Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Citing stories from newswire

Hi all

Don't know the right place to ask this but am certain that many of you here will help. I have a strong view that citations to wire stories should be cited to the wire rather than to another publication (even if properly identified with the "agency" tag), as the implication that the other publication has created the content changes (sometimes dramatically—and not always in the same direction) inferences about the weight of authority.

Anyone know where discussions of this sort of thing belongs?

Thanks, Bongomatic 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to ask something like this but arguing the opposite point. It seems to me a wire story is easier to verify if cited in dead-tree format. Also wire stories can be updated instantaneously, and it can take sifting through "retrieved on" tags, article history, and "updated on" if times (with time zones) are included in the data citation. It may not be easy to track down a years-old wire story, but you can walk into any library and get microfiche of the New York Times.

However, I do share the concern that the name of the wire service should be prominent in the citation. I don't know how these are usually handled; does the wire service become the author? Or do we just add "via (name of wire service)" to the cite?

While the newspapers usually don't change the wire service material, occasionally you see articles where the newspaper adds its own content to the wire story. Usually those have one of their reporter's names plus a statement like "The Associated Press contributed to this report". Whether that should show up in our cites I don't know.

But if we do come up with a standard way of choosing a newspaper to reference wire stories, that would be an interesting discussion. Do we choose the first, latest, widest circulation, geographically closest to the news story, stories that add their own material, cleanest website design, what?

Also, aren't a lot of wire stories actually written by the member news outlets who then sell the rights to the wire service? Is there a way to tell which outlet wrote the story? Maybe that should be the one cited. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered about too. I sometimes just throw "AP Wire" or whatever in for the author, but that's not very satisfying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Erika Friedman RS for yuri related anime & manga

Hi,

Someone suggested to bring the issue here
The issue : Are Erika Friedman and her blog RS for yuri related anime & manga articles ?
The available clues :

Erica Friedman's Guide to Yuri (AfterEllen.com)

guest lectured at the University of Illinois

talked at MIT

She is also the president ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri manga.
Thanks for your insights --KrebMarkt 12:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let's rephrase this:

The issue is whether Erika Friedman and her blog qualifies as an appropriate self published source for yuri related articles. WP:VERIFY's requirements are being an "expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".

More of the available credentials (will collect more when I have some time):

Interview: Erica Friedman (About.com)

Erica Friedman's Top 10 Yuri Manga (About.com)

I think she meets this requirements, but let's see what you guys have to say about it. Kazu-kun (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that she is an expert. She's the head of a publishing house (although I think it's a small one) and universities and about.com seem to think her opinion is important. And so do a few other RSs. It's close though. I wouldn't use her for anything controversial, or BLP related. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal genome project

Since Neanderthal genome project is currently featured on a news blurb on the main page, could someone please look at this question? My concern is that the article is giving a critique from a fairly low-profile journal far too much weight. I have not even read the section in question very deeply, but from a credibility of sources perspective, it seems very wrong. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PLoS Genetics is a recognized high-quality source. Within its domain, I would rank it quite comparable to Nature and Science, although these have wider appeal and are better known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good. I will let people know on the page. Thank you, Vesal (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Webbed toes

Bit of a odd question. This was made to the article. The problem is that the site that hosts the video will only play them if you live in the US. Is someone willing to look at the video and confirm that it does show that he has webbed toes? Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear original research, even if it's true. Feel free to cut it. THF (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for University Rankings

Could you please advise whether the following 10 sources can be considered reliable in order to verify and include a reference to the 4icu.org University rankings in the College and university rankings article?

1) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Education and Social Science Library
Debuted in 1997, The College and University Rankings Web page is maintained by librarians at the Education and Social Science Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It contains selected rankings and provides "caution & controversy" information related to some academic university rankings.

2) Indiana University IU News Room
Press release produced by the Indiana University communication office, and published in their website, mentioning their position in the 4icu.org ranking.

3) IOL Diario
Article published in a Portuguese newspaper about the position of the Coimbra University (founded in 1290) in the 4icu.org ranking.

4) Tribuna do Norte
Article published in a Brazilian regional newspaper about the position of the UEL University in the 4icu.org ranking. This is probably based on a press news that UEL has autonomously decided to release after evaluating their ranking in the 4icu.org directory.

5) Wikipedia - Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
Wikipedia article on the Bangladeshi Shahjalal University of Science and Technology mentioning the 4icu.org ranking.

6) Wikipedia - Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Same as above

7) Wikipedia - Keio University
Same as above but for the Japanese Keio University established in 1858

8) Wikipedia - Education in Tokyo
Rankings overview for higher education organisations in Tokyo mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

9) Wikipedia - Clasificación académica de universidades de Colombia
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Colombia mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

10) Wikipedia - Ranking de universidades españolas
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Spain mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

Are the above sources, according to your experience and knowledge of the wikipedia guidelines, sufficient to include the following paragraph in the above mentioned Wikipedia article?

The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking of world universities is produced by the 4 International Colleges and Universities higher education search engine and directory. The 4icu.org ranking is not based on academic criteria and intends to identify which Universities' websites are the most popular in terms of online international presence and popularity. It is based on three independent web metrics and indicators, Page Rank, Traffic Rank, and Total Link Popularity, extracted from three search engines: Google, Alexa and Yahoo!. The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking is provided at international, continent and country level.

What you have are primary sources (of varying quality). What you need is a good secondary source that describes 4ICU. And, btw, the 5 Wikipedia articles are completely unusable as sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The UIUC site may be usable as a secondary source assessing the ranking. But I'm not sure where ranking of how much traffic a college's web site gets would fit in to our College and university rankings article, which is mainly about academics and student life. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Stephan what about this article published in 2007 on the Journal of Institutional Research, Australasian Association for Institutional Research, written by a researcher from the Monash University: The Impact of Ranking Systems on Higher Education and its Stakeholders (pp 87–88). Squidfryerchef the 4icu.org ranking algorythm includes 3 different web metrics; only one of them is related to traffic (Alexa). Moreover the current wikipedia article already contains at least 2 University rankings, Webometrics and G-Factor, which are based on non academic web related metrics.

Church websites reliability regarding internal structure of that church

This question is specifically about the Church of Scientology, but I doubt that's particularly relevant. However, do the rest of you think that a website owned by this or any other reasonably large church would qualify as a reliable source for information regarding the locations (churches, etc.) operated by that church? So, in short, if the church's website says it has a church in Paris, would that be a sufficient source for inclusion of such information? John Carter (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that any organization wouldn't lie about where it has an office, it's reliable. If any cause for doubt can be shown, it can always be attributed in the wording, eg "xyz organization claims to have an office in Paris on its website". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing the article in question. The source the article cites at present is from December 2007 and quotes the BfV German domestic intelligence service as saying that there are 10 Scientology Churches and 14 Scientology Missions in Germany. The source also draws attention to the fact that Scientology's own website does not list the Missions, and lists only 9 Churches rather than 10. This latter statement is still correct today: [1] Give both versions? Other suggestions? Jayen466 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we could point out the discrepancy, especially if the first source does. We could even mention if the first source speculates on the reason for the discrepancy - as long as we didn't introduce any speculation of our own. I can't read German, though, so I don't know if the first source actually does this, or what it says. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that in cases like this the church's website wouldn' be given exclusive authority. Basically, if it names 9 locations, then those 9 locations would be accepted as accurate. If some other reliable source lists others, they could presumably be included as well. I know from experience that sites of churches often aren't completely updated, as not all locations necessarily have internet, which is one of the main reasons for listing on such webpages. That doesn't mean the others don't exist, just that they're not accessible through the net or other ways yet and there's no direct benefit to listing them. Even so, I would welcome further input from those who frequent these boards. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the good thing is that another Church website does list 10 churches in Germany, in agreement with the German intelligence services quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The additional one is the Celebrity Center in Munich; theta.com does not give a URL or e-mail address for it, providing a possible explanation for its absence in the scientology.de list, along the lines John Carter surmised above. (The Munich Celebrity Center does have a website though: [2].) I think that resolves the issue. Jayen466 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Published Correspondence

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to ask your advice in relation to a situation arising on the Scriptural Reasoning article.

There are three users, all of whom arrived simultaneously on or around 27 November 2008, all of whom are employed by or otherwise connected to the same organisation, who have repeatedly removed material on the article which is critical of the organisation by which they are employed or connected -- I have raised the issue of "Conflict of Interest" with them repeatedly.

The specific question here today, relates to a reference to some correspondence which has been publicly circulated by its author, David Ford (a third party from the other side of the debate -- which both sides accept as a reliable author), and is published on the website:

http://www.cambridgeinterfaithprogramme.org/

The correspondence states:

"The solution proposed [to the dispute around faith leadership of an SR group in London] is in terms of a governance model using principles of equality, symmetry, neutrality, etc. This holds out the hope of an immediate 'fix' in legal/constitutional terms rather like the way secular modernity responded to religious conflicts...but Scriptural Reasoning in my experience has so far not been convinced by it. The "asymmetries of hospitality" (e.g. the role of Anglicans in initiating St Ethelburga's) are part of the messiness (and providence!) of actual history, which always requires making the most of particular resources and rarely conforms to our abstract principles."

Publicly Circulated Correspondence from David Ford, Director of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme, 24 January 2007

The correspondence was circulated publicly by the author. All parties agree and do not dispute that all the correspondence is true, but the other party are suggesting that it can't be referenced in the Wikipedia article because all references in Wikipedia need to come from academic journals, academic books, and the like.

From the point of view of Verifiability not only is the correspondence referenced to date and authorship, but there is also an address, telephone number, fax and e-mail to the ORIGINAL AUTHOR - in other words, it is fact-checkable:

The accuracy of all the above written statements may be VERIFIED by contacting the authors directly at:

The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, Faculty of Divinity, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 1223 763013 Fax: +44 1223 763014 E-mail: cip@divinity.cam.ac.uk sr@divinity.cam.ac.uk

Furthermore, of course, in order that the published correspondence does in fact support the point being made, all the words of the reference were quoted IN FULL in the footnoted reference on the Wikipedia article.

However, the other party (who are employed or connected to the organisation in question) keep reverting and removing this reference -- primarily I believe, because this publicly circulated correspondence is an embarassment for them. The organisation The Scriptural Reasoning Society Board of Trustees cites the correspondence above, to support their assertions around "asymmetries of hospitality" in Scriptural Reasoning.

Please would you let me know that given that every means of verifiablity directly to the original author himself who publicly circulated it in the first place is made available including means of telephone/e-mail communication, that this is admissible as a third party statement which is published and which may easily be verified.

• It is clear from all the statements made by all editors on both sides, that none of the users on -- either side of the debate -- disputes or challenges the accuracy of the statements which were made and referred to above. Neither side disagrees that the stated emails are indeed genuine, and that they were made by the authors they purport to be, on that date -- ie. everyone agrees that the e-mail is entirely accurate and true. A major reason for this consensus is that "Scriptural Reasoning" is a tiny world, and both sides of the debate know each other very well, and we all know the author of the published e-mails in the first place, and there is no dispute on this point of factual accuracy.

• Given the above agreement, the dispute appears (in my personal opinion) to be essentially a way of the other side of the debate preventing a fact upon which we all agree, and a source whose truth upon which we all agree, coming into the public domain by the other party asserting that however much they and we are in agreement, Wikipedia rules that all references must be published in reputable academic journals, newspapers and the like only. The facts and claims are not disputed by either side, the e-mail and its authorship and content are not disputed by either side, what is being asserted by one side is that Wikipedia regulations do not allow its publication because it isn't in an academic journal or reputable newspaper.

From what I have been advised, am I correct in saying that this isn't the case, but rather Wikipedia regulations are more fluid and guided by particular case, and the question of whether the facts are being disputed -- so if the facts/claims contained in the above reference were disputed by either party (which is not the case here), then indeed only a strongly reputable scientific journal or academic source would do?

I am very sorry to trouble you, but would really appreciate your advice on this one. Many thanks.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not looking too closely, but if it's definitely written by that well published author, then it can be used. Whether it should be used is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Very many thanks for your kind assistance with this. This is extremely helpful. Thank you.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, though. Firstly, it needs clarifying that while academic sources are good, the reliabiity requirement isn't as stringent as that: books and news sources of origins generally considered as reliable are OK.

As to the specifics, though, "X wrote this; you can contact them at ... wherever ... to verify it" is never viewed as acceptable sourcing. If the material is essentially ephemera, we just have to do without it unless it's reliably recorded (i.e. neutral context).

Also, the whole point of Wikipedia is that it's based on reliable third-party published sources. Material not third-party reported (e.g. it's not in the newspapers) and only findable on what's clearly a hostile partisan site, is pretty shaky. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be clarified, in case anyone else wants to comment on this, that the website referred to by Scripturalreasoning, on which the published material has appeared, is not under the control of David Ford (the author of the correspondence); he himself has (as far as anyone knows) not published it, or authorised its publication, anywhere. And I can't recall anyone on the talk pages having said that all references should be to academic/scientific sources; this is not the point at issue. For what it's worth. Laysha101 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's problematic. While a self-published document by an established author (such as David F. Ford) is acceptable, WP:V cautions that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." We have here a situation where somebody else has done so, but the material has been published in a non-reliable source, and for dubious reasons. I think we can accept something published by David F. Ford himself, or something published by him in a reliable source. But I don't think we can accept material published by a non-reliable source. There is no information about the website other than the statement at the top: "This analysis site - independent of control of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme - is under construction." We have no named editor or publisher. Given the circumstances I would say that this source can not be used. SilkTork *^YES! 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Xcitement.com - Evan Seinfeld

Xcitement is an online published magazine covering the adult entertainment industry. While it's hardly the biggest fish in the pond, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of its interview transcripts.

Specifically, the matter involves an interview with Evan Seinfeld's wife - Tera Patrick, in which she states his ethnic background as Jewish. I see no reason why the magazine would distort this information, nor her, nor Evan (to his wife).

However, another editor seems to insist that it isn't WP:RS, and is insistent on reverting edits such as this one. Any comments here? Given the number of online sources used in articles, I see no valid reason to doubt Xcitement's reliability in the matter. For economic forecasting - well, perhaps not... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is a WP:BLP - it requires sources of the highest quality. Sourcing any material, let alone contentious claims regarding the subject's ethnicity, to an on-line porn magazine is an indication that you have not read or understood WP:RS, nor WP:BLP. NoCal100 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How is his ethnicity contentious, or subject to question, especially since it's quoting his -WIFE-? Also, you have a problem with understanding the difference between a porn rag, and a magazine that covers the industry. Xcitement seems as good or better than most of the industry rags out there. Well, whatever your whinge might be, I've replaced it from an interview reprinted on his own band's web site. Or are you going to claim that they're unreliable? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#On-line porn magazines - reliable_sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson

I was wondering if "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)." would be a reliable source for claiming someone has fought in illegal bare knuckle fights. The source was previously brought up at RSN here, but in a different context. Also, is claiming "Jackson is related to Henry Jackson, King of the Gypsies" with "GRO Census 1881 of Births and Marriages" as a source OK - or is following a record of births and marriages original research? Thanks! --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

should we not get the answer first, before removing, The Andrews John E, was sourced after the first ADf and was eccepted by admin and editors.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove first and take it to the talk page, when it comes to biographies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Diamonddannyboy is disputing its unreliability for such a claim - hence why I'm here. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Garcia

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Freddy García and sources of birthdates about the reliability of sources for baseball players birthdates. Input would be appreciated.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want help from editors on this page, please provide a short summary of the issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How to use a primary source?

I consider an interview which was broadcasted by a news network to be a primary source illustrating the line of thought of the interviewee. Therefore I would say it is a source that can be added as a reference to a biography on this person (under sources or external links). Am I right about this?--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" (WP:PRIMARY). In particular "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". "Illustrating the line of thought of the interviewee" as you want to will almost certainly involve interpretation, so you will need to tread with extreme care. Additionally, you'll need a reliable permanent record of the interview (i.e. not YouTube) to refer to to provide verifiability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We use primary sources all the time on WP. There is an ambiguity on what is considered a primary source, because that can mean either from the point of view of the encyclopedia editor, from where the source is in the chain of reporting, or whether its part of a class of sources ( patents, corporate filings, etc ), that are routinely used here for primary sources. The real issue here is WP:V. There's material being broadcasted all the time but not archived anywhere accessible, so we shouldn't rely on them. Try and see if the news org has a video, or better yet, a transcript of the interview online. Maybe Burrelles keeps transcripts of the show. Youtube may be usable if you can show that the video was uploaded by the media organization itself, because you want to avoid possible hoaxes or copyright problems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also... be careful not to violate WP:BLP if the subject of the article is a living person. Wikipeida should not repeat rumors or accusations, no matter who made them. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right in the abstract, but we can speak to the issue a lot better if we are given more facts. Who said it? To whom did they say it? Are any statements controbeverial? etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Locate TV

I use Locate TV as a source for TV listings. It has all the broadcast times for shows and films (and also seems to have fairly comprehensive listings for individual actors, etc.)

I wanted to post here, and see if many other people ever use the site, and whether you think it fulfils the criteria for being a reliable source - particularly when it comes to broadcast times and season dates. Phinicky (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ti the extent that it shows current showings (within the next two weeks), the information is quite useless for an encyclopedia which is aimed at long term utility for what is in it. The listings are not comprehensive -- it lists the very first person I looked up, Hal Holbrook and lists nothing about his portrayal of Mark Twain which is arguably his single most famous role. And the site insists thet Mark Twain Tonight is not available on DVD -- this is a quite flawed site. Collect (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with using TV listings as a source, but I insist that the sources be placed into the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine before they are used. I have put together a mini-essay on this matter. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Reelz.com

Is this post on Reelz.com something we would consider a reliable source here or is it just a blog with uncertain history of fact checking/reliability? Here is what Wikipedia has to say about them ReelzChannel-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Might tend to give them a nod in this case, specially when they pull a Wiki and actually include a link to their own source for further verification of their information by readers. Blogmonkeys do not as a rule ever say something and then go source it for their other blogmonkeys. Reelz has a habit of backing up what they print. One man's opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Miss Canada International

The Miss Canada International (MCI) articles lists past winners of the title. Unfortunately there's very little independent coverage in general. A 2007 titleholder (Rachel Jaillet) was announced and served several months, but then was quietly dropped by MCI when no contract was signed, and MCI insists she never was a winner. There was a little bit of independent coverage of the initial win by Jaillet, and no coverage of it being revoked. Somebody (claiming to be) with MCI insists that they are the only reliable source, and wants to drop the Jaillet, listing a previous year's winner under two years. Please contribute thoughts to Talk:Miss Canada International. --Rob (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Restaurant menus?

Just a quick query. What do people reckon to the status of restaurant menus with respect to providing reliable evidence that a particular dish is a) widely available; b) commonly composed of a fixed set of ingredients; and c) commonly identified as an entity separate of its constituent ingredients? Pyrope 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• A single menu is not wide and not common (unless it's a McDonalds recipe, but it's the least thing I'd like to read...). It's an isolated, ephemeral episode that does not say much of a particular culture. Compiling different menus is a far shot at WP:SYN. NVO (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Restaurant menus also don't qualify as being 'published'. At best, some (like those of large corporations) are self-published. All in all, I think this would be a very weak source at best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem, at least to me, that cookbooks, cooking magazines, and the food columns in local newspapers would be the preferred sources to be researching. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To what particular dish are you referring? L0b0t (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback people. The dish I had in mind specifically is pizza-ghetti. I know from personal experience that it is a widespread and popular dish in Quebec so it would seem to deserve an article. However, the only sources online are blogs and restaurant menus (and yes, synthesizing them would verge on WP:OR). As the dish is fairly low-brow in its appeal it is hardly likely to ever be the subject of major print media attention (let alone cookbooks!) so getting a source that fully conforms to WP:V is nigh on impossible. To delete the page seems silly and narrow-minded, but by Wikipedia policy there seems to be very little way of fending off the protocol junkies bent on its demise. Pyrope 16:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not as hard as you fear. Web cook sites have recipes for it (not just blogs), and even if a "primary source" for the existence of the recipe, the existence of recipes should be non-controversial. Collect (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Those have come up in discussions and the point has been made that an awful lot of such sites have user-contributed content and a fairly sketchy reputation for checking facts. Pyrope 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue came up many years ago on a computer service provider I worked for -- the actual recipes are not copyrightable, but the wording of them, to the extent it is more than mix, bake at a temp etc. can be. The issue here is not even that, but whether a recipe for something called "pizza-ghetti" exists, which is not a matter of the site making claims as to fact, but the simple fact of recipes existing <g>. Collect (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth

There has been an ongoing dispute at Larry Sanger about whether the assertion "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is verifiable. Two sources have been used for this information.

The first is a piece in the Telegraph providing a bulleted list of items about Wikipedia. The only blurb mentioning "consensus" is a collection of quotes from The Colbert Report describing Wikipedia as "truth by consensus".

The second is a column in The Times by guest contributor Oliver Kamm. The relevant quotation from that column is "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."

Are either of these sources sufficient to assert "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" as fact and not opinion?

(There remain disagreements over whether this fact is relevant to the article in question anyway, but I'd appreciate feedback on the verifiability of the assertion.) Rvcx (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The text was restored by SDJ.
• The text was restored by Jennavecia.
• The text was restored by SqueakBox.
• The text was restored by QuackGuru.
• Crohnie agrees with restoring the text.
• There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. Most editors want to include the text.

On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The referenced text accurately reflects the source presented. There is clear consensus to include the text.[3][4][5][6][7] QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is asked to be verified. That Larry Sanger said "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth"? Or that he asserts it? The Colbert Report and quote from the Times do not seem to uphold that. The most accurate way to word that is that Wikipedia is perceived to promote consensus over truth. It's own policies as cited in WP:V refute the issue of truth at all. The entire section is unclear and poorly written, against MOS iwth bullet points and use of cquotes. It should be rewritten --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been rewritten, but QuackGuru has reverted the rewrite many times. Matters of style aside, the current question is whether "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is a verifiable fact and can be presented as such and not as an individual opinion. (I think it's completely obvious that the provided sources don't support it as Sanger's opinion.) Rvcx (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be obvious to someone with Wiki experience who will click on the sources and check them out. It is not obvious to a general reader, and no one should assume a general reader will click on to check sources. It should be written clearly in the first place. As an editor with much experience, I could not understand what the section was trying to say. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy we assume a general reader will click on a source to verify the text if they want to verify it. This is basic Wikipedia policy.

See WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

I checked the source and the text can easily be verfiied when reading the reference. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:RS is relevant here: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". The source provided is clearly an opinion piece, and thus can be used only as a source for Kamm's opinion, not for any fact about Wikipedia. There are serious WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues about including such opinions in the article at hand, but that's not relevant to the discussion here. Rvcx (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any disagreement among reliable sources that Wikipedia promotes consensus. Adding additional attribution seems unecessary. See WP:ASF. The source is clearly reliable and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Political allegiance of newspapers

We have some specific wrangling about sources at Talk:Daily Mail#political bent but this is a more general issue. The infobox for newspapers has a Political allegiance entry and this encourages editors to fill something in. This seems an invitation to OR since only official party organs such as Pravda or the Daily Worker can easily be said to have a specific party allegiance. Independent newspapers with a long history will tend to have adopted various positions over time and so it seems difficult to attribute a single party position to them. What might be an acceptable source for this, if anything? Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is better to state the query in a neutral manner, commodore. The Daily Mail endorses the Tories, has a majority Tory readership, and , per your insistence, even has a RS cite for it being Tory in allegieance. Moreover, The Guardian says so but you aver "The Guardian is obviously not a reliable source." And "No, we have assorted suggestions such as fascist and populist and so is there is no consensus. I myself think of the Daily Mail as a woman's newspaper. Since the matter is controversial, our core policy requires good sourcing, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles." In short, you are more willing to think that calling it "fascist" is not damaging, but calling it "Conservative" is damaging? As for the RS provided, you aver "It is a paper presented by a couple of academics and does not seem especially authoritative or comprehensive." So a claim made by a journalist is not RS, a claim made by the newspaper itself is not fine, a poll of readership is irrelevant, and claims made by "academics" are not RS? <g> But a claim that a paper is "fascist" is fine? Interesting sort of position, indeed <g>. Collect (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me a field like that in the infobox is just asking for trouble. Look at all the silliness going on right now with music genre infoboxes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The colonel cites you as a group of editors who all agree that infoboxes on newspapers should say nothing about their slant -- to which I said he needed to go to the template discussion rather than just work on a single paper. Unless, of course, you do have Multiple Editor Disorder? <g> Collect (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Towns' websites as a source for history again

This topic was raised before, but IMHO the answers weren't that satisfying, that's why I ask again. I currently edit this page. The claims of the town website are refuted by several academic sources. I'm not sure how to resolve this conflict. The statements can't be merged since they contradict each other. Any help is greatly appreciated. Karasek (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not looking into this closely, but two contradictory sources are OK. Just say what each one says, and attribute it to them. If one is normally reliable, but wrong, this is the best way to go. People who read the wiki page, and the other wrong page, will wonder which is correct. If you say "according to this site x, but according to this paper y" then people will know they're not crazy, and that we have looked into both and provided them with the facts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• User Karasek fails to mention his blanket, disruptive reverts of some major improvements to this article including references, images and proper formatting. His confrontational attitude might require administrative help if it continues. For now, contrary to his claims from above, his new WP:POV campaign relies solely on offline Cold War publishing from Federal Germany. Hardly a solution. --Poeticbent talk 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Offline Cold War publishing from Federal Germany? All my sources were published in the last 9 years! What you call Cold War publishing was the first edition of a book I never used. I use the second, expanded and improved edition from 2003. And most academic publications are offline, they are called books. I offer four academic sources, but the respective article is largely based on a website. Are town websites more reliable sources? Who wrote the corresponding article? A historian? A webmaster? A trainee? What sources do they use? Old Polish propaganda or modern publications? Right now the article paints a interesting picture: the version of one website is the majority view, whereas several academic sources represent a minority view. Karasek (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should find the answer at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, quote:

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

Academic works trump other sources, although I agree with Peregrine Fisher that the municipality's own view should also be represented. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The whole array of brick and mortar publications are accessible via Google Books these days. However, the Google search for the above German musings from the Cold War are not available for confirmation by any means available. By the way, there’s nothing “academic” about commercial books in foreign languages which are lacking true academic overviews. --Poeticbent talk 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So, you complain that you can't find the book via Google Books and therefore don't know it, but at the same time you know that it isn't academic and lacks a "true academic overview" simply because it isn't accesible via Google books. Now that's convincing. But it isn't even true. You can find it here: click me. FYI: the author is a respected historian and was director of the Gottfried Herder institute in Marburg, one of Germany's leading centres for the historical research on East Central Europe, until 1995. The book is co-written by a plethora of other academics. One of my other sources, Thum, is actually a dissertation! Karasek (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be treated like any other primary source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This question has also been raised at WT:V#on-line sources vs. off-line sources... with the same response... both viewpoints should be discussed (see: WP:NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rummel's stories about Poland

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.ADDENDA.HTM

Professor Rummel isn't an expert in Polish matters. He quotes selected pro-German sources. The result is absurd. Xx236 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for Rummel's idiosyncratic point of view, and WP:WEIGHT covers the extent to which it should be addressed in Wikipedia; if it ever makes it into the article, the crticisms of Rummel should be included, also. THF (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where the link is included in External links.Xx236 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the external links section. See WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Cite to the book if there's call to cite to the book in the main text; if not, then it certainly doesn't belong in the external links section. THF (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First, if they are controversial, statements by Rudolph J. Rummel (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii) should be attributed. Second: has any other scholar criticized Rummel? Not all scholars are reliable, but to say that one is not one needs reliable sources saying so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree (with Piotrus 15:10). THF (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have another question - which scholars recognise emeritus Rummel as a scholar? Xx236 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I found multiple citations to his work in Google Books, so someone does, though it usually seemed to be people seeking the most dramatic statistics available. But that's a WEIGHT issue, not an RS issue. THF (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... the other scholars at the University of Hawaii obviously recognize him as a scholar (he would not be a Prof emeritus with them if they didn't).

Would you please be so kind to read Rummel to discuss his texts? He "places Poland among the megamurderers". Maybe you have killed many people, I haven't.Xx236 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that is a controversal statement, but scholars often make controvercial statements. The key is whether other scholars agree with the statement or not. If other scholars do not agree with him, then we should not give much Weight to his views. It might even be that his views are considered Fringe theories and not worth discussing at all. Indeed, there might be lots of reasons to discount, or even omit his views... but WP:RS is not one of them. That said, if other scholars agree with his views, WP:NPOV says we should discuss them, no matter how wrong or distasteful they may seem to you. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if few or no scholars agree with him, then we have the WP:UNDUE (or FRINGE) case, and his (controversial) views don't belong here. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Barrington Hall

On this particular article, a number of statements that had been long tagged with citation requests were all replaced with one source, described as "Barrington Hall miscellany, 308W.U592.bar, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley". As best I can tell, this is some sort of book or collection that only has one copy and can only be accessed by going to this particular library (assuming it is even available to the public). Is this a reliable source, and would it even be considered "published"?

I'd like to believe it, but based on the history of the article, which has had a history of revert warring restoring unsourced info and adding links to replace "citation needed" tags that didn't actually contain the info being cited, not to mention comments on the talk page insisting the article should be exempt from NOR since a number of editors have firsthand knowledge...well, with an article with a history of unreliable sources, without any way to verify that the source actually contains the info (or even verify that the source actually exists), I have to admit I'm skeptical.

Any uninvolved opinions would be very much welcomed, thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is an actual source, or at least a collection of actual sources. A search of the University of California-Berkeley libraries (search title keywords for "barrington hall") will show that it is in fact a box (0.4 linear feet) which "[c]ontains policy statements, newsletters, arbitration efforts, etc., about this controversial house of the University of California Students Cooperative Association which closed in 1990." So we know that it exists, and it can apparently accessed upon request, although one must go to the Bancroft Library in Berkeley to use it because it doesn't circulate. The next question is whether it is a reliable source. It appears that the Barrington Hall is using it only as a source for the house constitution and by-laws, which would be a primary source. It is not clear to me why information about notable residents of the hall would appear in the constitution and by-laws, but then I have never seen this document myself. My inclination about using the house constitution and by-laws would be to cite them as a reference only to discuss what was in those particular documents, since those documents are self-published sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A well-meaning editor came along and collapsed *all* references to the Bancroft into one citation. The first time the Bancroft miscellany was used as a reference, several years ago it seems, it was used as a reference for the constitution and by-laws. That is easily reversed. (It should be collapsed so that it isn't cited ten separate times, but to Miscellany, not to "Constitution and By-laws, Miscellany." -Latanya Hearst (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If possible, the actual document used should be identified in each citation, so that anyone who goes to the library to look up these documents will know which ones to look for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, thanks for the input. My concern is that since there is no easy way to verify any of the info from that particular source, what is to keep it from becoming an all-purpose "source" for any unsourced statement (whether it actually is or not) since there's no easy way to prove otherwise. What's to stop a prankster from adding a random name to the list and insisting that is the source, which none of us have access to? In addition to the list of residents, it is also being used for all the previously unsourced graffiti quotes, is it really a record of graffiti that appeared there as well as the bylaws and list of all members? --Minderbinder (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true for any article, and a good reason why our notability standards should be tighter. THF (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Having just removed a number of links that made no mention of the subject of the article and were only added to make it look like those statements were sourced ("failed citation" tags were removed without actually fixing any of them), and along with the insistence on the article talk page that that article should be an exception to WP:NOR, it's hard not to suspect that the strategy there is to use OR in the article and then when a source is requested, just list the one source that no WP editors have practical access to. I'd also argue that any piece of information that has never been published and can only be found out from looking at a box in a basement is probably not notable enough to include in a WP article either. What would you recommend? --Minderbinder (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the graffiti violates WP:TRIVIA; you don't need RS rules to yank it. The box is a WP:PRIMARY issue; secondary sources are preferred, and your notability argument seems sound to me. THF (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't evaluate the sources in the miscellany box until they are specifically identified, but I tend to agree with THF in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tucker Max and questions about 2 sources

Source #1 is/was being used to cite the fact that Max's literary style has been referred to as "Gonzo". It was removed from the article with the rationale that the article was only quoting someone rather than making the claim itself. Is this source adequate?

Source #2 is/was being used to cite the claim that TuckerMax.com has received "millions of unique site visitors". It was removed with the rationale that since it required a login, it was unavailable. However, the statement that the source was being used for does not require a login to view. Also I believe it's been said that even websites that require paid registration to read can be used as sources? I'd like some confirmation on that.

McJeff (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Source #1 can be used to cite the fact that Tucker Max's writing style has been described as "gonzo"; Variety magazine is a reliable source, and there they are quoting someone calling Max's style "gonzo". So it is fair to say that his style has indeed been described as gonzo. The link above to Source #2 is not the correct link, but generally speaking it is true that websites that require paid registration can be used as sources. There is no requirement that the source be available free of charge. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#website traffic for more on the issue of website traffic at Tucker Max's site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

the problem with source 1 is that the producer of tucker's film called his style gonzo, and it's now being used in the lede to call him gonzo. i object to it being in the lede, since it appears to be a minority view from someone who is less than neutral. the author of the article did not call him gonzo, it's just a quote. that one quote is good enough for the lede? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, anything beyond that is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

seems like a nightmare for a BLP. say we had the ny times quoting obama's cousin saying obama is the best basketball player in the world. that means we can put in an article that obama is the best basketball player in the world and cite the nytimes? because the actual situation is that we have variety quoting tucker's co-worker saying tucker is a gonzo style writer and now suddenly because one coworker of tucker max called him gonzo, it's good enough for the lede? it seems like a trivial mention to be included in the lede. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really an RSN issue. "Max's producer calls Max's writing style 'gonzo.'" solves any NPOV and WEASEL problems. Probably shouldn't be in the lede. THF (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I was able to find a few sources making the claim that were not just the same quote from the producer being requoted, however, I'm admittedly a poor judge of what makes a website notable or not, as TSC will surely attest to. So here are the links.

• http://artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4665458,00.html
• http://www.mahalo.com/Tucker_Max
• http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/06/darko-to-serve-beer-in-hell/

There was also one on ezinearticles.com which is spam blacklisted, yet seemed to meet WP:RS. All the above are third party, non-self published sources.

McJeff (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sputnik music review

Is this [8] a good source for the band dope's genre? The site does get used in the reviews section of some albums, but my inclination is that it's not. The reviewer seems to just be a registered member, with 9 reviews according to the site, and it even says in that one "This is my first review". But I thought I'd check it up here. Prophaniti (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't appear to be an RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not; the reviewer is not a staff member. Even then, it's a bit fishy to use that as a reliable source. It is clearly expressed that Sputnik reviews can be used in infoboxes as reviews (provided that it's a staff review), but I don't think it's a technical "reliable source". But, it's surely, most definitely not if it's a review by a member and not a staff. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Site teaching about unreliable websites: allaboutexplorers.com

• Site's about page
• NYT article.

While the info is so over the top even young kids can spot the errors, be on the lookout for pranksters using it. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-17t09:39z

I love it... It's about time that students learned not to accept everything they read on-line! There may be hope for the future of Wikipedia after all. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/

Does this SPAMmy site qualify as a reliable source? (In my mind, it doesn't help that the proposed edit cites to a page that isn't factually accurate.) THF (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy against websites with advertisements, only against websites with excessive advertisements. It is normal for someone who did much work in compiling all that information to run advertisements. Lawyers have to make a living too. Plus the so-called advertisements are on-topic. Imagine that some-one's car breaks down and I point them to a repair shop. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that link and I was trying to decide whether to delete it as junk. I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. Now that it's an issue, I took a better look.

According to their About Us page, this site was created for marketing purposes, as a client referral service.

Their articles seem to be mostly written without bylines, and without supporting citations. The page at issue, on statutes of limitations, cites the state codes, but it doesn't link to them, and we have no way of knowing whether it's accurate.

It's impossible to tell how reliable this web site is, because the creators don't identify themselves.

Since it's an anonymous web site, and the information and opinions are unverifiable, I would have to say it's not a WP:RS.

It looks like the marketing came first, and the articles came second.

The accuracy and completeness of the data is also an issue. That works against WP:RS. If the articles were better, that might be a redeeming feature, but there are better sources on the Internet. Nbauman (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Warsaw_Uprising and Norman Davies

I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Sure, an anti-Polish bias would be much more reliable and make the article featured. Ignorance in Polish matters (no knowledge of Polish language) is highly mainstream. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Christina Schori Liang, Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist, Ashgate Publishing (2007), ISBN 0754648516.

The way the article Far right in Poland quotes the book suggest that the book is POV. Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is published by a recognized academic publisher. Schori Liang is only the editor, she is a qualified academic in the field. The authors of individual chapters are also recognized experts. I'd say its an excellent source. However, as it's a collection, the article should cite the proper chapter (e.g. "Michael Minkenberg, Between Tradition and Transition: The Central European Radical Right and the New European Order, in: Christina Schori Liang (ed.), Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist, Ashgate Publishing (2007), page 265". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Ashgate specialises in collections of essays of this kind for the purely academic market. The summary given in the article is accurate, but should probably be given as an actual quotation (and it misses out the phrase "sometimes anti-Semitic messages" at the end of the sentence). Attributing the statement to Minkenberg would be fair if you (Xx236) are worried that it is presented as undeniable fact rather than expert opinion. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have checked myself. The author misuses the notion of "Right". The book is about different parties branded as Right. In reality some of the parties are more or less Left economically, some of them Third Position. "Right" shouldn't be used here as an invective. In Poland many politicans have chenged their parties and programs since the time described in the book, so the book is about history rather than about current situation. Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Page 261 - recent... June 2004. In Poland 2004 isn't recent, it's two political generations back. And if nationalistic socialism is "right", you can prove anything. Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Communists also rejected democracy, did it make them "right"? Thank you for such "experts".Xx236 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalistic positions are usually classified as right. National Socialism is generally considered to be at the extreme right end of the political spectrum, despite the "Socialism" part of the name. You may not like that, and it is true that a one-dimensional classification has limits, but that does not change the prevailing use, both in academia and in popular speech. The source is reliable. It may not agree with your interpretation, but Wikipedia is based on the notion of reliable sources and not on original research or personal opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's you OR that Socialism is right.Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) National Socialism contains the string "right" only in "Copyright". Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not said that socialism is right. It's usually classified as left. The error is to assume that National Socialism is a form of socialism, and hence shares its position in the political spectrum. But National Socialism is just a label, like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". It shares only very few characteristics with socialism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are all OR. Your personal view of truth does not affect the reliability of a source. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

National socialism is a ideological position of the extreme right and Stephen is correct in his comments about reliable sources. I see no problem here. RS consider NS as a position of the extreme right and that's what we use. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

From Nazism "While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right". Where exactly is it written here that National Socialism was "right"? Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Summarising - you prejudices are reliable and I'm an idiot. Thank you for youer cooperation.Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You focus on the economical ideology in the definition of left and right, which is only part of the complete ideology of a political party. It seems the premise of the book (from the summary given here), the article in question and all the other who comments here focus on the overall definition of the parties in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't see what's the debate about. Personally I believe that National Socialism is rather left, and I hope I can write a thick book about that in a fifty years time BUT as long as I don't, you can and you should quote Minkenberg - he IS a renowned expert and HAS written a lot about that subject - and if he says those guys are right, he's right (no pun intended). Remember, this page is about if a source is good, not what's left or right. Minkenberg is o.k.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim/Mutual UFO Network

Is this article (in German) from the German affiliate of the Mutual UFO Network a RS for historical/biographical information on Burkhard Heim, a German physicist working mostly in the area of gravity control? An editor on the article claims that MUFON's work has been incorporated by Peter A. Sturrock in a report, but I'm still sceptical as to their reliability. The German MUFON article is the main source for the Heim article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid it as self-published and way fringe (disclaimer: I only read the babelfish version). Doubly so given that Heim has been discussed by solidly reliable sources. I would advise just sticking with what those say. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, an obituary by a MUFON-CES officer is not reliable because it was not published in a peer reviewed journal and was authored by a MUFON-CES official. Fascinating reliability assurance measures.Tcisco (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he said that it is unreliable because it was self-published in a fringe source. That is several steps below "published in a peer reviewed journal". Eldereft: what reliable sources would you suggest? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Manga/Comics addionals RS

Hi,

I wish to have your opinion about those two manga/comics related websites :

Comics Village

Comic Book Bin

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say comicbookbin.com is an RS based their about page. They have editors, and they pay their reviewers. Harder to say with comicsvillage.com. They do have some sort of editorial policy, but they say "This site has a pretty hands off editorial approach." I wouldn't use either for anything controversial, and I would attribute anything used from comicsvillage.com to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much as some fellows editors will argue forever without the RS notice board. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TVSquad.com page

Resolved

Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter.

And btw, why was this section archived into Archive 28 if it wasn't resolved? Is that common? Nightscream (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think TVSquad is a reliable source. I did a bit of research on this a while back at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#TV Squad as a reliable source (also look at the section above that one). Basically, they're paid, they have editors, and they're (ultimately) part of Time Warner. They call themselves a blog to try and seem hipper than webzine and writers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:Frank Dux#BIAS AND CENSORSHIP OF VERIFIED FACTUAL EVIDENCE

Can someone more patient and knowledgeable than I about what constitutes a reliable source please address the issues brought up in this diatribe? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a short summary with links? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, pretty much just www.frankdux.net... I could just curtly point him to WP:Primary sources but I don't want to seem dismissive. I just don't know how I can adequately answer all those questions in a way that would be acceptable and satisfactory for him while also persuasive at the same time so I figured I'd defer to someone who can better articulate precisely what the policy says thereby enlightening him without reflecting badly on Wikipedia. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't really talk like that but all this unnecessary vocab sure makes me look smart don't it? :P -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sakhalin-II

One of the sources for the Sakhalin-II article is http://royaldutchshellplc.com. I would like to ask if this website could be considered as reliable source or not? Beagel (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the citations I see for that site, if I'm looking at the right ones (references 38, 39, and 40) are themselves just versions of content from The Financial Times, which is clearly a reliable source. I think it would be much preferable to find the original FT articles and cite them, rather than going through this website, and I would question the legality of it apparently posting entire FT articles there. I'll do my best to track down the original articles and cite them, and given the general nature of the website, most of it is just posting material from other sources, so it would be best to use those. Cool3 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the same applies to http://www.shellnews.net/.Beagel (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitchfilm.net

Is this site reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Until they fill in their [about page, I would have to say no. If you think they are reliable, look for reliable sources that use their information, and indications that they have editors who screen their writers articles and bring it back here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding twitchfilm.net, some info can be found in their FAQ page regarding who runs and edits it, as well as their screening policies [[9]]. As for reliable source which site their articles, it is actually the other way round as due to the nature of the site (as explained in the FAQ page), it posts and cites news articles in most cases i.e. [[10]] where the link to the original news source is found in the bottom.

However, it does get enough exposure in the film circles that it gets quoted as sources i.e. Anime_News_Network [[11]], the biggest Anime news source on the Internet; scifi.com [[12]], the official website for the Sci Fi channel, ComputerAndVideoGames.com; the site for Computer and Video Games magazine, the world's oldest specialist gaming publication; PCGames.de [[13]], a online version of PC Games magazine under Computec Media. The owner/chief editor of the site is also one of the directors of Fantastic Fest, an annual film festivel in Texas as per the press release [[14]]. Being that the site itself is film focused, the face that it is one of the representative judges gives it some credibility as well.

Can it now be considered reliable in this case? -- Zhanzhao (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the American Free Press considered a reliable source?

I'm doing research to improve our 9/11 Conspiracy Theory article. Is the American Free Press considered a reliable source? I am asking in reference to this article [15]. I tried searching the archives and surprisingly, I did not get any hits. (Maybe the search engine was having an issue when I did the search?). Anyway, is this a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a reliable source for anything other than what the American Free Press says, and, even then, WP:WEIGHT suggests it should have minimal or no presence in an article about anything serious. Even for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it would be a primary source, rather than a preferred secondary source that discusses the role of the AFP in such conspiracy theories. THF (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a news outlet and we may use it. But it does have a right-wing viewpoint, and that particular article makes a pretty extraordinary claim. You wouldn't say "X Y Z is so" and then cite it, but you can include it in the article as a published example of a 9/11 alternative theory. Basically you'd be using it mostly as a primary source, except that I feel the AFP is "secondary" enough to justify inclusion in the article without finding an additional source to explain why the theory is important. But it appears they're commenting on an interview that was allegedly published in an Italian newspaper. Why not see if the Italian article is online and/or whether any other media commented on it? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's be precise here: the American Free Press does not have a "right-wing" viewpoint; if it had a "right-wing" viewpoint, it would be a reliable source. It has a neo-Nazi/Holocaust-denial/international-Jewish-banker-conspiracy viewpoint. THF (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems OK with attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but isn't the idea of WP:RS that extremist sources are only usable in articles about themselves? Once you decide that it is such a source (and it seems to me that it is), then it is not "okay with attribution" in any article other than American Free Press. No exceptions. Also, this reflects on the nature of the article itself: there are plenty of crackpot sources who have "takes" on 9-11 - the article isn't and should not be constructed from those takes, but from RS third-party commentary about such theories (I suppose it's invariably negative to them, but that's life). Therefore, such venues lack relevancy as primary sources - one could use primary sources where those sources are reliable and mainstream in themselves, and even there with many reservations (WP:PSTS); where they are not reliable and mainstream, attribution does not mend anything. Attribution is what one does to reliable sources, not what one does to salvage the possibility of quoting an extremist source. Dahn (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahn is exactly right. THF (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Extremist source" is in the eye of the beholder. To me an extremist source would be something like Stormfront or Al-Manar. AFP definitely has a far-right viewpoint, but I wouldn't discount it entirely. They seem to be notable in the "9/11 Truth" movement; even our heavily biased article on them says so. But still, I would rather editors try and track down the Italian newspaper that's being quoted here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You contradict yourself: is smthg is far right (or far left for that matter), then it is extremist. And, when in doubt, you research what RSes say about the source in question (yes, there's always a "beholder", but what matters here is that there are beholders we trust to indicate how a source is being treated, who function outside our opinions, in accordance to the very concept of RS that we're writing about here). From those few RSes that pay any attention to it: [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. In parallel, you could review its overall reception, and see if any RS quotes it for its info. In this case, they don't, and in fact the ones most eager to quote it are the like of the Adelaide Institute, davidduke.com etc. Dahn (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I'm going through each and every link in the article to try to determine whether each one is considered reliable or not. This is a hugely daunting task because there are hundreds of links. So far, the majority of links seem to be to unreliable sites. Anyway, what if the original article is in Italian? My understanding is that we're supposed to avoid using non-English sources in the English Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Definitely extremist -- Carto, Barnes Review, Foundation for the First Amendment, Liberty Lobby, all one big extremist 'organisation'. And we can use non-English sources. dougweller (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We can use non-English sources, but we should have a good reason to do so, such as lack of availability of English sources. A lot of the non-English sources aren't going to be any more reliable than the English sources citing to them, which is why they're only being cited by the unreliable English sources. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, etc.; the Italian interview sounds WP:PRIMARY to me, at a minimum. THF (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much obstacle to using non-English sources (I've used some in FAs, for instance). It seems that the Corriere interview is now cited by the article. I understand Italian, but I haven't read it, so I can't be sure of what Cossiga says and if he was properly cited by the AFP. If he really makes the point, it should be quoted from him - what readers will find is exactly what it is: the singular POV of a probably senile figurehead. In any circumstance, the AFP quote, and anything on that level in the article, should go, and if the info they support isn't backed by reviews in the mainstream media, then the info they support should follow them out the door. Dahn (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this debate has got this far - even a cursory examination (and I'd never heard of it before) of it's "stories" shows it to be trash, the usual mixture of zomg the jews are taking over the world via banking crap. I wouldn't consider it a Reliable source in form. It should be used for claims about itself and that's about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Far-right doesn't necessarily mean an extremist organization. And the sources quoted above could be considered its political foes. I'd rather we quote the BBC or Washington Post for a viewpoint on whether the AFP is extremist or not. As far as the other issue, I feel it is appropriate for an article about conspiracies to reference, with attribution, some conspiracy-oriented media. And there is, I repeat, there is no policy to avoid non-English sources. If you have two sources that are of equivalent stature then you'd pick the English one. But here I'd rather have the Italian source, especially if the Italian source is in a mainstream newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "far right" is the very definition of extremism - "extremist within the right-wing context". And, as I have made it clear above, other RSes simply don't give a damn about the organization in question either way. Using the Washington post as a source would require the Washington Post submerging to that level of internet memes in order to recover this exact piece of anti-"ZOG" propaganda and label it. Not a reasonable expectation, and a rather sophistical argument. Within the source's context, the only ones that mind it are neo-nazi bodies which spam with it and a handful of RSes, all of which evidence its bias with some rather explicit terms. Dahn (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think we have found another conflict between WP:RS and WP:V... the POLICY on this is WP:V... and specifically WP:QS which states:

• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscientific. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source. (bolding mine)

This policy statement makes it clear that one can use extremist sources in articles that are not specifically about the source (or group that publishes the source), we can also use them in other articles that discuss the source (or group).

However, WP:RS is more limiting... stating:

• "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities" (again, bolding mine).

So which do we follow? To me that is clear... Policy rules. RS is a guideline that is meant to further explain the WP:V policy. When the two conflict, it is RS that must be amended to reflect WP:V. I will raise this conflict at the relevant policy/guideline talk pages and amend the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? what you've highlighted states that it shouldn't be used in this case. I'm a bit confused what your point was. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cameron Scott. The former does look a bit different, but I can't really imagine how it would contradict the second - it doesn't validate quoting the source discussing itself in an article that is not strictly about the source (if this is what Blueboar meant), and, if anything, looks a bit more ambiguous while making the same basic point. Dahn (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was in reply to Dahn's comment above (where he/she says "I'm sorry, but isn't the idea of WP:RS that extremist sources are only usable in articles about themselves? Once you decide that it is such a source ... then it is not "okay with attribution" in any article other than American Free Press. No exceptions.") The language in WP:V makes it clear that you can cite a questionable source (including extremist sources) in other articles, provided that it meets with the limitations listed at WP:QS. Whether AFP passes or fails the test is a different issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the issue, and our article quotes both the Italian newspaper and the American Free Press. So, we only need the Italian article. If we quote the AFP at all, we could use it to say something like "and [story] was picked up in the U.S. by the right-wing American Free Press". One could argue that it's a story in itself why an opinion from a former head of state in a major Italian newspaper would be picked up only (as far as we've gotten in this discussion) by partisan sources, but quoting it in this way puts it in perspective. Quoting it in this way also takes us into the realm of writing about the AFP and thus within the boundaries of WP:V regardless of the outcome of the "extremist" debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The original quote was in kind of a strange context, and he may have been mocking the conspiracist viewpoint. Irony doesn't translate well, and if he was speaking in jest, well, that means something very different to our article. I'd feel a lot better about this if someone from one of the Italy wikiprojects would check out the original article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Design 1047 battlecruiser

I would like to use this source in Design 1047 battlecruiser, but I really have no idea if it is a reliable source or not. Thanks for any help! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sketchy. The first thing to do with web sites is check their about page. Apparently they're a gaming company, so they're probably only reliable when talking about their games. Other things to check are if the author is an expert, and whether other reliable sources use them as a source (which I haven't checked). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has 18 hits on Google Books, most related to gaming books, but a few crediting him for help, including one from 2003 saying that he was "a doctoral candidate in history", and the page I am asking about says that he has a PhD... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One should also bear in mind that he is the President of Avalanche Press, but he does seem to have some knowledge in the area:[20] "The German Colonial Soldier"; "Great White Fleet";

“ Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II‎ - Page xxiii

by Belton Y. Cooper, Stephen E. (FRW) Ambrose - History - 2003 - 384 pages

Mike Bennighof. a doctoral candidate in history, did an excellent job of editing my original manuscript.

”

However I do believe that in this case this one area/page is a reliable source. TARTARUS ^talk 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Auditory Integration Training

An editor Eubulides has entered some information on this topic that is inaccurate and medically biased , and insists that this medical bias is the only accurate and verifiable POV of relevance, and insists on negatively-biased medical sources as being the only accurate ones to include in the article. This editor has persisted in reverting entries I have brought to this topic to add the non-medical POV for greater accuracy and reliability on this topic. My sources are shouted down as being unreliable. It seems to me that this editor is attempting to exclude the balanced POV that including these references would bring. comments, please.Jvanr (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the previous comment is talking about the article Auditory integration training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Jvanr happens to be forum shopping, so caution should be used here. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But this would be the correct forum, wouldn't it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

no flying no tights

Hi. Is no flying no tights.com [21] considered a reliable source? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it have an identified author? Someone known as some kind of expert? If not, then there's probably not a lot it should be cited for. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is basically a web site that reviews graphic novels/comics. I was wondering if it could be cited for that. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is reliable. Blogs are not considered reliable (The exception to this are those rare bloggs where the author is a noted expert in his field of study... and in those situations, the blog is not reliable for anything except the a statement as to the opinion of the expert). The typical Blogger's opinion is not reliable or notable. To relate this to noflyingnotights.com, for it to be at all reliable you would need to estblish that the author is a notable expert of graphic novels... For example, if he/she has published books on the subject, or was hired as a reviewer by a major comics industry magazine... or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a lot more than a fansite. It appears to be a library guide to graphic novels. Click over the the staff bios page, most are librarians and many have impressive academic credentials. Click over to the "press and praise" page, many articles have been written about it, and many libraries link to this cite as an informational resource. Sounds like a fine source for Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HowStuffWorks.com

Is this site reputable enough to be used as a source for the Rigor Mortis article?

"How Muscles Work"

--72.207.17.89 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they are reliable. I think they're a part of the Discovery channel or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it passes the bar of reliability for broad sweep statements... but it is probably not the most reliable source for specifics. Having seen the broadcasted TV show, I know that it often over simplifys things... I would expect the same from the website. So, if the source is contradicted by more reliable sources, I would go with the those instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Single sourcing of contentious material

I'm not convinced this is the right place, but there is nowhere else to discuss single sourcing. Late last year I had a fairly critical review of British_Military_Intelligence_Systems_in_Northern_Ireland and removed some material that was speculative or inappropriate, but also some that was either unsourced or not supported by the source used. This was block reverted this morning on the basis that a newspaper article was adequate sourcing. That didn't cover the point that several removals weren't based on that.

I have fairly serious concerns about the sourcing, in part because the article relies on two, one book by a self proclaimed former intelligence operative and a newspaper article about a related criminal trial that restates a number of the points in the book.

• Tony Geraghty: The Irish War Johns Hopkins University Press 1988
• Article by Duncan Campbell on the attempt to prosecute Geraghty & his source here and here.

I would assess that as a single source, since there is a clear audit trail from one to the other. I don't believe that the source is strong enough to go into the level of detail that the article goes into but would be grateful for views as to whether the claims of an individual are reliable enough to build the level of detail that the other editor wishes to include.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you doubt information that's already been published in a secondary source, the answer would be to quote it with attribution. By the way, you basically removed everything except for the intro paragraph (opposing editors have since reverted). Was all of it unsourceable speculation? If you think the entire page is nonsense you might want to take it to AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I think what I left in place was a bit of a statement of the bleeding obvious I didn't think it was worth AfDing, there are Int systems in the province, although finding anything reliable about them will be a challenge. I'm also realistic, trying to AfD anything related to an intelligence subject ends up mobbed by keep votes because it must be troo. In any case... None of it was adequately sourced, and some of it was speculation. Most sections took what little there was available and started building on that, so predominantly OR.

I've read both the sources used by Campbell, and I don't trust either of them very much. I would go so far as to say, when I don't trust a source and the information is not corroborated, then I don't use it. Unfortunately the desire seems to be using the secondary source as corroboration of the primary sources, which is why I'm asking the question. Is single sourcing an entire article acceptable? I suppose a related point, although perhaps not for here, is basing an entire article on a single source that is not inherently reliable enough to establish notability?

ALR (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking this beyond the article in question (and even beyond intel related articles)... I agree that basing an article on only one source is poor scholarship. But I can see how this could happen... Someone reads a book on a topic that interests them, they come to Wikipedia to find out more... and discover that there is not article on that topic. So they write one based on the book they just read. This is fine if all you are attempting is to get a stub (or, at best, a start level) article in place. The hope is that others who are interested in the topic will add more information and more sources.

But that raises a second question ... are there other sources? Can the article grow beyond a stub cited to one single source. If not, then we do have to ask whether the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With a bit more digging around, the original source is an excerpt from a strategy document and the books speculate based on some unidentified verbal accounts. I don't believe that there is anything particularly credible available, but I'm also realistic about posntial success at AfD...

ALR (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an expert in a "letter to the editor" pure opinion Vs plausible expert opinion and fact.

The concerned editors of The Man Who Would Be Queen have a question,Hfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We have the unusual case of a academic/scientific journal publishing peer commentaries, which were called for from the concerned segment of the general public. The paper being commented on addressed a controversy, in which allegations of professional and sexual misconduct were leveled at J. Michael Bailey. The editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior,Kenneth Zucker wrote of these commentaries "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author." and stated that he published all the commentaries recieved. We haver refered the issue of weather or not these should be treated as being reliable sources on par with peer reviewed articles twice already. [22],[23]

User:Soulscanner Summed up the conversation and majority opinion thusly "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter."[24]

Specifically We have the comment by Charles Moser Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco. Some of us want to use the following quotes from Moser in a section of our article entitled "academic freedom". Found in this commentary [25]

1. "Did she uncover a pattern of lies and false allegations? No, the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct,"
2. "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial. Can we all get back to science now?"

Which of those can we use?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The above is the question and it is meant to be neutral. This is what I personally think based on the facts, and WP policy. As I said a long time ago. "They, unlike Dr. Wyndzen, are known to us. People can look them up and judge for themselves what weight to give each of their comments. Just like they can for self published sources authored by autorities on the subject of the publication. Therefore I argue that those commentaries should be included. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)"[26]."

Those commentaries from people who are recognized academic experts should be included. But we have to be careful and discriminating in what we use. The above is a good test case for this principle. Mosers first statement that the allegations of professional and sexual misconduct against Bailey were basically true is in my opinion not includeable. He is not and no one person alone can be an expert on those. That is Mosers opinion and nothing more. However what Moser writes in his second statement is 100% includeable he is as much an expert on academic freedom as any academic. Moser is as much an expert on academic freedom as practically any expert can be. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether the experts are writing about something directly within their field of study, or are stating their opinions on a tangential issue. In this case, I think Hfamer has it right... the first quote is not about something within the field of study (but about the conduct of a collegue), while the second is. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I had asked Hfarmer not to bias the question by asserting that these invited peer commentaries are "letters to the editor" or that as one guy opined "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum." In fact, the editor did not publish all submissions, but most of them, the ones that addressed the topic to some extent at least. They are "commentaries" on a "controversial paper" co-published in a special issue. The controversy can not be fairly reported by relying on one side of the arguments as if it's "peer reviewed" and other other as "letters to an open public forum." And the controversy is really about opinions, not about facts or expertise; that's what makes Dreger's "controversial paper" so controversial; the facts in it may be peer-reviewed, but basically it's an opinion piece in which she takes the side of her colleague at Northwestern. Anyone who needs to see these to help form an opinion about the structure of this special issue can email me for a copy. Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick we have already had two RfC's about that. The notion of using those as if they were equal to the peer reviewed article was rejected twice.

What we both got was the commentaries included in some parts. The appropriate parts. Take the victory you have.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to have them treated as peer-reviewed; they're published opinions, like Dreger's. Victory would be when you stop misinterpreting those previous discussions, stop telling me you're on my side, and stop telling me I lost or won. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points for now, because we've gone {{Round In Circles}} on this issue several times:

1. About the commentaries: The editor's own introduction to the issue, at PMID 18431642, describes the process in sufficient detail for RSNers to make up their own minds about whether it was an open call, along the lines of a letter to the editor process. Here's the relevant quote:

   "Dreger's paper was peer-reviewed by three referees and then a call for commentaries was issued via various listservs and organizations. A total of 60 people expressed an interest in writing a commentary and, in the end, 24 commentaries were received. One commentary was not accepted by me for publication because its content did not have anything to do with the target article. The 23 published commentaries are followed by a reply from Dreger."

   Additionally, it may interest RSNers to know that the mediator for a recent failed formal mediation contacted Arch Sex Behav directly and confirmed that they did not verify credentials or even insist that authors use their real names.
2. About Moser: Charles Moser (physician) is NOT "an academic". He is a physician in private practice (more or less specializing in sexual health) in San Francisco. He does not, and as far as I can tell, never has held an academic position (beyond student) at any accredited college or university. His PhD is from the same non-accredited "Institute" that he works (part-time) for. Moser has never published anything about academia. He has published several papers on sexuality. Therefore, Wikipedia would accept him as an expert on sexuality, but not on academic freedom.

This doesn't seem very complicated to me, but we have literally covered the same ground four or five times now, with apparent amnesia between the conversations. In the previous RSN conversations, the conclusion was generally to treat these commentaries as self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. If we could get a dozen or so RSNers to reply with simple, concrete, unambiguous statements like "These commentaries should be treated as self-published" or "No, Moser is not an expert on academic freedom", then perhaps it will eventually get resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (who, BTW, agrees with Moser's comments on this subject, especially when you read the entire letter instead of just the ending, which is being quoted out of context specifically to provide a constrasting opinion.)

Ok. This is like the fourth time I've seen this on RS/N. I'm not going to push people to forum shop (I still don't understand what was wrong with the outcome the last two times), but I don't want to see it back on this board. We are going in circles. The right answer is to move up the dispute resolution chain. If you can't solve this problem, request the assistance of a mediator (I'm already assuming that you are past the "third opinion" stage). If that fails to be resolved that way (and I notice, though have not investigated, that an RfC has failed), then the next step is arbitration (though they will probably reject it as a content dispute). It is not okay to keep bringing this back here. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbComm rejected the case. Formal mediation has failed twice in the last month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Parity of sources

I think that WP:PARITY is the closest thing we have to apply here; it was written to apply to fringe science topics, which Dreger analysis is not, since it doesn't present as science, nevertheless it's an idiosyncratic analysis that is widely criticized by others familiar with the topic it presents opinions on, including people from outside the narrow field of academic sexologists who mostly take Dreger's side in supporting their own. The so called "peer reviewed" status of the Dreger "controversial paper" in the special issue of their journal on this topic should not be taken as a reason to not present any of the responses to it that are published, as part of that conversation, in the same issue. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

German Comics/manga website

Hi,

Can anyone confirm that the German website splashcomics is a reliable source for reviews ?
Some clues [27] [28]

Sorry for bothering again and this time with some exotic request. --KrebMarkt 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help knowing what articles you wish to use it in.--Otterathome (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,

Use of reviews to assert notability of manga outside the English speaking area & use of reviews to develop reception section of related reviewed manga.

Thanks again. --KrebMarkt 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well to read about this source you need to know German, you may want to post a link to this at WP:GER.--Otterathome (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

infidels.org

Is this a reliable source? It really doesn't appear to be one, as it hosts mostly blogs, unreferenced information, and tries to sell a lot of products. It is also very biased to a specific point of view. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd regard it only as reliable as WP:CITE#Convenience links (if reproducing material previously published elsewhere), or if the author of the material in question were themselves considered reliable as an expert on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Careful. They have two distinct publication venues, the "Kiosk", with only minimal editorial control, and the "Library", which has historical papers and also publishes modern essays with strict editorial control and peer-review. I would accept library documents as reliable for most unexceptional claims, i.e. put them on a level with e.g. normal newspaper articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Robert M. Price biography links to this short bio. This seems to be information that could be found elsewhere (haven't yet), but is linking to a page that has quite a few ads. As an EL, it would probably fall under reason #5 not to have it. However, it is used as a reference which is why I am trying to figure out the status of this site. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL#5 refers to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising". I don't see that applying here at all - there is very little and very targeted advertising on that page. The amount is comparable to e.g. [29] and [30], and much less than on [31]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on the page gives me 50% of it devoted to banner ads. The New York Times has two minor ads at the very top and a tiny ad at the bottom. The FoxNews website only has two ads and on the side, not in a prominent position. PCWorld is the only one with comparable size and probably shouldn't be linked unless its of utmost importance. I also think its a tad misleading to try and compare this website with some famous and well known websites that whose merit would override any banner ad concerns. Remember, number 5 is to keep down promotional material to small sites that seek to use our servers to raise revenue. Seeing as how they have a campaign trying to get 40,000 dollars, that shows they are a small site and also trying to get revenue. Remember, this is also a subpage. The main page is 50% advertisement, which is more than even the PCWorld page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the Wikipedia fundraisers? Nevertheless, I agree with Rima here; there's no need to use this borderline source when there are better sources out there. That whole Robert M. Price page is a mess and needs to be stubbed. THF (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about Wiki's obnoxious fundraising. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get 50% from? The home page [32] has 2 tiny banner 'ads' at the bottom, the 'needs your support' ad, and an ad for its bookstore. 10% perhaps. dougweller (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

cal.syoboi.jp 2nd try

This is a revival of the unanswered Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#cal.syoboi.jp.
The issue is whatever the Japanese website cal.syoboi.jp is RS for the original broadcast date of anime episode and episodes titles.
Additional clues : Errors on the TV program schedule are notified here and not directly corrected by users. Every broadcast date has a backlog indicating who, why & when modification occurred.
As this source appeared in quite a number of FL, an answer would be great.--KrebMarkt 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As Japanese language is required, you might get some feedback posting it at WP:JAPAN discussion page.--Otterathome (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.musicianguide.com/

Any previous desicion on this site? --neon white talk 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a search engine at the top of the page that reveals Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#www.musicianguide.com_-_a_RS.3F, which suggested without "deciding" that it's better to find other sources if possible. I would tend to agree. THF (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd site, it appears to me to be a compendium of bios that seem professonally written though there is no indication where they are sourced from. --neon white talk 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

famoushookups.com

The site famoushookups.com [33] is used repeatedly as a source in BLPs. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia RS requirements about fact-checking (among other things, it has X-Men comic book artist John Byrne married to actress Tilda Swinton (or else has Swinton's husband married to Byrne's (ex?) wife. So I believe these citations should be removed as it is a gossip site. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The John Byrne thing is at least partially true, but their link should be to John Byrne (Scottish artist). While that site is not reliable, I would be careful removing it wholesale, because some of it is backed by reliable sources, which should be substituted in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The four times I've substituted out famoushookups, three of the times it checked out in reliable sources. 75% is nowhere near good enough to go into a BLP, but it's good enough that before deleting it, you should do a cursory Google News search. THF (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Source interpretation

In the article on RAF Menwith Hill a user is trying to suggest that a passing reference in a news article about another subject is enough to state that the location doesn't appear on many maps, a conspiracy theorist position. In practice the source, from the [. Independent] states that it doesn't appear in the AA Road Atlas. An alternative source says that it appeared as a collection of aerial symbols until recently, a clear indicator that it was identified as a wireless station, in Ordnance Survey parlance.

I'm pretty sure the user is a sock puppet, due to phrasing and the use of the Cite template with no edit history. Unfortunately the indicators have been removed from Wikipedia in a recent deletion

Grateful for some thoughts on the most appropriate way to deal with this.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey... you know, the sock master is right... It isn't shown on "many maps"... For example, I don't see it on my USGS map of Eastern Connecticut, or in any of the maps that are in my historical atlas of the US Civil War! It's a conspiracy!

Seriously, saying it does not appear on "many maps" is more than a bit weasly. Even if we assume this to mean modern maps of Yorkshire, we should not be surprised that some have it and others don't. A lot will depend what the map is trying to depict... a map that is trying to show where the best pubs and hotels are, or one showing how to get to the local antique dealers, may not have a need to mention that there is an RAF facility down the road. Even if the AA Road Atlas doesn't show it (and I would want to double check that against the actual AA Road Atlas itself), that really does not tell you much of anything. Unless we know why the AA does not show it (and for that we would need a solidly reliable source) it simply is not worth mentioning. I would delete the line.

Oh... and just to quiet the conspiracy nuts, I found it quite easily using Google Maps (seach "Menwith Hill" and zoom in a bit... and there it is, clearly labled). Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is slightly more use. It isn't a conspiracy theorist position, the MOD do keep locations of sensitive bases off maps. Also The Guardian and the BBC, although the BBC article indicates the stance has softened slightly. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point... the fact that some maps don't show RAF bases might be worth mentioning in an article about how the MOD has handled sensitive information through the years, but I don't see this as being important to the article on RAF Menwith Hill. Furthermore, mentioning that "many" maps don't show it is misleading, since it would be just as accurate to say that "many" other maps do show it. The fact is, it simply depends on which map you look at. Now, if it didn't appear on any maps... that might be a fact be worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in whether the text belongs in the article, I am just providing sources that do source the text under dispute, or an amended version of it. O Fenian (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What the sources demonstrate is that the fact that Menwith wasn't explicitly identified on older OS maps is largely meaningless. IT says that all MOD sites were unmarked, not just sensitive. It used to be identified as a wireless station, as all other military communications sites were, partly for navigational reasons as antennae are quite distinctive and useful as nav markers.

ALR (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Suck my Manhole an RS?

There is a disagreement regarding the typing/subtyping of transsexality at homosexual transsexual.

user:Jokestress has asserted that the blog Suck my Manhole consitutes an RS,[34][35] and is comparable to blogs appearing in the NYTimes.

I believe it does not. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

(To forstall the potential question: I am quoting the above verbatim; it is not my intent to slant anyone's input by using vulgar or attention-seeking language.)

— James Cantor (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a reliable source for some information. I wouldn't use it for categorizing types of sexuality, though. Probably shouldn't use it as an example to assert that certain types of sexuality exist, either. They don't seem to be writing it from the point of a sexuality expert, but more from a porn industry goings on standpoint. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This really strikes me as the sort of question that answers itself when we're talking about a BLP. THF (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think I agree. However, because the other editor does not see it the way I do (and because this is part of a long series of disputed pages) it seemed logical to me to seek input from editors who could not be considered biased (as the other editor considers me to be). If you'd like to have a look at the diffs in my original post here (and in the discussion around it), neutral input there would also be very helpful. Thanks.

— James Cantor (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, I think it could be used as a source for saying that such & such a person says they are [whatever], or that X Y & Z do.... all preferably quoted. The interviews look responsibly done. If individual people say they are of a certain type of sexuality, it exists, at least in their minds. DGG (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's just that one person saying there some type of sexuality is not the best source for asserting that it exists. It's an RS for them saying they identify as an X. I think it would go against UNDUE (or some other acronym), I guess, to then extrapolate that X is a category deserving mention. It's tricky, but I guess the upshot is that it's an RS, but where and how to include the info is an editorial decision that may have to be informed by other guidelines. I'm sympathetic though, because it seems like an important subject that is probably hard to find sources for. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard

Could Billboard magazine be considered secondary source? --Efe (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes... whether it is a reliable secondary source depends on what you are citing it for. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where the concern has been raised: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)/archive1. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check it please? --Efe (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason to think that it's not a reliable source? THF (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought "number one single", meant number one on the Billboard charts.... Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the articles is sourced only from Billboard and not any other sources, I told the nominator at the FLC that the article needs a variety of publishing sources not just one primary or secondary source. So I requested for at least one other source (from another publisher to be added).--TRUCO 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not actually in any way a problem in this particular instance. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not the variety of the sources used as it is not a requirement in FLCs. Its if Billboard is "reliable" enough and could be considered a "third party" source. --Efe (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is reliable, not a third party because its an official publishing site for the Billboard company.--TRUCO 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Djuro Schwartz

Is Djuro Schwartz reliable source? His book (?):"in the Jasenovac camps of death" is used in multiple wikipedia articles but for google Djuro Schwartz do not exist or maybe is better to say the he exist only in wikipedia mirrors [36]. Situation is very similar in google books where there is no books of Djuro Schwartz [37], but his testimony is used in book of Milan Bulajić which is known for writing controversial testimony [38] in his books.

Because it is possible that I am POV in this question, I am interested to hear your comments if Djuro Schwartz is reliable source.--Rjecina (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Djuro Schwartz is actually Duro Schwarz, a man who's testimony appears on Yad Vashem's website. It's reliable, though not spelled correctly. --AniMate^talk 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yad Vashem Studies by Yad ṿa-shem, rashut ha-zikaron la-Shoʾah ṿela-gevurah Published by Yad Vashem Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, 1998 (page 65) Duro Schwartz was a prisoner in Jasenovac from August 1941 until April 1942. He was released because he was married to a non-Jewish woman.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

A trade association puts out a report written by a university professor criticizing an organization opposed to the trade association's goals. My own independent research shows that the report has factual errors (and perhaps outright misrepresentations), and those factual errors are making it into Wikipedia articles. I recognize that my own original research or synthesis cannot be in the article. To what extent can the original research be used on a meta-basis to demonstrate that the source flunks WP:RS? I don't wish to argue specifics or for any particular Wikipedia policy position; I just want to get a sense of how other editors understand RS policy. THF (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original research policy only applies to article content, so there is no problem with using a talk page to debate the source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now less hypothetical: The Burke Group

• The Burke Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's unquestionably the case that the source (which is funded by a union group opposed to TBG) is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court, and falsely implies that the award was the result of the actions of the subject of the article. On the talk page, two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong and left out the fact that the award was for unrelated issues, but insist that the source is still reliable and its misleading remarks about the subject of the article should remain in the article. At a minimum, WP:COATRACK would seem to apply: that the Burke Group's client was fined for an unrelated labor practice is quite irrelevant to The Burke Group article. Editors understandably have their backs up because a series of now-banned sock-puppets from TBG tried to remove the same information, but that doesn't excuse including policy-violative material. THF (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC), updated 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation:

"It's unquestionably the case that the source is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court..."

It is an attempt to impeach a source, when the critic's own analysis (if not his conclusion) has already indicated that it is not falsification, but rather, a shorthand term for the court, use of which may cause confusion.

Specifically, THF has stated,

There is no such thing as the "Court of Appeals." Logan must mean either the "California Court of Appeals" or the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," probably the latter as most labor law in the United States is federal. [39]

Note that "Court of Appeals" appears in the names of both courts. THF may believe this is falsification by the source, but any reasonable person (without a source-impeaching agenda) will conclude that the source simply used the shorthand term, perhaps assuming that the reader either will know which court he was referring to, or that to those who do not know, it will not matter.

This is also a misrepresentation:

two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong...

I am one of the two editors described. What i actually acknowledge is that the amount of the award has been increased by subsequent court action, from $2.5 million, to $5.19 million, including "10 percent interest on the original award of $2.5 million."

Specifically, i had responded on the talk page,

"I acknowledged no such thing. The cite was outdated because there has been subsequent court action, and the amount of the award needs to be increased. Your extrapolation of my acknowledgment serves your own interest in helping to sanitize the Burke Group article, and it is likewise unfriendly."[40]

Five hours after i clarified in no uncertain terms that i did not acknowledge "that Logan was being dishonest" -- in THF's characterization of my words -- THF reports here that i "acknowledge" error in the amount. It wasn't error in the amount, the amount changed (again, due to later court action after the initial amount was correctly reported) and i had merely observed that the article needed to reflect that.

Now this response of mine on this page is not entirely Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and i apologize for that. But we're referring to an article that has been under constant attack for the better part of a year, and my AGF has worn thin. I'm trying to explain the issue as accurately as i am able, and i no longer have a lot of energy to AGF.

When it comes to reliability of sources, the practice of hanging "unreliable source?" tags throughout an article, as here: The Burke Group, of alleging falsification when the only real offense is abbreviation, and of misrepresenting someone's opposition as support for one's own editing goals, ought to be the real issues in question here. The overuse of "unreliable source?" tags in particular creates an impression of uncertainty in the reader. Thus, by raising a multiplicity of challenges to an article, a critic of the article can create an image of unreliability, whether unreliability is a factor or not.

Bottom line: several of us editors consider John Logan, the London School of Economics professor, to be a reliable source, an expert on the subject matter of union avoidance, and his research is worth noting in an article about a union avoidance company. I'm confident enough in that, i'd be happy to hear what others have to say. Richard Myers (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been commenting there as well. There is simply nothing linking the award to Burke- Logan doesn't say that, and the article doesn't say that. I don't know where that idea is coming from. As much complaining has occurred over the "Court of Appeals" quote, I fail to see how that would invalidate the source- besides, I reworked that section so that the ruling was covered over a different source. There shouldn't be an issue here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some help from uninvolved editors? I'm getting tag-teamed here, and, as you can see, their style is to turn everything into a WP:TLDR issue. THF (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AGF chief; the only long thing I've posted on the talk was a direct quote. I don't see it as tag teaming when you're discussing us on another board, especially when your post is as one-sided as this one was. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language source

Hi, could someone who's familiar with Swedish media comment on whether or not an article published by Svenska Dagbladet could be regarded as a highly reliable third party source. The article states that the Swedish band Roxette has sold 70 million records (albums and singles combined). The figures are not directly within the article but separated in a column to the right which includes facts about the vocalist of the act. I need to make sure of Svenska Dagbladet's reliability in order to proceed with adding Roxette to the list of List of best-selling music artists wherein I am trying my best to support artists' stay with highly reliable sources. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the wiki page, it sounds like a totally reliable source. It's a newspaper that's been around for more than a hundred years, and is third in circulation for its country. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Svenska Dagbladet is as reliable as any other mainstream newspaper in the Western Hemisphere.PelleSmith (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, it's possible that Svenska Dagbladet was just repeating sales figures from a press release supplied by the band's record company or publicist, which may or may not have any clear connection to reality. I note that discussion at Talk:List of best-selling music artists has questioned whether Roxette could have achieved 70 million in sales, given that their sales certifications in major territories don't approach that number. The question is whether their sales in other territories (plus sales of recordings that did not achieve certifications, plus sales beyond the last certification) could get them up to 70 million. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're after verifiability, not truth. We can't second guess RSs without proof, because then our whole system falls apart. I looked at that list, and a lot of it seemed unreasonable. Bing Crosby at over 500,000,000 (that's a lot of 0s, like national debt sized)? Ace of Base in the 10s of millions? I guess it happened, but it sounds crazy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

CNN, People for the American Way, Kathryn Kolbert

Kathryn Kolbert's criticism of Rick Warren was mentioned in CNN. Are that [41] and her later statement [42] reliable sources, when what she has said is attributed to her, ie: 'Kathryn Kolbert said...' ? This is being discussed here: [43] Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They're reliable, but it looks like you've got editorial decisions to discuss. Not all reliable sources are necessarily included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you think her opinion should not be included? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into it. It looks a bit too involved for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter.com?

I've seen a few instances recently of this site being used as a source in biogs. My feeling is that we should not regard them as reliable, even if they purport to be the account of the actual person, because as far as I can tell, there is no way of verifying this. Also, our article says that the site has been compromised already this year. Thoughts welcome, as we do not seem to have addressed this as yet. --Rodhullandemu 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter.com is just a hosting site for microblogs. Our existing self-published sources policy pretty much covers it. I can't imagine a good reason for a Wikipedia article to cite to a "tweet" except as a primary source if someone gets in trouble for a tweet they made. THF (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't use it except as a primary source in another story. For example, there was something on CNN about how the Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 crash was reported on Twitter, so it may be appropriate to cite the blog in that situation. ( The mainstream media has gotten quite an obsession over Twitter, so it's not hard to find published articles that link "tweets" to notable incidents. ) But for a biography you almost never use a blog as a source, except if it's the blog of the person the article is about. And you've doublechecked to make sure it's really their blog. A gray area would be a biography where the blog is written by a third party but published media strongly references the blog; in that case you would ask for consensus here or on the BLP noticeboard. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe break it down by institution? If you added sources to that list, the page would get much too large. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There should be no problem documenting this properly and objectively, using the biographies on the Nobel prize site. But that amount of work, although I think a matter of counting , not synthesis, is a substantial project. The sources are the ones used--they are reliable within their limits, and the limitations are specified. I think it meets RS. The quality of formatting is another matter. the use of color to indicate prize name is a poor idea; and I do not think it needs to be columns--i.e.

Cambridge university

Undergraduate degrees

List of people......

Graduate degrees

Visitors

I think this may be what Peregrine Fisher has in mind? further discussion would seem to go on the talk p. there. DGG (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using the Nobel Prize biographies site should be indisputably reliable - if the institution is not mentioned in the Nobel biography, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion on a list. However, would one then take something like the List of Nobel laureates as a single column, the proceed to list in subsequent columns their undergraduate, graduate, and appointments? This seems to be a borderline case of an indiscriminate collection of information - one could as easily use this precedent to make a claim for List of Nobel laureates by birthplace. I'm beginning to think there's serious WP:NOT and WP:N problems. Should this be AfD'd? Madcoverboy (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

CorpWatch

CorpWatch homepage

Would it be considered a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.252.81 (talk • contribs)

Only for the POV of CorpWatch, so WP:UNDUE comes into play. I'd recommend against it except to the extent its reports have received independent press coverage. THF (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By that standard then is CorpWatch an appropriate external reference link in an article about a topic other than CorpWatch?

As I said, I'd recommend against it except to the extent its reports have received independent press coverage. I see on the CorpWatch page that Business Week has criticized their accuracy, which makes them more of a WP:QS. I went to Special:Linksearch and found that the few pages that cite to CorpWatch are all pretty much WP:LINKFARM messes, and did a little cleaning. THF (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I am new here and want to do my best to get it right. Right now I am focusing on reading and asking.

Well, it depends what you want to use it for. It appears to have an editorial board, and according to our article on them, it has broken some important stories. On the other hand, it has an obvious anti-corporate point of view and our article also has some criticism to that effect. Generally, political watchdog groups may be used, but neutral sources like newspapers are preferred. What article did you want to use it in? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

plastics.inwiki.org

I'm sure this has been asked/covered before, but http://plastics.inwiki.org is not a reliable source because it is self published, correct? Wizard191 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Otherwise, one could add info there and cite it here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot! Wizard191 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Other wikis are self-published and not generally used as sources, but if the wiki has good information it may be appropriate to include it in the external links section. However, if text from that wiki was copied into the article, you have to make sure we don't plagiarize the other wiki, and that's more important than RS in most situations. Either leave the citation link but add an "unreliable source?" note until other sources are found and the information rewritten in your own words, or remove the text altogether. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We generally do not link to wikis either, per WP:EL. (Or at least we aren't supposed to, there's a lot of wikilinkcruft on the site that should be removed.) And in the situation you describe, we should remove the text altogether, as there is no reliable source for it and there's no reason to leave junk there whether it's reworded or not.DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

EL is okay with wikis that have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", and often an appropriate choice is to link to a more specialized wiki. This happens a lot in pop-culture articles. Anyway, the cited article appears to be a fork of an earlier version of our article. So plagiarism seems less likely and the text can stay. The link should be avoided so we don't have an "echo chamber" issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Would this page, mangalorean.com, be considered reliable. It seems to be news-based but I'm not sure if it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Copana2002 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which article on the site is in question? Appears to be a newspaper but has some comments/blog section. There's also a "voices" section which I'm not sure whether it's staff columnists or if its a citizen journalism area. And if its a wire story you're interested in then the wire service would be the source for RS purposes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is from the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS), so I'm guessing it would be considered reliable although not necessarily the entire site. I'll go ahead and include it and if I'm wrong hopefully someone will let me know. Copana2002 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.coat.ncf.ca

Reliable source? Seems WP:SPS to me, and generally WP:ELNO, but would like others' opinions. THF (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not SPS in the sense a personal blog is. Newsletter from an anti-war group that's been around for >20 years, though couldn't find any info on their editorial policies. I could go either way on this. Maybe good source for an article on the anti-war movement in Canada. Which article is it being used in, and how are they using it? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is at Business Plot; they're using it for a conspiracy theory relating to the FDR Administration. THF (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source from a noted anti-war group. It is relating to a congressional investigation, which found that there was evidence of a business plot. What sections of WP:SPS in particular does it violate, what sections of WP:ELNO? 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether an anti-war group from Canada is the best source for historical events that happened in the U.S. in the 1930s. But this is really a "convenience link" issue; the cites to COAT are really for excerpts of published material or reprints of government reports. While I think they are reliable enough to reprint sources, we don't really need the convenience links. That article though has a lot more problems than RS issues; it's all over the place. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed on website reliability

I found this site, which to date has been the only place on or offline that I have been able to find good quality information on armor specifications for naval vessels. Before writing and article with this as a primary source though I would like an opinion on whether or not this meets WP:RS standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. On the face of it it looks like a fansite (so to speak), but there are scans of original material. However, it doesn't support the whole text, and the cited work isn't shown. Have you tried emailing the creator to find out what it is, or ask him to put cites on his own page to whatever Navy manual it's from? That might shore it up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Arctic Beacon

Is this a reliable source? It's heavily cited in John Buchanan (American politician), and the title of the article cited in that bio makes me think it's more of a WP:QS. THF (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I strongly suspect not. At least it's only in the one article. THF (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely say that it is not a reliable source... it is a self-published news webpage created by a self-proclaimed "alternative investigative reporter" (he apparently also has a self-broadcast web "radio" show). He seems tied to the Truther movement. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's linked from a couple more articles, too. Far right and Croatian Liberation Movement. It's not necessary for those, either. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbed. Good catch. THF (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

I have run across this as a reference in several biographies, and would like to know if it qualifies as RS ? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just seems to be a parked page with a search portal? do you have some examples? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some examples of articles cited: (for Fascism [44] , Ed Masterson [45] etc. all seem to use "freepedia" which is not a RS as far as I can tell. So is this site usable as RS? It is used as a ref or external ref in well over a thousand articles it appears. Collect (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's not a reliable source. Based upon the excessive amount of advertising found on such information-light pages it's probably a coordinated COI/linkfarming/spam attack on Wikipedia as well. DreamGuy (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the input. Collect (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Question about Verifiability of City Name

Resolved

 – wrong forum Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone please take a look at the verifiability of the name of a city and the list of People from this city. From its foundation in 1237 as Elbing in Prussia until 1945 Elbing, Prussia, Germany the official name of this city remained the same: Elbing.

Only in 1945, when the city was conquered by the Soviet Union, who gave it to Poland, was it officially named Elbląg, Poland. In 1999 Poland formed a Warmia-Masuria district, to which it assigned the city of Elbląg (until 1945 Elbing)

A user (group?) 77. and 213. range re-adds incorrect, that People are from Prussian city of Elbląg, latest [User:213.238.123.205] about a Prussian city of Elbląg. I explained on the list, that there was never a Prussian city of Elbląg, only a Prussian city of Elbing, which since 1945 is named Elbląg and since 1999 is assigned to Warmia-Masuria.

As verifiability of “his/their proof” this 213.238.123.205 uses a Polish search engine, which shows from 1000-1800 Elblag Results 4 books Elblag in Polish language, which actually use Elblag (and 2 German with Elbing of which 1 is referenced in Polish).

I changed the name to Elbing on the same Polish Search Engine he posted. It gives for the same time span for Elbing = = Results 732 books Elbing

After pointing out to him that there are a handful (4) books in Polish with Elblag and over 700 books (732) with Elbing he disregards the very clear proof against his false claim, and he changed it again and writes personal attacks. This (group) 213.238.123.205 wants by false statements and intimidation tactics enforce an incorrect version on Wikipedia, thereby on the general public.

Someone else please check into the personal attacks Also, if it is appropriate that a person can dictate by intimidation that 4 Polish language books about Elbląg take precedence as verifiability over 732 books about Elbing, the official name of the city from 1237-1945.

Thank you.(71.137.194.48 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

This isn't really a WP:RS issue, this is more of a WP:WEIGHT issue. You probably want to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I'll warn the user about his uncivil comments. THF (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---

THF, thank you very much A.O.71.137.194.48 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)}

---

The editor 71.137.194.48 first claimed that the name Elbląg was invented in 1945. I showed him that there are books using it from 18th century.

There are also 448 books using this name edited before 1900 see here.

So his main argument about the invention of the name in 1945 is simply untrue. Therefore his aims to change the category description, made since March 2008 (than known as 70.133.64.78), have no actual basis. They were reverted since March 2008 by various editors who propably share my point of view. Cheers 77.253.67.106 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, but that's what Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts is for. Getting the WP:LASTWORD on this board isn't going to help either of you. THF (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, it is not a step in dispute resolution. I don't see anywhere in this section a question about the reliability of any source. Dlabtot (talk)

Rudolf Steiner

Two editors, hgilbert and EPadmirateur, reverted my edits to Rudolf Steiner. In particular, they claim that an ARBCOM decision disallows my placing an external link to an article titled "Rudolf Steiner and the Jews", and that this was not a Reliable Source. I have read the Arbcom decision but found nothing in there to support their claim of exclusion.

They then undid my edit trying to make the "Judaism" section more balanced.

Finally they removed the NPOV tags I placed before discussion on the Talk page had run its course, which I believe violated the usage instructions for the NPOV template.

Upon looking up the Arbcom decision, I discovered that hgilbert is a Waldorf School teacher, and so I have placed a COI tag at the top of the article.

More eyes on this would be welcome.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't give us much to go on here, not even a link to the source in question. This does sound like a WP:AN/AE issue, though it sure seems to me like the arbitration ruling requires use of peer-reviewed sources in the Steiner article, and your proposed polemical source doesn't come close to meeting that requirement. THF (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me out here, the word "polemical" appears nowhere in the Arbcom ruling? You are entitled to describe the source as "polemical" but that is only your opinion unless you make a case for it.

Here is the "Remedies" paragraph from the ruling:

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

passed 6-0 at 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't see anything about "polemical sources" in there. That Steiner said the things he is quoted as saying is verifiable, and I don't see original research either.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, don't believe me, and take it to WP:AN/AE, and they'll likely tell you the same thing. But perhaps I'm wrong when I read "third-party peer reviewed sources" as requiring third-party peer reviewed sources. THF (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your reply as an admission that your characterization of the article Rudolf Steiner and the Jews as "polemical" is entirely your personal opinion and itself polemical. (You would have had no argument from me had you characterized it as "critical".) I've added an analysis of the present state of the "External Links" section of Rudolf Steiner and its woeful unbalanced state at Talk:Rudolf Steiner.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you're not interested in neutral editors' opinions, you just want to forum-shop for people who agree with you. THF (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question is whether the waldorfcritics.org source is RS for Steiner's views on race, my view is that no, I don't think it is. The precise relationship between theosophical notions about "ancient races" and early C20 racism and antiracism is a complex topic in the history of ideas, and an academic source is needed. However, the waldorfcritics source might be reliable for the fact that criticism has been made of Steiner's work on that account. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, a solid "Criticisms" section is a viable project for the future of the Article. At this point, however, we are not talking about incorporating something into the body of the Article - it's about one (1) external link to a critical article, which the pro-Steiner editors are fighting tooth and nail to keep out. An external article, moreover, that is mostly summary and quotations from Steiner, and should not be kept out under WP:ELNO, which for the moment is the only applicable policy here. We are here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because there is no separate noticeboard for external links and in my opinion WP:RSN is the closest thing to it. We really need more editors at the article, at present I am outnumbered by the polite POV pushers. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. 1) I detest 'criticisms' sections, explian the criticisims in the context of the whole topic. Especially for something as broad as an educational philosophy. 2) the specific waldorfcritics site is simply self published opinion, not any manner of reliable source on any aspect of the topic. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Steiner never said what he is quoted in the article is saying? At what point, in your opinion, does the behavior by pro-Steiner editors Hgilbert and EPadmirateur turn into naked edit warring with the sole purpose of keeping out information that they deem embarrassing to Steiner – at the cost of keeping the article less encyclopedic than it could be? Have you examined the sources and links that Hgilbert and EPadmirateur have deemed acceptable for the article? Did you read my analysis of the external links on the Talk page? Do they meet the standard that Hgilbert and EPadmirateur profess to uphold? And – addressed not only to Rocksanddirt – when can I get some help here? Do not let the fact that Hgilbert and EPadmirateur maintain a facade of politeness and never use cuss words fool you – these two are among the most single-mindedly determined POV pushers I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from steiner himself from his lectures are problematic. His lectures were transcribed by people in the audience. (it's been a while since I read it, but the whole race thing that waldorfcritics likes does seems to be a misquote take out of context from several lectures and then not very acurately translated into english). The help you seem to want is to find more reliable sources for the article that have different views than what is there? am I correct? I somewhat disagree with your statement about Hgilbert and EPadmirateur being "among the most single-mindedly determined POV pushers." Prior to the arbitration, they were amongst the moderates, and have done more to remove poor sourcing from the articles around Mr. Steiner than most (certainly than I have). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are already a number of much better (academic, peer-reviewed) sources used in the article to support the fact that Steiner's work has been criticized in this realm. See the article's thorough and neutral discussion of the topic. hgilbert (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliablility of Reference #5 in the Mountain Dew article is unclear.

I just checked the talk page of the Mountain Dew article, and one guy had posted a concern about the reliability of Reference #5. Here is what he said:

"the current #5 ref (the one that lists health problems supposedly caused by the ingredents) CLEARLY lists wikipedia as it's main reference. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't such references considered unreliable."

This user is going by the name of StoneCold89. I believe he has a big point there. How could a reference be considered reliable enough for Wikipedia if that source uses Wikipedia as its source?

I thought I would bring it up here so that I could get a more knowledgeable desicion about it. In my opinion, I agree with the guy totally.

--[|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is clear -- no cite tracing back to any wiki is a valid reliable source. Travcing back to WP is a double whammy. Collect (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That would be an "echo chamber". A self-published source citing the WP shouldn't be cited by WP for the same information. Also the health claims are problematic as well. We should just have a list of ingredients; the corporate web site probably has one. We shouldn't make any nutrition claims about the ingredients, unless we have a source that specifically mentions Mountain Dew ( per WP:RELEVANCE and some interpretations of OR ). The user can click through to the articles about the different ingredients if more information is desired. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted the additions. OR from an unreliable source. --Onorem♠Dil 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

HistoryLink.org

Is this a reliable source? It is a free online encyclopedia of stuff related to Washington state; the About Us section says content is submitted by "staff, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts"—"with a few noted exceptions." This particular article does have an author listed, so I'm assuming it's probably good, I just wanted to check. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good as an external link, as a source you should check the sources their article uses and use them instead.--Otterathome (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

airport watch

Anyone come across this site before? http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/aboutus.php --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Use with caution, as this appears to be a site primarily involved in stopping and protesting against the expansion of airports, it is likely to contain bias. Using it in certain articles may violate WP:UNDUE.--Otterathome (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are Web Japan,Tokyograph and Nippop reliable?

• Web Japan is sponsored by the MOFA Japan. So that make's it reliable right?
• Tokyograph gets their information from Japanese language sources and translate it into English. All of their information is accurate.
• One of the contributors of Nippop, Steve McClure, is a writer for the Japan Times; and he was the one who conducted an interview with Kumi Koda. So does that make it reliable? ^~Moon~月と日の出 ^~Sunrise~ 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can't tell, probably (don't use it for anything controversial). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. ^~Moon~月と日の出 ^~Sunrise~ 04:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA - WP:RS?

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.

It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.

Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.

Help? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're unreliable based on thier wikihitstory, but please provide links and specify articles. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved editor - the first RSN on CAMERA was swamped by involved editors (and I regret to say that I then joined in). However, the result (from the uninvolved editors) was clear and summed up in my words: "the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care".

There was a second such RSN cut short when some objected to it being characterised as a hate source. But the conclusion from amongst the uninvolved editors was the same.

The wikihistory of CAMERA is that one of their staff (the director?) sought editors who would subvert the processes of the project, and found an enthusiastic ally in an active editor, who proceeded to plot to create faux administrators. On that occasion they were detected very early on and this one editor was indef-blocked. Please note, there have been persistent efforts to claim that this affair concerned a tiff between CAMERA and Electronic Intifada (eg here), this was not the case. I regret to say that this account I'm using has a history of wiki-stalking, so if a large number of other involved editors arrive, it may be considered important that they identify themselves as such. PR^talk 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Use with care. My advice would be use it minimally. It is an advocacy organization which has a history of interfering with Wikipedia. It isn't outside the realm of possibility to envision them releasing materials with the express purpose of impacting debate here. That notwithstanding, we can treat them like we treat any other advocacy source--with grave caution. Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise. Where those sources do not, we should use them exceedingly rarely. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Such sources can definitely be used for statements of opinion, attributed to the source... for statements of fact, reliability often depends on exactly what is being said in the article. If there is doubt, it is probably better to find another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

@Protonk -- a question. Does CAMERA have a history of fact checking? Not clear what "responsibility" means in this context. Appreciate an expansion of your comment. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki campaign or no really has no bearing on CAMERA's reliability or lack of. Even bias does not necessarily speak to reliability. In fact, I can't find anything in RS that would count CAMERA or other advocacy groups out. If the particular item being referred to is challenged, CAMERA should not be the sole source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA breaches the same policies as does David Irving, hate-speech and falsification of sources. It's partisanship is so extreme, and its concerns so trivial that the assistant editor of a major Israeli newspaper said of them (copying in CAMERA's Israel Director Tamar Sternthal!) "In the event that this [CAMERA complaint] gets to you: We have a quasi 'policy,' on the orders of [editor-in-chief] David [Landau], to ignore this organization and all of its complaints, including not responding to telephone messages and screening calls from Tamar Sternhal [sic], director of CAMERA. Otherwise, we will never finish with them." PR^talk 10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, historian, or even as a responsible human being. Comparing pro-Israel advocacy groups to this racist is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Being a professional, habitual racist is worse than being a professional researcher. PalestineRemembered has been asked multiple times to stop using this false analogy and ad hominem. [46] I ask him once more that he stop this foolishness that hasn't helped his cause even once and will never help his cause. --GHcool (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a Godwin's, innit. B'er Rabbit (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that comparing one's ideological opponents to Hitler is useful - but using David Irving as a touchstone against which to compare RS is valuable. Racism and falsification march hand in hand - we've seen lots of evidence of both at previous RSNs and on TalkPages. PR^talk 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ, PR, give it a rest. <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I believe we have all had enough of your comparisons of pro-Israel scholars to Holocaust deniers. I am warning you that sooner or later I will report you for violating WP:CIVIL if you continue using this hateful false analogy/reductio ad Hitlerum. You have been asked to stop more than 8 times now.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] I suggest you take my request seriously this time. --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the assertion that CAMERA's campaign to influence wikipedia (however small, misguided and unsuccessful it was) should have no bearing on our treatment of their reliability. I don't think it should disqualify them per se, nor do I think, like Cerejota does, that we should "punish them" for their meddling. I just think that if we are attempting to examine their record, it would figure somewhat prominently. As for "responsibility", I mean that they present facts without distortion, that they don't have a history of ethical problems (plagarism et al.) and so forth. We don't have the talent or the resources here to conduct some thorough review of CAMERA's research and publication history. So barring some external review (say, from an award or E&P or CJR looking at them), we have to judge "fact checking and reliability" based on some related heuristics. In cases like this, where we are attempting to judge the reliability of an advocacy organization in a pitched battle, we should have a pretty high standard. The outcome from christening them as a font for reliable information (if they are not one) will be to shift the weight of the related articles too much. Honestly, I think most advocacy organizations should be quoted with caution. In most cases, there is not a shortage of material, there is just a shortage of material available online at the click of a button. There are scores of books published on the Israel-Palestine conflict every year. The vast majority of those would work fine as sources. Using CAMERA (or whatever their Palestinian equivalent is) as a source in place of those (or newspaper articles, or magazine articles, or journal articles...etc.) strikes me as unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [55] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [56]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart. IronDuke 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume IronDuke's comment that CAMERA "weirdly [isn't] linked to Holocaust deniers" is tongue in cheek. --GHcool (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption would be correct. IronDuke 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:) --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a RS, but should be used sparingly because of the crap you're going to get if you do use it. See WP:IDONTNEEDTHISCRAP (forthcoming)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So that makes 7 people who commented saying that CAMERA is an RS (however, it ought to be used with care) and 2 people who commented saying that CAMERA is not an RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All nine of you, heavily involved editors who should know better. As to my opinion (as an equally involved editor) CAMERA fucked with wikipedia, we should return the favor. Full stop. Any uninvolved editor should see this, as should any involved editor. Any organization that active seeks to subvert the very existence and viability of an NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit should be a RS only about itself, and even then with extreme prejudice. Their forefeited their RS card when they fucked with wikipedia. The day the New York Times does the same thing, my position will be the same. --Cerejota (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, are we being a little melodramatic here? CAMERA is highly partisan, not at all objective, should be cited sparingly for relatively non-controversial entries, and their history of trying to undermine the Wikipedia cannot be discounted. But to suggest some sort of tit-for-tat rationale is an unacceptable position to take, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a sort-of-involved editor (same topic area) I suggest that CAMERA should be cited only as a source on what the opinions of pro-Israel advocates are. Their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least. But there are articles like Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where they're important sources, and articles like Muhammad al-Dura where they should probably have a sentence or two. They shouldn't be used in BLPs at all, they should be used very sparingly if at all in highly important "mainstream" articles like Operation Defensive Shield, UNRWA, or Second Intifada where there are books full of reliable-source material available. Better to cite sources with a well-established reputation. <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with Eleland's post above. CAMERA is an RS most of the time. I have never read anything by CAMERA that made me feel as though they were guilty of deliberate falsehood. The worst one can say about them is that they are one-sided, and that affects their research and conclusions. The "fucking with Wikipedia" thing failed miserably and they likely won't try it again, but that is evidence of Wikipedia's strength, not CAMERA's weakness. --GHcool (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure. I would say they wised up, but I the face of a lack of public mea culpas etc, I am weary of them getting anything out of us. There are other equally partisan sources we can use that are not them. There is no reason for us to link to them except as a source about themselselves.--Cerejota (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GHcool: wha? How can you say you agree with my post, and that "CAMERA is an RS most of the time?" The whole point of my post is that CAMERA should not be used most of the time. One can say far worse about CAMERA than "they are one-sided;" if you want my opinion, they are vicious, vaguely McCarthyite, negationist, nasty, and relentlessly dishonest. Looking at this RSN posting, it seems that you're only hearing what you want to hear. All uninvolved editors who've commented here have expressed grave doubts about CAMERA's reliability, including me. <eleland/talkedits> 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a reliable source for information about the world, only for information about the perspective of exteme pro-Israel advocacy. This is readily apparent from their publications, but it should also be blindingly obvious that any organisation that would attempt to secretly interfere with an encyclopedia in order to promote their perspective cannot be trusted to be honest in their reporting. That has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" reprisals, it is simply that their action has proven them to be devoid of the principle of honesty. Disclaimer: I've edited Israel and the apartheid analogy, but I've attempted to be non-partison there and have raised the heckles of both "sides" in reasonably equal measures. I would trust CAMERA as a source of facts about as much as I would trust Hamas: not at all. They should only be cited as an example of the position of an extreme lobby group, they should never be cited on points of fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now CAMERA has been equated with Hamas. Does CAMERA fire missiles randomly into Gaza? Probably better to compare them with the EI, both somewhat partisan activist groups.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I compared them in terms of being unreliable sources on points of fact. They both engage in propaganda and have scant regard for honesty, and can only be used as sources for their extreme partisan positions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, just looking over your talk page and your edits to the article in question, I tend to question that you are raising hackles of both sides in approximately equal quantities. This isn't the place for that debate, but I really don't think the anti-Israel (so I term them, my opinion) editors use your name as a target for darts or whatever other aerial missiles they currently favor. Not the place for that debate. I just don't see anything, though, that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS. A partisan one, that should be used with great care, but a RS under our rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "a partisan source that should be used with great care" you mean that CAMERA should never be cited on points of fact, only as partison opinion, then we are in agreement. Is that what you mean? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think they could be used as a RS. In practice, I would advise against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we essentially agree in practice. In terms of Wikipedia, isn't practice all that matters? What is a "reliable source that I'd advise against using", really? And for that matter, which of the criteria on WP:RS does CAMERA meet, in your opinion? Are they "trustworthy"? I think it's pretty clear from their behaviour on Wikipedia that they are not, and looking at CAMERA it seems that they have copped a lot of flak from reliable journalists for bending the truth. Do they have a lot of people "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing", like a peer-reviewed academic source or major newspaper? Are they actually a "third party" to matters involving Israel, or are they in practice a propaganda group? When you say that you don't see any thing "that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS", shouldn't you be looking for signs that they are, according to the criteria actually listed on WP:RS? Are all sources assumed to be reliable sources until proven otherwise, or do we require that they actually meet the criteria? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this I can't hear you? I said it above, don't use CAMERA because you are going to get a lot of flak about it here, so it is not worth the grief. All the same it is a RS. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's not about whether people will give you flak for using a source or not. It's about whether the source meets the criteria in WP:RS, which are relatively objective. What criteria from WP:RS does CAMERA meet? If it doesn't meet the criteria, then it's clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't think it meets the criteria for the reasons I mentioned above, but I'd be interested to hear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stick candy

There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:

Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states that the content should not be included as it violates WP:V. I personally have looked and have been unable to find what we would traditionally call reliable sources, not surprising that not a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the sizes you can get of stick candy.

As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching tags. These tags also appear later in the article regarding typical costs (25¢-75¢ each) and how stick candy is often referred to as "old fashioned" (Note that since then I have found references for the old fashioned portions, but since the page is protected I added it to the talk page for now.)

In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?--kelapstick (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed at length and more accurately on the article talk page, starting with Talk:Stick_candy#RfC:_Disagreement_over_sources. I had requested multiple times that editors post here if there were going to continue to assert that these primary sources are reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no WP:RS available for something, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That's what WP:V means. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html is not WP:RS and can't be used. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to use those sources. You could say "candy retailer XXX sells them in YYY sizes", but it woulnd't be very encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst the above points are correct according to WP:V policy, there is a case here for using common sense. If every store sells these things at certain sizes with no disagreement and the encyclopedia would be improved by having the info there then i think you can ignore the rules. --neon white talk 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement, otherwise we would not be engaging in this discussion. No, this certainly does not appear to be a case where one could justifiably ignore WP:RS and WP:V. Dlabtot (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh, OK. To be honest, I'm amazed that this article has generated so much fuss. To be perfectly frank, I'd be all for a merge to the candy article. But, since I've already responded on the talk page via an RfC, I figure "In for a penny, in for a pound". First let's make clear that WP:RS is a guideline as opposed to a policy, there's a big difference. Second: verbiage such as "ignore" indicates a willful attempt to circumvent the policies and guidelines; and I don't see that as the case at all. This all seems to stem from the desire of the editors to include, and I paraphrase Stick candy is 14" long. Apparently the UP, and API wire services haven't done a whole lot of reporting on stick candy, so finding a good secondary source is the crux of the problem. This leads us to the use of a candystore.com site [sic?] for the reference to the candy size. Now, looking at WP:V, we find the following. "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources:" My interpretation of this is such that due to the lack of a good secondary source, the candystore.com site which makes this aforementioned candy stick, would be acceptable per the "acceptable to use in some circumstances" part of the WP:V statement, If the candystore isn't blacklisted, and if the editors don't have a COI with the site. I'm not sure about the former, and have no reason to question the later. Even myspace and youtube are cited on a very rare occasion.

I definitely agree that the wording as it is/was (depending on the version at time of PP), needs some major work. That part is easily addressed, and I believe it is being addressed on the talk page. I understand and admire those editors who adhere to the strict letter of the law, but we must not lose sight of the intent either, both in policy and in community goals. Items like WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR (and forgive me for daring to utter those far too often quoted links), are there for a reason. If there indeed is a "Thou shalt never use a store site to verify the size and shape of an item, least ye be struck from all mention within thine wikipedia", I simply have not found it. (was that over the top?...sometimes I just can't tell ;)). Anyway, since I jumped into the pool with the RfC, I figure I may as well swim over here to the deep end to blabber on about my interpertations and perceptions of yon policy. — Ched (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and really the only thing relevant here is whether sources meet the criteria for WP:RS. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html or similar sites do not in any way meet those criteria, not even as self-published sources. It doesn't even claim to be a source of information - it's a candy store. It's simply totally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia in any way whatsover, in my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We either aim to be as encyclopedic as possible or not (we do). As such, we use the best possible sources. Blanking information such as typical dimensions and flavors from this article, as well as the best possible sources, simply is not helpful in ensuring we have the best, most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. Threatening to merge the Stick candy article (one of the most traditional and historical candies in the United States) to Candy is similarly unhelpful, and perplexingly so. Badagnani (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Permit use. WP:PRIMARY is the key part of the WP:NOR policy here. In relevant part, it states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

In other words, there are two concerns, and in this case they are easily addressed:

• "Reliably published". Is an online retailer a reliable publisher of the specifications of its wares? Vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product benefits and underestimate the all-in cost to the consumer. Other than these two related issues, vendors are privy to the most not least accurate information about their product. The potential conflicts can addressed (and should be addressed) in either or both of two ways. First, corroborating the information with multiple different vendors would be sufficient unless there were thought to be a widespread coordinated fraud amongst vendors selling $0.15 products. Second, checking for positive reviews of the vendor and lack of negative reviews could establish the reputation of the vendor for fair dealing.
• "Description only". The intended use is only for description, so this poses no issues.

It is mind-boggling to me that this issue has been taken this far. If there are any legitimate issues with the text and the citations that are used to back it, they are whether the information itself is sufficiently notable or encyclopedic to include. While to me this issue appears to me to have been established in the affirmative, but if people disagree, there are other venues for addressing it. Bongomatic 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see so much interest in the candy stick article. I would just like to piont out that while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found. They are not being used to make assertions, just to establish basic desciriptions of size, flavoring and pricing. I suppose this information could be taken out, but that would make the article worse not better. My other idea was to hide the citations so they show up on the edit page, but not in article space, if this appeases the enforcer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have to wonder if the statement that is being made is really accurate, dispite the source... sure, these may be standard sizes and flavors for stick candy being made by big commercial candy companies, but surely there are other, smaller candy manufacturers that make non-standard flavors and non-standard sizes. What about the hand-crafted candy shops? I think it would be safe to use a commercial website for a statement as to what that particular company sells... but not for a broad statement about an entire genre of candy. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I never eat candy... I'd rather prefer not to know the size of a candy stick or just guess it from the picture or - why not - believe it with no source offered (it's hard to imagine somebody would invest much energy only to fool me into a wrong belief about candy stick size) than to link to commercial companies as a good source (even if I've no doubt they'll be accurate about their products) By the way, if the candy page was in need to be edit-protected for a week as to avoid further armed incidents about candy size, don't you think it qualifies for WP:Lamest Edit Wars? Sorry, I just couldn't avoid this comment, you'll excuse me. Cheers and have a sweet day.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found - wrong. If they aren't RS (and they're not), they can't be used. Did you notice the period at the end of that sentence? Policy is clear on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations are made to pages that are not reliable sources all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? Editors do a lot of things 'all the time' on Wikipedia that are blatantly contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Redux: Is "Document" documentary on BBC4 radio RS?

I believe it is covered by the same case-by-case standard as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Is_a_Discovery_or_History_Channel_documentary_considered_a_reliable_source.3F. In this case, the documentary simply gives a platform to the conspiracy theory of John Buchanan (American politician): a couple of editors are arguing that "the BBC" is a reliable source, and therefore Buchanan's views about a historical event are entitled to the same reporting as (and perhaps more space than!) Arthur Schlesinger's. Full discussion at Talk:Business_Plot#Buchanan. THF (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. Are you talking about a document displayed on BBC4 page? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We're pretty safe in considering the BBC a reliable source. Or more specifically, that if the BBC interviews somebody, it's a safe bet that what was said in the interview, however controversial, is important enough to be mentioned in our article as somebody's opinion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Why is a BBC4 radio documentary about a conspiracy theory more reliable than a History Channel documentary on a conspiracy theory? Why is a John Buchanan, who clearly falls under WP:FRINGE, raised to a reliable source just because he shows up on the BBC? THF (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "why" question is not relevant. The question is whether the BBC is a reliable source per wikipedia requirements, and in particular BBC Radio 4: clearly this is a reliable source according to wikipedia's definition. No one is saying Buchanan is a reliable source. The reliable source is BBC Radio 4. They have chosen to broadcast his views. Therefore per NPOV we should also represent them. The fact that they have been included means they are by wikipedia definition not WP:FRINGE. Ty 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all correct, up to the last couple of sentences. Reliable sources often report fringe views. They don't report them as facts, rather they quote the source of the fringe view. For example, the BBC could interview people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. Also "Therefore per NPOV we should also represent them" is not really correct. Just because one RS has reported a view, that doesn't mean it must be reported on Wikipedia. Views should be given due weight based on how widely they are reported and in how much depth. A single report of not much depth, regardless of how reliable the source is, doesn't give a view a great deal of weight in terms of whether it should be described on Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is the link to the BBC Radio 4 programme.[57] There is a programme synopsis online and the show available to listen to by clicking a link. THF has argued that because it has included Buchanan's views it is therefore an unreliable source, because any source that uses Buchanan must by definition be unreliable. The opposing view is that BBC Radio 4 is a reliable source by definition, and that gives validity to include Buchanan's views in the article. The principle has been established for some time; see this earlier discussion.[58] There is no argument that Buchanan should be given more space than Arthur Schlesinger: that is just creating heat and dust. Ty 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the show is RS only to the extent that opinions presented in it are reported in WP as opinions and not reported or used as facts. (and a transcript is infintely better than a recording as sometimes people hear what they wish to hear, and a transcript is verifiable per WP guidelines far better than a recording is). The reliability of Bushanan should however be germane to discussing his opinions, no? Collect (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how Buchanan is used: the article quotes his opinion in direct speech attributed to him with the BBC item as a reference. People read what they want to read as well. The key point is whether material can be verified by readers and other editors. In this case it can, as the programme is available online to listen to. If there is a source that challenges his opinions on the subject in question, the Business Plot, that should be included. Otherwise there is no discussion of his opinion, merely a presentation of it, so the reader can make up his or her own mind. Ty 01:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The show is an RS for "Mr. X said 'ABC', not for "ABC is so". A secondary source as reputable as the BBC would imply that Mr. X's saying "ABC" may be important enough to mention in a WP article. ( I'm trying not to use the term "notability" because that's really for articles as a whole ). But there's still an editorial decision on how much weight to give this opinion. One sentence should be plenty. Heck, in the past I've cited sources just for a single adjective, so as not to run into issues with weight. Also, yes, a text transcript is much preferred over rich media for several reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:UNDUE, I suppose: not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does. It's something he invented 75 years after the events in question, with absolutely no basis in reality: not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it. If that's not If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article., what is? THF (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your evaluation and hence WP:OR and discountable. The BBC considers that it is worth presenting and we go by the evaluation of sources not of editors. According to WP:NPOV, we follow the lead of the source and present it, as Squidfryerchef says, as Buchanan's view. WP:UNDUE demands it should not be given excess presence, and, as Squidfryerchef suggests, it is just given one sentence. Ty 01:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, it's actually given four sentences and 153 words (compared to three sentences and 101 words from Schlesinger), and the reader is given no hint that Buchanan is a fringe conspiracy theorist and 9/11 truther. THF (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And please stop saying "that is OR." The whole point of RSN is to do original research on sources to determine if they are reliable. Show us some OR that contradicts the facts I've been telling you. THF (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will note for the record that WP:OR (and our other content policies) does not apply to Policy pages and talk pages... only to articles themselves. So the fact that his views may or may not be OR is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The exact text on Buchanan is: "In The Whitehouse Coup, John Buchanan says President Roosevelt stopped the investigation for a political deal: 'The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted'." OK, two sentences. Apart from you, are there any sources that say with regard to the Business Plot that Buchanan is a "fringe conspiracy theorist"? If so, they can be included. This isn't an article about 9/11. You seem to have difficulty recognising that the BBC is a reliable source and we follow sources. This is NPOV, and your approach is violating that policy. Ty 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I'd like to add that I don't think its constructive when the "conspiracy theory" card/label (using the term in a disparaging way) is used so often by an editor because it has the effect of a slur on the content in question. It really,unintentionally I'm sure, puts the editor which supports the content in a position of having to shift focus to debating the "conspiracy theory" categorization of the content. That categorization tends to stifle and deflect discussion and restrict appropriate article discussion and content (because very few editors want to be seen as supporting any kind of way-out conspiracy theory). Usually,as in this case, it is only a personal POV as to whether something qualifies as a so-called conspiracy theory. I also think these types of comments make collaboration almost impossible: "not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does... not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it.", even though directed towards content, it fuels combative editing because it makes editors who think the content is valid for the article feel as though we are promoting some kind of evil and crazy agenda that I,for one, certainly don't want to be promoting. It's also annoying that Collect and THF keep running to noticeboards and administrators when any article discussion is not going their way; at least that's the way it appears to me. Abbarocks (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When a person's views are reported by a reliable source, it means we can report those views as verifiably belonging to that person. The weight that is given to those views in an article should depend on the weight that is given to them in reliable sources. Whether those views will be presented as likely to reflect objective reality will depend on whether the person quoted is considered an expert in the field. Expertise can be established by how reliable sources (including those other than the one used for the quote) describe the person's expertise, and whether they are widely published as an expert in the field. Buchanan is quoted by the BBC on this subject, which means his view may be worth including as a reliable source has reported it (although unless his view is also reported elsewhere, that doesn't give strong weight to including his view as the BBC report may be a lapse in editorial judgement). If Buchanan has a reputation as an unreliable expert on political matters, especially one who has many fringe views on this or other somewhat related subjects, then that should also be taken into account in terms of how his views are reported. If the whole article is about a fringe subject, then it will naturally be made up of well-documented fringe views so this is less of a concern. However, if it's an article about mainstream views, then the article should not unduly imply that a quote from a person with many fringe views reflects a mainstream expert perspective on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This *particular* documentary is not a reliable source

The documentary makes the claim (and is cited for the proposition): "The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted." This is the conspiracy theory to explain why, if the conspiracy happened, there weren't any prosecutions. But this fiction is completely disproven by Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, a 1935 case where business interests successfully struck down the centerpieces of FDR's New Deal, the National Recovery Administration and National Industrial Recovery Act. It is quite clear that business interests didn't "let FDR do what he wanted" and the "deal" that the documentary claims to be documenting never happened. It's completely fictional WP:FRINGE. THF (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote you give is direct speech from John Buchanan, not the programme editorial voice: the BBC documentary is cited to substantiate that Buchanan made it. The rest of your argument is an interesting speculation but not admissible article content per WP:SYNTH. I have not anyway seen any mention of Schechter Poultry Corp as part of the plot. Ty 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As the precis of the documentary indicates, the documentary is simply a recounting of the Buchanan conspiracy theory.

Buchanan claims that part of the plot was "[striking] a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted." So it's not synth to include a reliable source about Wall Street's opposition to the New Deal, since the article section is about the supposed lack of opposition to the New Deal. But feel free to get additional opinions at WP:NORN. THF (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC documetary is an RS that the conspiracy theory exists. There's a question on how much space to give this, but my feeling is if the BBC saw fit to mention this theory in a radio program, meant for a general audience and with inherent time constraints, it's pretty hard to argue that the more inclusive Wikipedia can't mention it. However, we should qualify the Buchanan quotes as "controversial Georgia politician John Buchanan opined that ...", so we make it clear that this is a political opinion. The original WP article left the reader with the assumption this was an academic opinion from a historian. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He is now in a separate section "Other commentators". I don't think we should be adding epithets such as "controversial" to people's names though, nor for that matter "conspiracy theorist", which has just been added, but which does not relate to this particular issue. We shouldn't be making it clear that it's a "political" opinion, unless the source does (which it doesn't). Ty 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial is an understatement, not an epithet. I've been arguing pretty hard to use understatement and avoid sensationalism when qualifying opinions, news sources, and the like. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

online Encyclopedia Britannica

Is currently used as a lede cite as "Encyclopedia Britannica" on Drudge Report. The cite is from an article on the Huffington Post, and characterizes the Drudge site as "conservative." I suggested that the word "online" be placed to make clear that it is the online site being used, and that the article from which the claim is taken be mentioned. This was roundly rejected. Beyond that, however, I have a lingering doubt that an encyclopedia which solicits revisions from its readers is all that much better than a "flagged revision wiki." Also that a site where the cursor shows you ads every time you go over a marked word is a bit less than we demand of other sites. Is "online EB" fully utile as RS? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can just find better ref saying he's conservative - or whatever it is he is. Makes it easier to argue your case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's three references stacked up to support something that's pretty obvious anyway. ( Why do we do this? Was there an edit war where somebody challenged the idea he was conservative? ) Anyway the Brittanica reference was actually to an article about the Huffington Post, which had just a trivial mention of how it was intended as a liberal answer to the "conservative" Drudge Report. We have two more direct references, take the Brittanica cite out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No one questioned that Drudge personally is conservative -- the issue was whether the site "Drudgereport.com" qua site is "conservative." I am off that page -- so if anyone will do it, please do so. Collect (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the lead sentence where it's cited is about Drudge himself. Which is another argument to use one of the other two cites, which are about Drudge. The Brittanica entry mentions Drudge's web site. But I see that I was reading the page in the middle of an edit war; there is something down below in some of the diffs also using the Brittanica, which is probably what's being asked about. Anyway there's at least six stacked references saying that Drudgereport is conservative. Isn't one or two enough? Also don't forget Google Books, there's books on new media that devote an entire chapter to the Drudge Report. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, one good source is worth 25 which are not as well presented. I think the current stacking is precisely because I did not feel the online EB in an article on another topic was a particularly good source to characterize a website. One editor particularly charged the DR with "leeching" websites, and only linking to conservative views. Collect (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To get this back to discussing the "online" EB... yes, it is a reliable tertiary source. Arguably, the most reliable online encyclopedia that exists, in fact. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But we should avoid citing other general-coverage encyclopedias unless there's some really unique information in the other encyclopedia's article or we're writing about the other encyclopedia. Exception being our botany articles that make use of the 1911 Brittanica. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, try a book called "Consider the Source" by James F. Broderick and Darren W. Miller. It's a book about news websites. It has a chapter on Drudge Report, and a paragraph on page 108 about whether it has a conservative bias or not. It's on Google Books. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Frontiers of Physics in China.

Springer page. Co-publication with Higher Education Press.

Editorial Board

We have articles on Chao Tang, Charles M. Lieber, Daniel C. Tsui, but I'd guess that many more are notable scientists in China. I'm not particularly up on searching in Chinese.

There is notice of the Frontiers ... in China series at Thomson Reuters:

"Launched in January 2007, ‘Frontiers of Computer Science in China’ is part of the “Frontiers in China” quality journal series which aims to provide a forum for the publication of the best of China’s peer-reviewed papers in English to foster closer communication and exchange between authors in China and abroad. The “Frontiers in China” series is the most extensive English series of journals in China, both print and online, to cover the widest range of subjects including natural sciences, humanities and social sciences which span 24 important disciplines.

However, this is a press release from Thomson Reuters, apparently Manuscript central, a TR activity, was chosen by Higher Education Press.

Beijing Review has an article about the web site, "Higher Education Press: Launch of Online "Frontiers in China," http://journal.hep.com.cn.

The series, Frontiers in China, aim to establish a Sino-foreign academic exchange platform to represent the highest level of research in China, and an excellent brand of international academic journals as well. These full-text English series of academic journals covering natural sciences, engineering technology, as well as humanities and social science, are unique in China, which is a vital new force to implement the strategy of Chinese newspapers and journals "going abroad".

Chinese government web site has this on Higher Education Press.

according to the ranking-announcement of the global publishing industry in 2006, China's Higher Education Press ranked No. 44 with total revenue of RMB 2.4 billion Yuan, and becomes the only one publisher of China which selected in the range of the top 45.

In terms of the global publishing industry ranking in 2006, the multinational publishing group Reed Elsevier ranks no.1 with total revenue of 5,851 billion euros. In Asia, there are only the publishers in China and Japan selected in the range of the top 45 publishers, thus Higher Education Press becomes only one publisher of China which selected in the range of the top 45. According to the data of the International Publishers Association, the total revenue of global publishing industry is 56 billion euros in 2006, while the global top 45 publishers possess 51.1 billion euros of the total revenue, especially the former 10 accounted for 2/3 of the total revenue of the top 45 in 2006.

Publisher's Weekly has a 2008 article on Publishing's Top Guns.

The sale of its Harcourt Education group dropped Reed Elsevier from the top spot to fourth place, making room for Thomson Corp. to claim the title as the world's largest book publisher. Thomson landed in the #1 position even though it sold its Thomson Learning division in the year. The company has also made it clear that it would rather be known as a digital publisher than a print publisher—the majority of its revenue is generated by electronic products and services. Nevertheless, most of the information it provides in a wide variety of professional areas has its roots in books and journals. Revenue for 2007 does not include Reuters; Thomson completed the purchase of Reuters earlier this and is now known as Thomson Reuters.

Note that the above lends some weight to the Thomson Reuters announcement. This is the world's largest book publisher.

44 Higher Education Press Higher Education Press China (PR) (2006 revenues: $301.65 million)

Apparently HEP is the largest publisher in China.

Reliable source for physics, sufficient to assert it, not as a final conclusion? Any advice, caveats? --Abd (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke

I am here asking for assistance not to complain about anyone. The following article Hala Sultan Tekke contains this section Significance, following are my reservations on this section:

1. This is forking POV and you can check this out through reviewing this user page User:Chesdovi.
2. This section is in violation with wikipedia:reliable sources
3. This section is in violation with wikipedia:verifiability
4. This is section is a wikipedia:hoax
5. This section is in violation with wikipedia:OR

I know in wikipedia we can edit any section of any article if we find out that it is in violation with any of the above policies, but the thing is user:chesdovi is insisting on having all of those violations, and refused all of my edits.

Now let us move to the other part of reservations of the contents of the section:

1. This section claims that this is a holy place in Islam, while all of the resources used are authored by non-mulsim scholars (or soemone with no theology background) and without refering to muslim books, texts, Qoran, or Hadith. How come that a non Muslim authors (or someone with no theology background) can say this place is holy for Islam while it is not verified by Muslim scholars? This means that this is not more than a claim since it is not verified by Muslims. I tried to add this word "claim" to the title of this section but was removed by the same user.
2. Concerning the sources that are used to support the claim of the holiness of this article, please note the following issues:

• Reference No. 1: Freedom of religion and belief: a world report: is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and the paragraph that grants the holiness of this site is not even referenced in his book by Islamic books, text, Qoran, or Hadith.
• Reference No. 2: "Study of building stones and mortar from Hala Sultan Tekke mosque": the page can't be found. Even when using the web archive site it can't revert the calimed page, u can see that here.
• Reference No. 3: Financed Restoration of Church and Mosque on Cyprus Supports Cultural Heritage and Tolerance, once again is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and without referring the holiness of this site to any reliable source.
• Reference No. 4: Purcell, Hugh Dominic (1969). Cyprus. Praeger. p. 367, once again the author is not Muslim (or someone with no theology background) and is not using in this section to any Islamic reliable sources. P.S. the same user didn't even bother to add the ISBN nor the related URL for this book, but after I spent long hours searching for this book I was able to locate it.
• Refence No. 5: Syneleusis, Hellēnikē Koinotikē; Hypourgeio Paideias, Grapheion Dēmosiōn Plērophoriōn, I was not able to locate this sources, and I doubt the reliablity of it, not to mention it is authored by non Mulsims.
• Refenece No. 6: once again is authored by non Muslim (or someone with no theology background) and is not using any Islamic reliable sources.
• Refence No. 7: Daniel, Geoff; John Oldfield, Christine Oldfield (2004). Landscapes of Cyprus. Is a tour guide, and despite the same user:chesdovi agreed that it is not reliable sources as per wikipedia:reliable sources, still he is insisting on adding it to the list of the references.
• Reference No. 8: once again a non Mulsim author (or someone with no theology background) is granting the holiness to an Islamic site without using Islamic reliable sources, and by the way, I think that this sources is not a relaible source.
• Reference No. 9 once again is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and is not referring to any reliable Islamic sources. Moreover, I doubt the reliablity of this source. Not to mention that the sources does not say that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Muslims, nevertheless, the same user is saying that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Mulims thourgh referring to the mentioned site, this might be an indication of forking POV.
• Refernce No. 10: once again doesn't use any Islamic reliable sources, and I don't think it is a reliable source in this context. Moreover, the source is used to support the claim that this site is the 3rd holiest place in Islam, but the website, doesn't show this information, again this shows forking POV.
• Reference No. 11 once again no referral to Islamic reliable sources.
• Reference No. 12] This might be the only Islamic resource that is used, but once again, in the context of saying this is the forth holies site in Islam it doesn't quote any Islamic reliable source, qouting is very important in Islam, as well as other religions. Moreover, I was not able to identify what is website is about, ok it contains Islamic information, but what is the reliability of this site is doubtful.
• Refernce No. 13: The page didn't open, I am not sure why.

I want to add one important thing, I am not saying that Islam is the only correct thing in this world, all what I am saying is that: If there is a holy site in Islam then Islam through it’s designated channels (Qoran and/or Hadith) should indicate to the holiness of this place, or at least through reliable Islamic scholars and through reliable and verifiable Islamic resources, not through unreliable and unverifiable NON MUSLIM scholars and books. This is my main point. The usage of reliable Islamic sources in the context of the holiness of this site is not available in this section whatsoever.

Last, I want to tell you that I was trying my best to solve this issue without asking for assistance but with no use as the same user is insisting on the usage of his unreliable sources. The required assistance is: How best I should handle this issue, I thought of nominating this section to deletion but there is no such process at wiki, could you please assist me here.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback. And please forgive me for the long thread. Yamanam (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One quick note I'd like to mention: I'm concerned about the concentration on Muslim sources. Other people can learn about Muslim ideology and practice without being Muslim. All the refutations that use "non-Muslim writer" as a base are no use to me. Not reliable, that's fine, not Muslim, I don't care. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, it is not only that the authors are non Muslims, it is also they are not depending on Islamic reliable and verifiable sources. It is just like reading a book about chemistry authored by an economic guy who is NOT depending on chemistry reliabe and verifiable sources. Yamanam (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam, this looks to be a content dispute, so there's really no Administrator intervention that can take place. The crux of the dispute appears to be the reliability of the sources you listed above. I think your best bet at this point is to post over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, to get their opinions. Inviting the other party to that discussion would be helpful as well so that a proper discussion take place on the core issues, rather than just reverting edits. Best, Arakunem^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Since this was moved from ANI, I'll strike out and indent my above, as we're now in the proper venue. Arakunem^Talk 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Arakunem, for reading the thread and advising on where best this thread be posted. Yamanam (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, if it's reliable, the religion of the source does not matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, it sounds like there may be other issues to deal with, an reliability of sources is just on aspect to be used in editorial decisions. Hope that helps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since two users have so far made the same comment, then I think it is my fault I didn't make my case more clear; of course there is nothing wrong with non-Muslims to author or to write about Islamic topics, but if they want to write about Islamic rituals, teachings, and/or Islamic sites, then I beleive they have to use Islamic sources, becuase Islam must decide on those things no one else, same with Christianity and all other religions, the case with this section is that it does not use any Islamic reliable source. I hope it made it more clear now. Yamanam (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This thread is posted at No original research noticboard as well. Yamanam (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there anyone who'd like to advise about this incident and how to deal with it? should I delete that whole section of the article? Yamanam (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You don't just delete what you don't like! As User:Peregrine Fisher and [[User:Padillah have stated, your concerns that these sources are not islamic is not an issue on wikipedia. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, both of them agreed that if there is a problem in the reliability of the sources then it is a problem, and so far no one advised whether there is a problem in the reliability of the sources or not. Concerning the Islamic sources, as you can see, I edited my thread, and it became there is no theological reliable sources. Yamanam (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)