinion, this logic is just. But it sets the requirements for the quality of sources just too high to be realistic if followed completely. Therefore, I call for a milder approach. AllSome other opinions expressed here so far have been more or less touched by tendentious desire to push a skeptic POV into the article in question. They also express too much disrespect towards views which are not supported by them personally. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean "dire" consequences, but really, those are not a concern, since we are engaged in improving articles, and there is the mitigation that we are dealing with a BLP here, and not all articles using Skepdic.com are BLPs. I also strongly object to your characterization that "All other opinions expressed here so far have been more or less touched by tendentious desire to push a skeptic POV into the article in question", and respectfully ask that you strike that, as it could be considered a personal attack against several editors. I would also ask you to note that a number of us regard Skepdic.com and rationalistinternational as unreliable as sources--removing badly sourced material from both "sides" of the issue is not pushing a single POV. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"All other opinions..." haha. ok. not all, just some :) and please kindly don't start the 'personal attack' theme again, because "What's your agenda, ... it seems clear to me you aren't actually after anything but getting a POV article accepted on this subject" by Cameron Scott has been very personal and aimed directly at me. If we continue this way we may drown ourselves in a new wave of fruitless arguments. I'd suggest "everyone maintain civility as we move through discussion, and comment on content, not the contributor", as you wisely said before :) -- Nazar (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to ask Cameron Scott to strike a comment, please feel free. I'm asking you again to strike yours, and I'm not laughing. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Is that a threat or warning? I said I do not wish to engage into fruitless arguments. I'm sorry if my comment was too general, and I did amend it, by saying "not all, just some", to take into account the diversity of views expressed about skepdic.com by various editors. My feeling is, however, that many opinions related to the editing of PJ article have been very tendentious and in favor of pushing an unsubstantiated skeptic POV into it. That is my position. I'm doing my best to defend the neutrality of the article in question. Your repeated request sounds a bit like an order and a threat, which does not make me very happy. Please think about it before you repeat it again. I also do not fully understand what do you mean by 'striking'. Do you want a line which strikes the 'All' word? You have my permission to do that, if that makes you happy, because I could not find it in the editor myself. Strike the 'All' and replace it by 'some'. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It is neither a threat nor a warning--you laughed, indicating that this amuses you. I am not amused, but I am not ordering you to do anything nor threatening you in any way. I asked you to do something, and you are perfectly entitled to not grant that request. You strike text thusly, it leaves the comment readable but indicates you've retracted it. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any problem with me being amused? I have a lot of fun editing Wikipedia. I think it is supposed to be this way. I've done what you asked for, hope that makes you happy. Still could not find it in the editor, copied the tags instead... -- Nazar (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for striking part of your comment. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Anytime :) -- Nazar (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the discussion of Sudhirneuro.org is one paragraph ^ that away. In regard to Rationalist International, as FormerIP points out, we can use the sources they use, if those are reliable, and I concur with them regarding Skepdic.com. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Railway Template

Follwing an aborted attempt at an index, I created a template to cover the articles revolving round the Festiniog Railway, in N Wales, UK. Template:Festiniog Railway Company That was back in 2008, and seemed acceptable at the time. This template containing links to other related wikipedia articles, and external sites, sits at the bottom of related articles on wikipedia. It also replaced a number of individual external links within the "See also/External links" sections of articles.

An editor has now decided that he feels this does not meet with current wikipedia policy, as it contains a number of external links. On reading the quoted documentation, I feel it does meet the guidelines, and uses commonsense.

The fact the edits made now make the panel look ludicrous by 2 major edits: The first made all links internal - even though by titles they wernt meant to be - obvious under a second edit = such as

Whilst he has also tidied up some articles, on some there are no related external links, so additional information is not available.

Comments please --Keith 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know enough (read that as anything) about the UK rail systems to feel qualified to discuss content, but as a general rule Nav templates are for helping readers get around wikipedia. while there's no particular rule against external links on a Nav template, I'd personally expect them to be simple and factually informative links. Beetstra seems conserned that these seem too much like advertising links.
however, this request really does need to be here yet (if at all), because you haven't yet asked Beetstra what the problem is. go to the article talk page, or Beetstra's user talk, and see what he has to say. maybe between the two of you you can work out a compromise. --Ludwigs2 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I didnt need to ask - he has stated the problem as he sees it. --Keith 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The convention (as far as I am aware) has always been that this type of navigation should be for internal purposes. I would also be against using them for external links. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, please, no external links in nav templates. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Having just read WP:EL, WP:TM. and WP:RS, there doesnt seem to be a convention of this sort. In fact, there is a category, Category:External link templates to cover this sort of thing

I have now also looked at the related pages, and far from just cleaning, there has been a wholesale deletion of external references for more information, and pictures which are not available to wikipedia WHY? --Keith 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If I noticed an article where someone replaced Ffestiniog Railway (a link to another article) with an external link, I would revert that as "per WP:EL". That applies more strongly to a template which is used on multiple pages. The "why" is that there has to be a strong resistance to the hundreds of attempts to promote external sites that are made every day. I understand that this case is different from normal because here the only intention is to provide handy links for enthusiasts, but it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia to have a template featuring "Company Web Sites" and "External Wiki Sites" and "Support Groups". Our role does not include providing a directory of links. This issue is more for WP:ELN as "reliable sources" applies to references. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No-one is replacing internal links with external links. The links in question have never been internal. Indeed, for many of them there is no internal article to link to as the subject matter is not notable in Wikipedia terms although it is notable in the context of the Ffestiniog Railway. Keith's complaint is that external links to additional information not available on Wikipedia are being removed. So it seems that you are saying that Wikipedia users must be denied more detailed information on a subject than would be appropriate on Wikipedia simply because it exists on an external website. Is that really the policy? Given the number of articles that include such links I don't believe that is the policy. Perhaps you are saying that it is ok to put external links as references and in "External links" sections or similar but not to include them in a template which is then used in such sections for a group of related articles? Why? Where does that leave a template like, for example, Template:Finance links? I freely admit that I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy nor even a regular editor, but the policy being suggested here seems to be thoroughly inconsistent with current practise and unhelpful to the average user who is left with no easy way to find the additional information. There is a (rather less active) discussion on WP:ELN. 88.104.46.245 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Oops - I failed to notice that Wikipedia logged me out for some reason. The signature on that last comment should have been... Prh47bridge (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I meant if I saw someone put an external link inside an article, I would remove it: we link to other articles, and if an item does not have an article, the link should be red if the topic is notable, or the item should probably not be mentioned otherwise. External links belong in valid references, and sometimes in the "External links" section. I suggest we close this now and keep the discussion at WP:ELN#railways. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note to this, I did not remove references which were pointing to information on this site. However, since the reference points to an open wiki, those probably all be checked and maybe replaced by a reliable source. I am not too worried about the commercial part of this story (if there is any), just that these links are, in most cases where they were used, inappropriate.

Note about the comparison with the templates in Category:External link templates; those link directly to information about the subject, not to the generic homepage; the external link templates are different from the templates discussed here. Note, that I would on many occasions, also remove ((wikia))-external links per our WP:EL; the existence of such templates does not mean that they should be used without looking at the relevant policies and guidelines. Moreover, please be aware that 'arguments to avoid'/'comments about other links' are not inclusion arguments, they may even be arguments to exclude others. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you are "not too worried about the commercial part of this story", but like you to expand on this - is there a commercial part? It seems we are moving away from the original point here. So far, I have indulged anyones comment and studied any references thay have made i.e WP:EL, WP:TM. and WP:RS, and as yet cannot find a definitive point where internal and external links cannot co-exist, or be placed at the end of an article.

I note that far from holding off, you have continued to remove any references to our wiki for no other reason than you belief that it is wrong to have external references, which is definitely against Wikipedia policy. --Keith 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, commercial not, promotional etc. maybe. Without a meaning of bad faith assumption (I really believe that you are here to write the articles, etc.) - trusts, organisations, etc. still need money, and you see sometimes that such organisations, although there is no commercial intention, spam Wikipedia to have their sites linked, and therefore incoming traffic. But as I said, I don't believe a bit that that is the case here.
I think that was explained throughout. External links are not supposed to be in the body of the text per WP:MOS (Wikipedia:MOS#External_links to be specific, and I don't think that this is some form of exception where the links should be in the text, we can have articles ourselves on most of these topics), so that is that part. And wikis make bad external links and/or reliable sources, so they should not be used as a source (see WP:RS / WP:V - anyone can write anything on a wiki; and I have showed elsewhere that vandalism can stay for hours on the wiki under discussion), or as an external link (see WP:ELNO - similar reason, stability etc.). IMHO, the only place where it could be linked, is on the pages of the organisation itself.
I am not removing external references, I am removing links which are not in line with the policies and guidelines. The intro of WP:EL states it as "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." - linking to a wiki is not ..
Manstaruk, this does not take away the fact that you and some other editors there have done great work, made a large number of good articles, but there are concerns with the external links to the wiki, for which I, and some other uninvolved editors on the different noticeboards think there is no justification for inclusion. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will make one last point, based on your comment "External links are not supposed to be in the body of the text per WP:MOS". I would agree, but contend that placing them at the end of the article under either a "See Here" or "External Links" subset, does meet WP:etc criteria as per previous messages. Otherwise, if you were to contend placing there is still within the body of text, then no external links would exist within Wikipedia, as they wouldnt be allowed!!. Seperately, I would also agree that links to the external wiki relavent article would be better than links to its home page. However, that would be infinitely more reasonable then systematic removal from all articles, irrespective if they pointed to a related article or home page. At least then a researcher may then use a search box to get information. If there is no link, they cannot do that. --Keith 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have answered to most points on WP:EL/N. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Savage

There is a dispute on the assessment section of The Epoch Times article. The quote in particular relates to Michael Savage (commentator):

"In June 2010 the controversial radio host Michael Savage spoke extemporaneously about The Epoch Times for about five minutes of one of his broadcasts. He said, in part: "the journalism is on the highest level, the writing is better than The New York Times, the analysis is superior, and the stories are astonishing... I don’t read anything like this..." He read excerpts from articles for several minutes. He continued: "It says 'Chaos plagues China today...corruption is rife', I couldn’t believe that someone is telling the truth about China."

The editor who added it argued that Savage is inherently notable, thus his opinion matters. I differ, based on the fact that:

1) Michael Savage is not expert on Chinese politics nor Falun Gong and the Epoch Times. According to the source he admitted that he never read the paper until June 2010 - his comment sticks out like a sore thumb amongst others professional journalists and academics

2) According to WP:SPS, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Even on his own article, Savage has been widely criticized exactly for such behaviors. --PCPP (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More