Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 17 years ago by J.smith in topic www.onlineworldofwrestling.com
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
  • Fortes, Michael (2007-03-20). "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer". jefitoblog. Retrieved 2007-03-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

As a citation for this information in Backmasking:

Slayer included at the start of the band's 1985 album Hell Awaits a deep backmasked voice chanting "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes.

Though it is posted at a blog, I find this article well-written and credible. Others have disagreed at the talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote relevant policies:

  • from WP:RSEX:
    • 'Popular culture and fiction' section: Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.
    • 'Use of electronic or online sources' section: 'Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources.'
  • from WP:ATT/FAQ:
    • 'Are weblogs reliable sources?' section: In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available. Blogs must never be used as secondary sources on living persons; see WP:BLP.

My advice is as follows: if the information is not contradicted by more reliable sources, use it with a note that it was published on a blog, and add information about its author, publisher, fact-checking (or lack of thereof), pay attention to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (if the extra information blog provies are not very notable, they should be used with caustion). If the information is contradicted by more reliable sources, it should not be used.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a note within the article, like this?:

According to Michael Fortes' "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer", published at jefitoblog, Slayer included at the start of the band's 1985 album Hell Awaits a deep backmasked voice chanting "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes.

The information does not seem controversial enough to require attribution to a specific person - Fortes simply happened to mention it, but he is not the discoverer or a proponent of this information, just the best source for it. Or do you mean a cautionary note in the reference? Λυδαcιτγ 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The attribution in text, noting its a blog, seems enough if the information is not controversial. If some opponent of this wants to elaborate on unreliability of blogs in a note, it would be ok, too. Bottom line is its a self-published source with no fact-checking, so its not very reliable, but if the information is plausible and not contradictory, and type of source (blog) and other info are mentioned, it seems ok to note it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

Latest comment: 17 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion
  Resolved

There is an ongoing dispute on Stephen Barrett that may come down to the reliability of the sources provided. In short, Stephen Barrett is not board certified. This information has been verified by several primary sources including Stephen Barrett himself at Wikipedia and some legal documents[1] [2]. The question is open about the necessity of secondary sources to support these primary sources and whether any of secondary sources we have meet reliability per Wikipedia policy.

The two sources which we are examining now are:

Other sources to be examined include:

The content which will need support will essentially say: "Dr. Barrett is not board certified." Third-party opinions about the reliability of these sources to support this content will be most appreciated and will certainly help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are enough for factual statements, but not for making interpretations. See WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. If there is consensus that the primary sources you have are stating he has no board certification, they are enough for it; of course the more sources, the merrier. Are there any contradictory sources stating he has a board certification? PS. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources give some examples of primary sources if clarification is needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No there are no contradictory statements in any sources thus far presented. Thank you for your input here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This confirms our previous consensus that the information is indeed verfied. What we don't have consensus on is if we have any "secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information" (quoting Levine2112 - see Talk:Stephen_Barrett#No_agreement_on_existance_of_reliable_secondary_sources and Talk:Stephen_Barrett#No_consensus_on_existance_of_reliable_secondary_sources). If you'd like to look at the sources in this context, please do so. There are WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT issues here. I'll be happy to summarize them if anyone's interested given that this dispute goes back over 15 months. -- Ronz  19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think weight is an issue here. All we are wanting to include is the verified fact that Barrett is indeed not board certified. That's all. This isn't a minority opinion; it is a verified fact. Weight isn't an issue here. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Others think WEIGHT is an issue. I don't know what to make the inconsistency of your comments above and the quote of yours just above ("and give weight"). -- Ronz  19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why WEIGHT is an issue then, but let's bring this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In an earlier phase of this discussion I made an extensive argument about the reliability and notability of the source Dynamic Chiropractic ( found here: [[3]] ). This trade magazine can not just be dismissed. MaxPont 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Imho, it is not necessary to support primary documents with secondary ones. If a primary document says "he is not board-certified" then that may be quoted and cited and you're done. Wjhonson 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Wjhonson. This is a great help. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Wjhonson, I agree that primary sources are enough, but if secondary would add something new, they can be used - if they are reliable. May I suggest describing each secondary source in a subsection here, and listing arguments pro- and con- against it? A simple solution is to note in article that X from publication Y claims that, but indeed if there are problems with undue weight this is not enough, as the question is whether the source should be used at all or not; however note that there is a difference between minor source and minor claim, and a difference between minor and unreliable source.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. But I don't think we want to say anything other than that Barrett is not Board certified - a fact which the primary sources support. The secondary sources say this and more, but we are not interested at this juncture in the "more". As you know, our primary sources include two court documents and a statement by the subject himself on Wikipedia. All explicitly state that Barrett is not Board Certified. It doesn't sound like we need anything else to insert this information other than the primary sources. Correct?
Here are our main secondary sources:
This has been a contentious issue for us on Talk:Stephen Barrett and in the interest of settling this, we are currently looking to compromise by only stating that Barrett is not Board Certified and leave off the part that he failed the exam (even though, Barrett confirmed this information on Wikipedia). Again, we are only interested in inserting that he is not Board Certified, a fact verified by several primary and secondary sources. Are there any other issues which we should be considering?
Thanks again. Your input is a tremendous help. Thanks so much for setting up this page. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"But I don't think we want to say anything other than that Barrett is not Board certified" There is no consensus on this, and in fact many editors such as myself argue that taking Barrett's certification status out of the context of the sources we're using is a violation of WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT, as well as an attempt to get around WP:BLP. -- Ronz  23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot say he failed the exam, or anything else, on the basis of a posting to Wikipedia, because we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. that would not just be using a primary source, but using ourselves as a primary source. If you want to say he failed the exam, you should try to find it in a court record.
But I think the real question is whether the fact that he is not board certified means that he is deceptive in calling himself a psychiatrist. From the court hearing referred to, he gave what I personally consider a totally misleading but technically true statement that an MD does not have to be board certified to practice as a psychiatrist. Legally, an MD can practice any speciality (I think that's still true). And , of course, almost any doctor practices some basic psychiatry--or so we hope. But that's not the way the words would be taken. How to express this at WP is a puzzle--we cant give it as our interpretation--we have to find someone reliable who said it.
The chiropractic sources listed above are not in my opinion RSs for anything other than their opinion on the subject, any more than he is a RS for the nature of chiropractic. I think you could use a quote as their opinion giving the source--anyone would be able to tell the likely bias. After all, you're not going to find them admitting his claims about them are correct. DGG 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your input, DGG. I am curious, did you have a chance to review these sources: [4][5] [6]? These are the primary sources which verify that Barrett is not board certified. (One of which is Barrett himself at Wikipedia confirming htis information.) The Fonorow suit shows that while Barrett objected to the manner in which it was presented (that he was forced to admit this under oath), he doesn't disagree that he isn;t board certified. His comments at Wikipedia confirm that he isn't board certified. If all we want to insert is that Barrett is not board certified (and leave out that he failed the exam), can we do so with the sources provided? Piotrus and Jhonson believe so, but I would really appreciate your thoughts here as well. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, if I am not mistaken(!) I believe you misunderstand the situation, and thereby are doing Barrett an injustice with this statement:

  • "But I think the real question is whether the fact that he is not board certified means that he is deceptive in calling himself a psychiatrist. From the court hearing referred to, he gave what I personally consider a totally misleading but technically true statement that an MD does not have to be board certified to practice as a psychiatrist. Legally, an MD can practice any speciality (I think that's still true)."

There are three points to clarify here:

1. The difference between specialization and certification. They are not the same. Specialization is an extension of the basic medical education, while board certification is a step beyond that. At the time Barrett took and failed the exam, only 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified and his lack of certification was never a problem during his entire career. He was able to testify as a psychiatric expert witness without any problems.

2. It is not necessary to be an MD, an MD specialist, or even a board certified MD, to be considered by courts to be an expert witness on a medical subject. There are examples of persons who have established their expertise on subjects outside of their own profession, who are admitted by courts as expert witnesses. This also applies outside of the medical and scientific fields. While it may be unusual, it does happen.

Barrett's status as an expert witness in the later years (since his retirement) has not normally (if ever) been as a psychiatrist, but as an expert in quackery and healthfraud, and in that capacity he is considered by many to be one of (if not "the") the foremost expert(s) in the world. His expertise on those subjects has been recognized by numerous private and governmental organizations and consumer protection agencies. It is not necessary to be educated in a quack field (such as homeopathy) to be able to use common sense, knowledge of what is legal or illegal, knowledge of consumer protection laws, knowledge of ethics, and knowledge of scientific matters, to be able to judge whether a claim is proper or improper, and thus classify it as quackery, healthfraud, or something like it.

3. I'm not sure that it is legal for an MD who has not passed specialty exams to claim to be a specialist. The same would apply to board certification.

I hope that my explanations help. I could be mistaken on some minor details about the legalities about point three. I just wish to clear up a misunderstanding that is injurious and unfair. He has not been deceptive or misleading in this matter. On the contrary, it is Bolen who has been misleading, weaselly, and libelous in his attacks on Barrett, and he is being sued for it. We don't want to repeat, support, or participate in his perfidy here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to this:

You cannot say he failed the exam, or anything else, on the basis of a posting to Wikipedia, because we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. that would not just be using a primary source, but using ourselves as a primary source.

AFAICT, it doesn't matter if the post is to a Wikipedia talk or user page or to elsewhere, as long as it meets the requirements of WP:V for self-published sources in articles about themselves. The most likely objection is reasonable doubt as to the identity of the Wikipedia editor claiming to be the subject of the article. Anomie 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Sbinfo is definitely believed by all to be Stephen Barrett. Again, I don't want to put in any attacks on Barrett (a la Bolen); I just want to put in the relevant info which Barrett himself has verified here - that he is not Board Certified. I would Wikilink "Board Certified" to American Board of Medical Specialties so any questions about what this means would be answered by following the link. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia afterall. . . It's better! -- Levine2112 discuss 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here (at this most helpful page), I have put forth a proposal to add the information that Barrett is not Board Certified. Please feel free to drop by and weigh in on this proposal. Hopefully the guidance provided here will help with the resolution to this long dispute. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is still no consensus to include this verifiable and relevant content. I have brought up your guidance on WP:RS at Talk:Stephen Barrett, but it is being ignored and I am being accused of having an agenda to include biased material. I don't understand. Stephen Barrett isn't Board Certified. This isn't a point of view. This contains no bias. Barrett has come to Wikipedia and told us this, and what's more, he has told us that he is open to sharing this information. Aside from Barrett at Wikipedia, we have several primary sources verifying this information (listed above) and a number of secondary sources (also listed above). Now the editors wishing to keep this information out of the article are insisting on a tertiary source. Any other help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There is still disagreement at Talk:Stephen Barrett over inserting the verified content that Barrett is not board certified, despite the finding here that say our primary sources are reliable and sufficient. Above, it is stated that when it comes to sources, the more the merrier. I would appreciate an analysis of the following two secondary sources (which will be used to support the reliable primary sources discussed above).

Both articles come from widely read trade publications. Are these sources reliable in terms of secondary sources of the information (that Barrett is not Board Certified)? Basically, those editors who are in favor of excluding this content feel that we would need a reliable secondary source to provide the context and weight for this issue. Judging by your comments above, I don't know that this is necessary, but if it is a chance to end this long dispute, I certainly welcome your expert analysis. Thanks for your time and guidance in this matter. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Levine and I think you'll agree that the main contention is something on the lines of "Whether or not he is board-certified is irrelevant" or "Simply saying he's not board certified emphacizes a meaningless distinction." Perhaps you could better sum up what the argument from the other side is exactly, if it's not the above. Wjhonson 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the main contention from "the other side" is similar to what you have stated here; but in terms of policy they have stated their contention to be per WP:WEIGHT - without a reliable secondary source, there is no way for us to determine the relevance of Barrett's lack of Board Certification. Sure, the fact that he is not Board Certified is completely verifiable. We all agree that he is not Board Certified. The primary sources are certainly reliable and abolutely confirm this. However, those supporting excluding this information believe that a reliable secondary source is necessary, WP:WEIGHT cannot be determined. Since we are not dealing with a viewpoint, but rather a verifiable statement, the section of WP:WEIGHT which would apply reads as follows:
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
What I have proposed (as a compromise), I believe satisfies this requirement. The wording would be: Barrett is not Board Certified. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that the secondary sources provided are even necessary to state this; especially in terms of WP:WEIGHT (a policy which states nothing about a secondary source requirement).
Now then, there is another contention that this content doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV in general (WEIGHT is a "sub-policy" of NPOV). The secondary sources provided above tell a point-of-view; that while on the courtroom stand, Barrett was forced to admit that he had failed the Board Certification exam. While Barrett's point-of-view (as he has stated here at Wikipedia) is that he is not ashamed of nor reluctant to admit that he failed his Board Certification exam. Clearly, there are two point-of-views here in terms of Barrett's willingness to admit that he is not Board Certified. The solution: Don't mention whether or not he is reluctant to admit this. Make the general and verifiable statement: Barrett is not Board Certified. And be done with it. We are not saying that he is reluctant or open with this information. Hence, WP:NPOV has been acheive (simply by avoiding any point-of-view and just sticking to the verifiable facts rather than the verifiable opinions).
So, while I don't think that the secondary sources are necessarily required to satisfy either of these contentions, I would not mind an expert opinion of their reliability in terms of being secondary sources of this content. If there are any other contentions (a recent one which was debunked was WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content), it would be nice to know whether or not be have reliable secondary sources. Again, all I (and the majority of editors at Talk:Stephen Barrett) want to include is a simple and verifiable statement: Barrett is not Board Certified. Any insight which you can give will be most appreciated. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe you can agree that it sounds a bit derogatory to say that someone is not "board-certified". As you know, he or his counsel answers this statement by saying "It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry." It seems a neutral way to present the information would be:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'" (citation)

Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That to me would be a neutral expression presenting both *sides* of that topic. Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think that is a workable solution. I definitely see your point with regards to WP:NPOV. Let's see what the editors currently favouring exclusion think of your suggestion. Thanks so much for your input. I really appreciate your expertise! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is one editor who still feels that this information is in violation of WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. I think this is unfounded as this material is certainly not malicious, and given Jhonson's extra NPOV precaution, it is certainly not biased. It is a verifiable fact which the subject himself has confirmed as true here at Wikipedia. (BTW, I realize that this isn't the "BLP noticeboard", so if this is way out of place here, I apologize.) Any guidance or thoughts on this editor's concern? Thanks again! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, going to BLP noticeboard may be a good idea; I think reliability issues are settled. For the record, I don't think this editor is right and BLP does not apply here, but better experts than me are available there to address that particular issue.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I thank you for your help on the reliability of sources issue (and I appreciate your insight on BLP as well). I tend to agree with you, but let's see what they say at the BLP noticeboard. Much gratitude to all the editors who helped us out here! -- Levine2112 discuss 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved

Search engine optimization is a featured article candidate. Due to the nature of the subject, we have relied heavily on web sources, including several prominent blogs.

A reviewer has asked for community input as to whether these sources, and others used in the article, are reliable or not. Please comment here or there. Jehochman Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply about blog reliability at #The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer. Briefly: 1) are the blog claims controversial or contradicted? If yes, consider removing that info, if not, keep it but add in text information that the source comes from blog X by Y.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a lot more articles and stubs that have the same problem. What was said for the SEO article is also true for a lot of existing and missing articles about any type of internet marketing. Its the platform of choice. All print publications in affiliate marketing switched to blogs over the years as their online publishing CMS. A lot of other sites did as well, including sites that were always online publications only, but used some sort of CMS in the past. See my comments here at discussion for the SEO nomination as featured article candidate (starts at the first line, I created an anchor). Jeochman also started a discussion about some rephrasing or changes to Wikipedia guidelines to more reflect reality than they do now see here. We will run into the issue time and again and I have to say that it is getting old in some cases where you have to explain over and over again that site xyz is a reliable news source that happened to switch their CMS to WordPress. That did not change their editorial process nor the way how they research facts. The switch to a blog did not make those publications become sloppy. I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible, because it will only get worse --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that a key point is whether the source is fact checked; if it is than it doesn't matter if they publish via blog, paper of papyrus :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for the comments. This article was promoted. Jehochman Talk 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"How do you pronounce SNES?"

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
  Resolved

Every once in a while someone tries to "correct" the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article with their pronunciation, which usually results in a few pointless edits until we reach a compromise. So I decided to research the issue, and discovered (unsurprisingly) that people pronounce it in many different ways: "sness", "snez", "s-nes", "s-n-e-s", "super nes", "super nintendo", etc. The ideal statement for the article then would be along the lines of "English speakers pronounce SNES in various ways, including ...". The hard part is finding a reliable source, as AFAICT no one has bothered to write an article on the subject. I have an argument for using what is normally an unreliable source, but I suspect my line of reasoning will be opposed by some editors. Step by step, the reasoning is:

  1. If someone posted their claimed pronunciation to a blog or forum, WP:V says we could use that under the following conditions:
    1. The source is used in an article about that person.
    2. The claim is relevant to the person's notability. This is more about whether the statement should be in Wikipedia at all rather than whether this source should be used to source the statement.
    3. The claim is not contentious. I suppose this means "No one reasonably thinks the author is lying"?
    4. The claim is not unduly self-serving.
    5. The claim is not about third parties or events. This is satisfied by the definition of the post being considered.
    6. We can verify the identity of the author.
  2. While it's not explicitly allowed, as WP:RS and WP:V generally consider a source's merit only as a secondary source, I can think of no reason that blog or forum post couldn't be a primary source for the statement "Person X pronounces SNES as P" in any article (besides "Oh noes! It's a forum post, and forum posts are not allowed!"). This relaxes the first WP:V criterion to "The source is used in an article about the author or to source a statement (in any article) that the author makes the claim". Also, the second criterion shifts to whether the new statement is appropriate for its article, rather than whether it is relevant to the author's article. We still have to meet criteria 3–6.
  3. Of course, we don't particularly care about Person X in this case, just the fact that someone pronounces it that way; this blog or forum post could be used for that purpose as well if you accept step 2. Since "someone" doesn't depend on knowing the identity of that someone, the sixth WP:V criterion no longer really makes sense (the author is trivially identifiable as "someone"). Note that criteria 3–5 still apply, as do the modified 1 and 2.
  4. A statement "someone pronounces SNES as P" is not particularly notable, of course. We can cite a number of such forum/blog posts to strengthen it to "some people pronounce SNES as P". Note that "a number of forum posts" could all be in a single thread, so the number of actual <ref>s need not grow unmanageable.
  5. If we have statements "some people pronounce SNES as P1" and "some people pronounce SNES as P2" sourced as in step 4, we can rewrite them as "People pronounce SNES in different ways, such as P1 and P2". Note that one thread could have both posts supporting P1 and posts supporting P2, further reducing the number of <ref>s required. P3, P4, and so on can be added similarly.

In general, this sort of thing could support a statement of existence like "Some people believe Y about X" or "People believe different things about X, including but not limited to Y1 and Y2". It cannot be used to support statements like "Everyone/No one believes Y about X", or any quantitative statement about levels of belief or non-belief in Y, or "few/many/most" semi-quantitative statements, or any indication as to whether Y is actually true or false.

This could also apply to use of voodoo polls, although they may often be disqualified under criterion 3 on the argument that people lie to screw with the poll results.

Any thoughts? I've read some of the past discussion in various talk archives, but it only went as far as step 2 in anything I've found. Sometimes there was consensus, and sometimes not. Anomie 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • as there is no consensus--or the balance may be changing-- and as opinion about this varies with whom you ask, simply use the best source you can, and word it in the clearest way. For disputed pronuciation or spelling, I like the wording, "It is sometimes written/pronounced X, and sometimes Y." The only problem is when there are conventional RSs for X, and only a blog for Y. In general, your description of the situation above is--in my opinion,as always-- the fullest presentation of it that has yet been written. DGG 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have such a statement already, I'm mainly looking for comments on my reasoning for use of forum threads in this unorthodox manner. Especially if the consensus here is "that's acceptable", I can point to this discussion in support of the use. Anomie 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. Give a full presentation of pros and cos for various names, either in a separate section or a footnote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "pros and cons" of the various pronunciations are relevant to the article, and I certainly can't source any such presentation. The current footnote just mentions the existence of the various pronunciations, and the effect this has on choice of indefinite article in English.
I am interested in a discussion of the merits of my argument for considering a forum thread to be a reliable source for this particular type of statement. Anomie 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Basicially forum thread is a reliable source only if no more reliable source can be presented. See WP:ATT/FAQ#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F and WP:RSEX#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. This would be an exception, as we usually don't accept forums as reliable sources - but if no better refs are presented, I think it can be mentioned.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That strikes me as an "Oh noes! It's a forum post!" response. Your two wikilinks seem to be considering reliability as a secondary source, or assume the "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" criterion of WP:V#SELF cannot be met. In this case, the use is as a primary source supporting the fact that someone states the opinion that the author states in the post. The use is along the same lines as sourcing the fact "Some cows are brown" by citing a number of photographs of brown cows: proof of existence by presentation of direct evidence. Anomie 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning, although you may want to consider whether this is not bordering on WP:OR (I'd think not but it's close...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad my reasoning makes sense, and thank you for your input. Specifically, I'd be concerned about it being WP:SYN, but I agree it isn't quite there. The reasoning depends on a bit of logic and a bit of summary, but there doesn't seem to be any novel conclusion. Anomie 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a ''Nintendo Power'' which clarified that it is pronounced "Super NES"?--Flamgirlant 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote from the September 2000 issue of Nintendo Power here, but "after checking with our legal team and passing a survey around the lunchroom" doesn't sound that official—it sounds to me like legal said "no official pronunciation we know of" so they took a small survey. Perhaps that forum post is inaccurate, or perhaps there is a second issue addressing the question, but until someone supplies the citation information and relevant quote.... Anomie 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this discussion resolved?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago56 comments5 people in discussion

Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, produces the CCG Magic: The Gathering. As part of their website, [7], they regularly produce informational columns [8] and provide specific information on cards [9]. They also answer questions [10] . Sometimes the articles can be a bit silly (I included one for an example), but in general, I feel it's clearly a professional site with an acceptable standard for accuracy. Now there may be concerns about marketing bias and other such issues, but I think that the appropriate response is to use them with a slight level of caution, and if other reliable sources contradict them, to include that contradiction if it comes up. IOW, I believe that usage of the site is acceptable in general, and only individual specific concerns are worth covering. Is this acceptable or not? I've invited the person who disagrees with this to make their position clear, but you can also read about it on the MTG Wikiproject's discussion page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a magic player myself, I am actually familiar with the website, and would certainly agree it has many valuable informations. There is indeed concern about marketing and bias, this is addressed by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves - however I don't think this would be much of a case here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, this is a gross misrepresentation. I've only been removing a narrow case of references; claims of "Notable cards" sourced only to WOTC's website. Since when do we cite the publisher of a product as a source for opinionated claims about their product? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would a possible compromise be: card X is considered notable by the publisher'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's why I suggested you add your perspective here. Perhaps instead of saying I'm wrong, you can be more clear on your position, since the previous discussion I've had with you indicates that you're not just concerned about this particular usage, but about overall usage of Wizards.com in general. Am I wrong about that? And in this case,I think you're mistaken in your representation of the situation as well. in many cases, there weren't opinions about cards (though sometimes there were, but those were often unsourced to anywhere, let alone wizards.com), but instead nothing but facts about specific cards. If you'd just edited the various iffy examples of notable cards, that'd be one thing, but your methods to me indicated a wider problem with using wizards.com at all. Do you have no objection to using them in some cases, such as to say which was the first card to have a given attribute? Or the last? That's not exactly an opinionated statement, is it? Why then, do you remove it here [11] and here [12]FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't have these bulleted lists of trivia; instead, incorporating them into the body of the article. The first thing we need to do with eliminate this heavy element of parroting WOTC's party line on their products. Why are we citing the official site of the publisher of a product for critical reception of that product? Why should we mention their faux critical reception at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first would be a style issue, not well-addressed here. It's not about sources at all. The second would be, um, confusing to me. As what critical reception is apparent in "this is the first card to have double-digit power and toughness" ? I'm afraid I don't see your comment as applicable to the individual situations over all. Perhaps if you gave an example of a usage that concerns you? FrozenPurpleCube 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't be parroting WoTC, you're right. And maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've been removing, but if a source is an article on wizards.com, it is certainly quotable, as it is not actually the entity that is Wizards of the Coast itself, but one person writing an article. And if a source is gatherer...well, that should be a statistical resource, and should still be fine. If the source was just "wizards.com," then that's wrong. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Every card that isn't a stock reprint of something is the first card to do something. Every single card introduces something new, even if it's something trivially new (such as a new combination of old ideas). Why are we saying that such-and-such card is notable when the only source is a form of advertising? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Because there's nothing wrong with use of self-published sources, and Wizards.com is a reputable site that isn't simply blind advertising, but a professional website that provides content which you haven't actually impeached. FrozenPurpleCube 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the question of whether what a card does is unique or not, that's one that exists regardless of sources, so I don't feel it's relevant here. When it comes right down to it, I could probably find unique and verifiable information about a huge number of cards. I believe some editorial discretion will be needed. FrozenPurpleCube 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Every card is unique, and deciding on our own which ones are most unique is definitely original research. Now, using reliable sources (SCG, Inquest, Scrye, MTGS, etc.) would be different, but deciding on your own or using a company mouthpiece isn't a good way to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
According to this Gatherer page, Spellweaver Volute is the only card that enchants an instant. Is that original research? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because it's original research to claim that that is important. Fugitive Wizard is the first 1/1 Wizard with no game text. Kavu Glider is the first Kavu with enemy-colored activated abilities. Every card is unique. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Our deciding what cards are most unique may be original opinion, but our deciding what cards to cover on a given page is nothing more than editorial discretion. It's not original research to use our own opinions and reasoning to write a page. If it were, we couldn't write any pages at all. In any case, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That editorial discretion, as with all NPOV disputes, needs to flow from the form that the reliable sources take. I'm disputing that any card not covered by a third-party source isn't noteworthy. (Most of the "notable" cards, before I first started trimming these lists, were pretty silly.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To repeat my statement, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. That's the problem here. You can't even accept the invitational cards if verified solely at Wizards.com. I'm sorry, but your opposition is excessive and not supported by actual examples. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, as long as those guidelines are followed, wizard.com can be used as a source. Let's review them one by one:

  • it is relevant to their notability; -> from the preceding discussion, the answer seems yes
  • it is not contentious; -> from an online dict. "involving or likely to cause controversy"; I don't see any arguments that the information would be controversial
  • it is not unduly self-serving; -> again, I don't see that much bias on wizards.com, although care should be taken to distinguish articles from purely marketing pages
  • it does not involve claims about third parties; -> I don't believe so?
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; -> I don't believe so?
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. -> this is important - read: state that the source is publisher's webpage, wizards.com, in the article.

Bottom line is that if its only a producer who says its product is notable, we shouldn't repeat their claims, but if the producer is also a publisher of a widely respect (correct me if I am wrong) journal or informative website, that source can be considered more reliable, but it should be made clear in the text that a possibility of bias or unreliability is higher - so if there is no clear consensus of for or against (as seems to be the case), I suggest stating in text (or via dedicated footnote) that the claim about notability comes from wizards.com. PS. I'd suggest discussing the reliability of publications on wizard.com - is it a respectable site or 'company's mouthpiece' - as crucial in solving this debate.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the official site is being used as a source of importance for trivial claims, ones made nowhere else. WOTC had a promotional contest! (Source: WOTC's contest) WOTC made a card based on a design submitted by the winner of a WOTC-run tournament! (Source: WOTC) WOTC considers such-and-such card from an old set influential in their new product, out next week! (Source: WOTC)
Generating interest and claiming that the game is important is unduly self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please convince me how the content of Wizards.com is unduly self-serving, with examples and explanations. You do realize that the keyword is unduly, which means that it would be self-serving beyond a reasonable amount. That Wizards produces content as a benefit to increasing their product sales is understood. This doesn't mean that their content is nothing but advertising pap with no reasonable material on it at all. See, that's the problem, your objection is not based on any particulars. It's a blanket prohibition that's not supported with any actual reason for it other than a conceptual one. Sorry, but I don't feel there's an inherent problem with Wizards.com content. It only merits reasonably caution. Oh, if you don't believe that the Invitational and YMTC were covered by third parties, please go to Starcitygames.com where you can look it up. I don't think adding those sources would be meaningful to these articles, as I feel it's only neccessary to add sources to demonstrate the truth of certain statements, nothing more. But if you feel a desire to do so, go ahead. [User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Out next week? That's not good, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. I think talking about notability of already printed cards, especially older, using wizards.com, is fine, but new ones? Nope, per CB ref.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Predictions aren't really at issue. My point is rather that WOTC has an interest in promoting even their older sets, as they are frequently mined for reprinted cards and ideas; in fact, every core set (a yearly release) and indeed the next set and the last four sets were based on making nostalgic references to older sets. There's lots of "Wasn't Invasion a great set? I know I sure liked it. By the way, there are new versions of the Invasion characters in Planar Chaos, on sale right now!" It's not quite that blatant, but it is self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Give me some examples and explanations of unduly self-serving. Simply saying "Here's this, and here's this now" might conceivable be beneficial to them, but is it unduly so? I don't see you convincing anybody of that yet. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
WOTC just released four sets in a row that relied heavily on reprints or references to previous sets, and a fifth is on the way. Do you not understand how generating interest in older sets is self-serving, given this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but once again, I have to ask you to provide examples. You're merely asking me to assume they're biased because it's logical to you. But this doesn't demonstrate actual unduly self-serving bias on their part. That doesn't fly. If you want to say "We should use caution in using this" fine, I agree. But that means examination of each individual situation as it comes up. Can you provide one single example at all of an actual problem with the content of Wizards.com, preferably with a rebuttal from another reliable source so we're not relying on your opinion that it's wrong? You haven't so far, and I'm not even requiring you to provide a third-party rebuttal if you can just provide a decent case example. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:N. Where's the skepticism? In all other subjects, we assume that the publisher of a product has a vested interest in promoting interest in their product. Why is this suddenly different for Magic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read: WP:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. See also WP:SPS. Therefore, I suggest you reserve objection to any use of Wizards.com content to the particulars of the circumstances. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?
Why are we citing promotional stunts themselves as sources that such-and-such promotional stunt is worth noting? Why are we citing the home page of a tournament's operator that such-and-such tournament winner's prize is worth commenting on?
Why are we not following the lead set by the independent coverage, and instead giving undue weight to the company mouthpiece? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've said this to you many times before, you're welcome to be skeptical. That means caution and an individual examination of the circumstances behind any decision, not a blanket refusal to use them. Concern means you carefully look for a problem before doing something, not that there is an over-riding problem that prevents it. Do you see the difference? Therefore, I once again, ask you to demonstrate an actual problem with Wizards's content. If you can't, then I must say, be cautious, be skeptical, but don't deny it without individual examination of the circumstances. FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WOTC's content is that WOTC has a vested interest in giving undue weight to their own products, as all corporate mouthpieces are generally assumed to be doing. (Why else would they exist?)

The question I pose to you is such: when has wizards.com been critical of a product they're selling? When have they ever seen fit not to cover WOTC's latest tournament or set as unimportant? Why can we trust them to be impartial about what is important and what is not, regarding their own products? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of them giving undue weight to anything. Not being independently critical is not the same as being unduly self-serving. But to answer your question, well here: [13]. In any case, I still don't see any actual problems being demonstrated by you. Can you give me a reliable source that shows them not owning up to a mistake or problem? Show me any kind of cover-up or astro-turfing on their part? FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have any sort of examples of gross malfeasance on their part. Merely a promotional tone and emphasis on self-promotion. Isn't that enough? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope. See WP:V again. Your assumption there is a problem doesn't mean there is a problem. Also see WP:IAR. You seem to be stuck on the particulars and missing the spirit. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If wizards.com isn't a promotional outlet, what is it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is no demonstrated objection to a problem with content overall on Wizards.com, then the concern must be with specific content. Go for it. Name some examples. Point out some problems. Perhaps I might even agree with you. But you'll have to make a good case. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wizards.com is a promotional outlet" is the demonstrated objection. Every single new set is described in glowing terms. Information is rationed according to WOTC's promotional plan. Wizards.com doesn't comment on WOTC's ongoing legal matters. Promotional activities (You Make The Card, upcoming events, previews of upcoming sets) are intermixed freely with coverage of current events, with little dsitinction drawn between them.

The problems are more ones of omission and tone, ones that are part and parcel of the editors being hired by WOTC and the whole site belonging to WOTC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't demonstrated an actual problem with specific content being unduly self-serving. Please do that, or try to consider it in terms of individual situations. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to support your assumption that there is a problem which merits blanket rejection of wizards.com. Any problems that do occur should be handled as they occur. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's good, because I'm not blanket rejecting wizards.com. I'm rejecting it as a source for the implicit claim that a specific card or group of cards is noteworthy, as they have an interest in claiming that their products are noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, who has suggested that use of Criteria from Wizards.com for what makes a card notable or not? I'm not even aware they have criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody. I'm merely removing both unsourced claims that cards are notable, as well as claims that cards are notable based on insuffucient sources, such as self-published fansites and wizards.com. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it's obvious that wizards.com is a source of verifiable information. Which means of course, they can be used to verify whether or not a card meets the criteria established for notability. If you disagree as to what makes a card notable or not, then I suggest you go to the discussion on that subject. Make your points there. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Wizards.com is not a good source of claims that such-and-such card is noteworthy. It's a passable source of certain types of information, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not what's being done here, sorry. The idea of what characteristics determined whether a card is notable or not is not related to any claims by wizards.com as far as I know. FrozenPurpleCube 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The characteristic of being notable, on Wikipedia, is having been covered in an independent, reliable source. Wizards.com isn't independent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Notable" is used in the English sense in the "Notable cards" sections, not in the WP:N sense. Individual game pieces are rarely notable, and there is ample precedent for mentioning them in articles without establishing their notability in the Wikipedia sense. If you disagree, go argue with the Settlers of Catan editors about how the desert tile is mentioned in the article without proof of its notability. --Ashenai 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The question of WP:N is not relevant here. You are confused, perhaps because in English, things can have multiple usages where their meanings are not quite identical. If you'd like, I suppose we could change the title of the section to "Selected Cards" or some other such title. FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does someone have, handy, a non-subjective definition of notable? Right now, in the articles, it seems to be "any card someone thought was neat," which isn't very helpful, or "whatever card Wizards has seen fit to advertise," which doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia.

By the way, if anyone wants an example of the promotional tone, I suggest this article, written shortly after the release of Fifth Dawn and currently being used in Fifth Dawn as a source to indicate that a card that was created in a publicity stunt is noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an existing discussion I've pointed you to on the subject of what criteria makes a card notable. Of course, you could well argue that it's ultimately subjective anyway, but then, I've always said the whole concept of notability is subjective. That's an ongoing debate which isn't likely to be resolved, and is in fact, getting steadily more complicated. (see the recent addition to WP:NOT for an example.) FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And what's the problem with the content of the article? Give me some direct examples. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything, but that's because [14] is much better. FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That discussion sucks. It's people arguing about their own subjective interpretations of what cards are notable. Again, back to the "any card someone thought was neat" but with WP:MTG replaced with "someone." Not a significant improvement.
As for the problems with that article, any article on Wizards.com touting WOTC's latest product as "possibly the greatest Johnny set of all time" needs to be immediately discarded as a potential source, as does the wrap-up for a publicity stunt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest instead of insulting the discussion, which helps nobody, you contribute your own clearly articulated position on the subject and see if you can develop consensus for it. But your opposition to the wizards.com articles makes no sense to me. For the quote you gave, I'd simply say "person x described it as the greatest Johnny set of all time". But then, I'd do that no matter who said or where. That kind of statement merits a quotation, not a simple usage. FrozenPurpleCube 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the other source, I think it's quite a valid one for information on the process of how the card was chosen. Do you believe there's a problem with it, if so what? FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a valid source to justify mention of the contest in the first place. Once we've justified mention of the contest at all, it's a passable source for describing the contest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is, given the standard in WP:SPS, even if we leave aside the issue of the criteria for what makes a notable card. And if you think that the idea that "A card which was developed through the input of a player through a contest by Wizards" isn't a valid criteria for a notable card, then I only have to say you can easily be proven wrong. So don't even begin to suggest it or I'll think you're just being stubborn. FrozenPurpleCube 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have you reached a compromise? Or do you need further input on reliability?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, where I am is here: Don't make lists of notable cards (or example cards or whatever) with no sources or WOTC-owned sources, because these sections will need to be incorporated into the article body, and personal observations and opinions aren't useful for that.

I dunno about anyone else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Yogurt Connection

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  Resolved

Article deleted a couple of times at The Yogurt Connection: Pioneering Drug Ring for lack of notability sourcing, it is now at Linda Leary, Richard and Paul Heilbrunn, And The Yogurt Connection. I've been in contact with the author, and the unwieldy current name is a known, separate issue from what I am bringing to this noticeboard. The article actually does have sourcing, but they are all offline sources, and thus cannot be easily verified. I'm no expert on sourcing myself, and after talks with the author I decided to get some consultation from those who do consider themselves more expert in sourcing. Do the external, offline, sources as given meet requirements for the article, or is more needed. Thanks in advance for any time/effort on this issue. - TexasAndroid 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Article moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing added

Article has been moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing has been added to two of four sources. The Time, NY Time and AP sources were discovered in a proprietary LexisNexis database. The indictment is a paper document obtained by me from the federal court. Also, the article is now, inexplicably to me, no longer visible. Thank you. --I3142p168 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the reliability matter solved then? Or do involved editors have any further questions?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I consider the sourcing adequate, and there is no requirement at all that the sources be accessible freely--people are assumed to have access to libraries. DGG 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry for not responding in atimely manner. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxford University Chess Club

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am concerned if this site is a reliable source: [15]. It neither lists where the information comes from, or even gives a date for the club's founding. I am concern that it's not suitable, and that a better source should be found. I can't even find out anything about the person responsible for the site's content. How do we know David Hayes (the person claiming the copyright) knows what the oldest anything is? I'm just not sure it should be trusted. This isn't to say the information is controversial and needs to be removed but I think a better source would be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The author is Bill Wall as is stated elsewhere on the website. Wall is a chess author (e.g. Wall, Bill (1988). Grob's Attack. Chess Enterprises. ISBN 0-931462-86-X. ) who specialises in chess history and has his own website here. I am not arguing that it meets WP:RS and I am looking for a better source if that helps the discussion here. However, the question as to whether this source should be cited, pending a successful search for a better reference, is for the talk page of the article and that is where you should be seeking a consensus. BlueValour 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
But the page itself doesn't mention Bill Wall, and exactly why should we trust David Hayes to know whether or not Bill Wall knows the truth? As for Bill Wall himself, unfortunately, publishing a book (or several) on Chess doesn't an expert in history make. Especially since the book isn't directly related to Oxford or Chess History. Where can we find his credentials endorsed by anyone else? I'm not even sure Chess Enterprises is a reliable publisher. If it's the one describe here [16] (and if that is indeed an accurate description, which it might not be, but I don't know that it isn't.), then it's a publishing out of a garage. Which makes for a vanity press. Therefore, I'm not inclined to rely on it. I'm also concerned that you replaced a SPS with the same source under a different flag. That doesn't fix the problem, it just repeats it. Again, I suggest looking for a better source, or if you can't do that, referring it directly to the claim by the club itself. That would be far more acceptable. Heck, I'm not even removing the information, just objecting to use the current sources. FrozenPurpleCube 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets are reliable. A minor webpage or a book publisher are less reliable, but unless the information is contradictory to something else we have it can stay - although it may be a good idea to mention a source in the text (ex. Bill Wall states that...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
  • “Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.”
    • Handleman, Scott, "Trivializing Jew-Hatred," in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p. 13.
  • “Apologists for Israel’s repression of Palestinians toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end.”
    • Cockburn, Alexander and St. Clair, Jeffrey, preface to The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p.vii.
  • "More importantly, Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics. Mostly, he tells us what we already know."
  • "Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies."
  • “The lack of debate is, of course, a measure of the power of the Israel lobby to suppress discussion of its role, and the fear the lobby stirs among American writers, especially non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites, a death sentence in the profession."
  • "'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said."
  • “The Great Silencer: No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most important weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite.”

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel.

  • “The charge has been leveled at Jimmy Carter over his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I, too, didn't like the book...Still, Carter's overall point about Israeli occupation of the West Bank is apt, and calling him all sorts of names does not change that...It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel."
  • Philadelphia Inquirer: Truth at Last

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Rashid Khalidi, a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch says:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus."

I find the sources reliable. They are from a collection of print news media as well as scolars in the field of politics. Others have disagreed at the talk page. // Liftarn

Your examples here look acceptable to me. However, the reliability of your sources doesn't seem to be the real issue on the talk page discussion you cited; rather, the issue seems to be that others don't want these additions in the article at all. On that front, I have two suggestions for you. First, either establish your case that one of the books you cite is a scholarly work or find a paper in a respected peer-reviewed journal to bolster your position; this will be unlikely to convince the others, but will help your case in step 2. Second, take the matter to an official channel for dispute resolution, such as Mediation, as I think anything less isn't going to settle the issue. Anomie 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
While you are probably correct in your belief that no matter of sources will ever convince them. It will not matter if the source is a scholarly work or a paper in a respected, peer-reviewed journal as that issue already have been adressed ("They are not scholars of antisemitism"). As they are only used as source for "Some have argued" the demand of a scolary work by an expert on antisemitism published on a peer-reviewed stone tablet handed down from the sky by God is way too much. // Liftarn

In fact, the issues here are much more complex, and it's rather disappointing that User:Liftarn uses this board to mis-characterize them, in an attempt to get support for his position. To begin with, the sources used are not scholarly sources about antisemitism, but for the most part are people who have voiced fairly extreme views, then claimed that they have been, or perhaps will be, accused of antisemitism. These claims are entirely self-serving, and in no case actually provide any example of who has accused them of antisemitism; they're just vague smears. Second, the material itself is not relevant to the antisemitism article, which is about actual antisemitism, not vague claims that people have been accused of antisemitism but deny the charges. Third, it is a truism that everyone accused of antisemitism insists that they are not antisemitic, and is being targeted for political reasons - David Duke says it, Jew Watch says it, etc. Even if we had more than a vague claim from someone that they had been accused of antisemitism, the protestations of innocence are predictable, and not notable. Fourth, the entire topic is not particularly notable; one would never find this kind of vague, self-serving, political material in a real encyclopedia. Fifth, the material has already been rejected by AfD processes - Liftarn has been trying to shop this material around encyclopedia articles for a year now, including it in the List of political epithets article, and at least a half-dozen others. The material has been rejected by a wide variety of editors, and User:Liftarn's edits at this point are disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Jayjg is a bit overzealous in protecting what he perhaps view as an attack on his political views, but the facts are
  1. the sources used are scholarly sources or from other reliable sources
  2. the people cited are not extremists (that he says so may say more about him than the sources)
  3. the claims are clearly not self-serving (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter)
  4. the material is relevant to the article, but I have asked for suggestion where it would be better placed with no luck (what Jayjg refers to as "to shop this material around")
  5. I don't see Jayjg trying to remove the criticism section from the islamophobia article
  6. the subject is notable enough to have been the subject of at least two books (The Politics of Anti-Semitism and Beyond Chutzpah)
  7. this material has not been "rejected by AfD processes"
  8. it is true that some editors don't like it and go to some lenghts fighting over this
  9. bringing in David Duke and Jew Watch seems like an attempt at poisoning the well

// Liftarn

Regarding Liftarn's claims,
  1. In fact only one (Mearsheimer and Walt) could be even claimed to be scholarly, that one is highly controversial, and in any event the scholarship of the authors does not extend to antisemitism.
  2. The people cited have generally made extreme claims, and Liftarn needs to focus on edits, not editors.
  3. All the sources except Paul Ari and Adam Shatz are self-serving.
  4. The material is not relevant to the article, which is about actual antisemitism, not political posturing and self-serving whining.
  5. I don't much about Islamophobia, and I have no idea why Liftarn would insist I have to edit that article.
  6. Both works are polemics, and if Liftarn is looking for a place to shop this nonsense around, those articles would be likely candidates.
  7. This material was indeed rejected by AfD processes; it was Liftarn's insistence on including the material in List of political epithets that finally exposed the absurdity of the list, and led to its deletion.
  8. Attempts to mis-characterize the reasons for opposition to this material are dishonest at best.
  9. Rather than poisoning the well, bringing Duke and Jew Watch points out that everyone rejects the charge of antisemitism; it is essentially a tautology to state that a person accused of antisemitism rejects the charge. Even the most obvious candidates (and their followers) will insist that they are not, so even if one were able to find reliable scholarly sources discussing actual examples (not vague innuendo), the statement that a person so accused rejects the charge adds no information or value. If someone, anyone, actually accepted the charge of antisemitism, that would be noteworthy.
Jayjg (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Strawman agrument. It is not required that they are scolars of antisemitism, they are scolars of politics and that makes their views relevant since it deals with the misuse of antisemitism as a political tool.
  2. Ad hominem attack and false.
  3. Dubious and any way irrelevant.
  4. the misuse of antisemitism as a political tool is relevant to the article (if you have a suggestion for a more suitable article please say so)
  5. Just pointing out your double standards.
  6. False, and in any care still irrelevant.
  7. But not everyone rejects it when it's applied to others. The sources talk about the use of the charge of antisemitism as a political weapon in general terms, not that they specificly have been targeted
// Liftarn
  1. Actually, it is required they be scholars of antisemitism. As explained elsewhere, the claim that this is an example of "misuse of antisemitism as a political tool" and therefore "scholars of politics" can comment on it is circular - there is no evidence that this is an "misuse of antisemitism as a political tool" except from those who make the claims in the first place. Moreover, most of the sources are not even "scholars of politics".
  2. You have misunderstood/misused the term "ad hominem".
  3. Highly relevant; people commenting about themselves are recognized to have a built-in bias which makes them inherently less reliable.
  4. The claim of such misuse by people who allege they have been accused of it, without any evidence of that claim, is not relevant to an article about actual antisemitism. I've already suggested where such material might be more appropriate.
  5. Please avoid uncivil statements; there are 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia that I do not edit, and it is not a "double standard" for me not to edit them. I don't know what the contents of the article are, and have no idea if the situations are at all comparable, but in any event attempts to bully me into editing it fall on deaf ears.
  6. Not sure what you're referring to at this point.
  7. Supporters of Duke and Jew Watch reject the charge of antisemitism when applied to them. Supporters of anyone accused of antisemitism invariably reject the charge. And certainly Carter is talking about being specifically targeted; Mearsheimer and Walt pretty much are as well, in a pre-emptive way. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As a general comment, I tend to be wary of statements that say "some people argue". A statement like that raises a huge red flag for me, in that it is so often misused as a weasle phrase to make a relatively Fringe view seem more significant than it is. I immediately suspect such a statement, and want to know who exactly is making the argument and why. I almost alwasys come to the conculsion that the statement should be directly attributed to the individuals who are making the claims. I am not saying that this is the case in this situation... but it does make me suspicious.
In this situation, I would be inclined to accept the citations as being reliable sources if they were broken out into individual claims and attributed to their authors. However, that would expose each to scrutiny as being Undue Weight and Fringe. In other words... taken out of the context of the article in question, I would call these reliable, but I have difficulty doing so within that context. And used to support a "some people" claim I am even more reluctant to accept them. I would want any citation in support of such a statement to demonstrate that "some" is actually a sizable number... more than just "a couple of people with chips on their sholders".
To sum up... I think the sources are individually reliable under this guideline, but they do not properly support the statement "some people"... and when used in the context of this article, they fail several other policies and guidelines. In fact, I really don't think this is truely an RS issue. It seems much more a NPOV (and especially an Undue weight) issue. Perhaps you should raise this at that policy's talk page? Blueboar 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, I agree with Blueboar that it looks like the Undue Weight/FRINGE issue; a discussion needs to resolve the question whether it is a view important enough to include in the article or not. For the record, I think it is a widely enough heard view to merit an inclusion, but let me try to help the discussion by addressing the concern this board was designed to deal with, that of reliability. are the sources used to back up the above assertion reliable? Per WP:ATT/FAQ: Mainstream websites, newspapers and magazines published and maintained by notable media outlets, Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses and written by widely published authors. Looking at the sources in question:

  1. AK Press publisher: radical, but has some notable names, and is not directly criticized - borderline, but yes
  2. Alexander Cockburn author: controversial but has also a number of positive reviews and endorsments
  3. Tikkun (magazine): criticized by some but again applouded and endorsed by some, nothing out of ordinary for any magazine, and seems notable enough, same for the author Michael Lerner (rabbi)
  4. Baltimore Sun, The Guardian, Washington Post - mainstream newspapers, reliable per our rules
  5. The Jewish Week: local newspaper, but doesn't seem unreliable (no criticism reported)
  6. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University - Harvard sais it all, and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are reliable scholars; their paper (note it has an article on Wiki - The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) - may be controversial, but seems quite reliable
  7. Richard Cohen (Washington Post columnist) - notable mainstream journalist
  8. Rashid Khalidi - reliable scholar, if engaged in some heated political disputes, one should distinguish between his academic and non-academic works, the latter should be less reliable

Overall, the sources seem reliable, and the amount of them indicates to me that it is not a 'fringe' view.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the main issue, that they are vague claims written by non-experts, and reliability is entirely dependent on context. For example, an oped written in the online "Comment is free" section of The Guardian website by Adam Shatz is about as reliable as Adam Shatz himself. It is a reliable source in that we can reliable say Adam Shatz wrote it; but the contents themselves are not The Guardian's position, only Adam Shatz's. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are OK and prove the fact that was written by Liftarn. --Dezidor 18:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, could you elaborate on that? It does not help to just declair something OK, without explaining why you think that. Piotrus and I are both saying that we think the sources are reliable, but that they have other issues that need to be looked at... issues that seriously impact whether they can be used in the specific article, Antisemitism. Those issues need to be discussed and resolved (mostly at other policy talk pages and at the article talk page). So... while they do "prove" that someone wrote something, they still may not be "OK". Blueboar 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are sources reliable was written by Piotrus and it is needless to write it again. You wrote you think they "do not properly support the statement "some people"..." I think that view is important and sources prove that many authorities have this opinion. --Dezidor 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Dezidor, you're also the person who thinks that David Irving has not been discredited. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And you are also the person who thinks that sources like Anti Defamation League are reliable. --Dezidor 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not for everything, but, unlike you, I don't insist they're "extremist" either, and remove links to them and wikistalk others as an IP editor so my edits won't accrue to my account. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Dezidor, my point is that even though the sources are reliable, using them in the Antisemitism article may not be "OK" because of what other policies say. RS is not the only issue here. Blueboar 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

al Jazeera video

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to know if the al Jazeera video and transcript linked in naked short selling (see end of "media coverage" is a reliable source and thus is worthwhile to be linked. My tendency is to think that it is not, but I am interested in hearing other views.--Samiharris 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the entire media section is full of refs to popular press. Since I am not aware of any connection between Al Jazeera and the subject matter, it seems to me that it is as reliable as any other mainstream media outlet.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly not its reputation, but if that is Wikipedia's policy on Al Jazeera I of course will not dispute it.--Samiharris 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a policy on Al Jazeera. But I am not aware it is considered unreliable - you are free to make your case for it, but please inform editors on that article's talk page, as well as on related noticeboards and projects (media, etc.) that we are discussing this, because the outcome could influence more than one article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I consider the english version of Al Jazeera highly reliable on all subjects, including the Middle East, and certainly including topics like these. Ask me for help with evidence if needed. I strongly doubt the other language versions are even approximately identical, and they would have to be discussed by those who can read them. DGG 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it has. While I respect the opinions that have been offered, I do not see how a propaganda outlet run by a Persian Guilf government can be said to produce reports that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.--Samiharris 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can present sources to back up your opinion, it would help. So far, I would only recommend noting in text that the given reference, if controversial, is to Al Jazeera - and let readers read article on it and decide for themselves if they think it biased or unreliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Detstar & GoldenEye 007

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am unsure whether or not Detstar (a GoldenEye 007 fan-site) can be used as a source for information on the GoldenEye 007 article. I do not believe so, as that website is not an official source of information on that game. Of course, given that there are no official GoldenEye websites anymore, could it just be a matter of whose GoldenEye fan-site is the biggest to determine what's "official" and what isn't? SpinyMcSpleen 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial website seems to fail the reliability criteria of being 'mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets'. They may even fall under self-published sources issue. However, I'd say that the bottom line is controversially and attribution: if the information is not controversial, use it, but note in text that it comes from the website in question.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tommy2.net - Reliable sources?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Discussion is going on at High School Musical 2, as to if the site tommy2.net can be considered a reliable source. The site has been known for breaking news that interests tweens, however my concern is they don't cite sources themselves, and I can't find any third-party mention of the site. I've asked proponents of the site to back up their claims and cite where Tommy2.net is referenced as a source by a media outlet, even Tiger Beat. Meanwhile, I've decided to be responsible and ask folks who are more knowledgeable than I to weigh in :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The interviews are primary sources and should not be relied on to verify the information in the article. As for the rest of the site it is neither considered an authoritive source nor do we have any guarentees that they check their facts. As an unofficial rule of thumb, sites that would not pass WP:WEB should never be considered reliable sources. It is my firm belief that this site would not pass WP:WEB. There is also the risk of fact laundering where something of otherwise dubious thruthfulness is being passed on as the truth because it was reported by a reliable source. It's an article about an upcoming movie - stick to the bare facts for now and then expand once we have some reliable secondary sources. Keep in mind that we are not a news service. We are editors, not journalists. That's why we don't rely on primary sources. We use secondary reliable sources because that way we know that someone has already checked the facts. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. MartinDK 14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jat Page - Unreliable Sources and Misquotes.

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have serious reservations about the validity of the sources used on this page. Note that Mr John Hill who has tried to correct the misquotes and sources used has recieved considerable abuse and character assasination from my Burdak and DrBrij. The article is a seriously flouting many of wiki's principles of a NPOV. Please see the discussion to the article and you get an idea of what is happening. Also speak to John Hill.--Sikh-history 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts also, though they may not be about the same sources; Cunningham was a 19th century amateur anthropologist, and some of the other sources seem dated. I would be very leery of using such material in discussing ethnic origins. DGG (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

www.fairlds.org

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

FAIRlds.org is an apologetic web site operated by Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. The website has been running since 1998. FAIR is funded by donations and staffed by volunteers. They claim that articles are peer-reviewed, they have an annual conference where papers are presented. More information is available on their [FAQ]. There has been considerable discussion at talk:First_Vision about whether this is a reliable source. Opinions, expert or otherwise, would be appreciated. 74s181 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody who is considered reliable and who agrees or disagrees with their claim of being peer reviewed and similar?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
They might be treated like the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an information source that tries to follow the way of thinking of an organized church. They could be a good source of a Mormon standpoint on various issues. Whether they are reliable on matters of fact (for example, 19th century history of that church) would need more study.
One of the citations to the work of FAIR in the First Vision article is http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/First_Vision_accounts. That particular reference looks to be balanced and informative although not neutral, and I would keep it in the article. It's like a particularly convenient presentation of all the arguments for one side of a debate. Readers of WP are not likely to be misled, and if they care enough about the topic to read the First Vision article at all, chances are they won't mind being referred to this external link.
The reference list of First Vision consists mostly of work written by Mormons or published in Mormon-affiliated journals. That may be unavoidable, if no-one else has taken the trouble to write about the First Vision topic, though it does cry out for more balance. EdJohnston 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Mirrors (or not?) of RS on personal websites

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have seen several cases of people using material posted on blogs, personal websites, online forums et.c. that claims to be from a reliable source (like a print newspaper). Even if it's not possible to check if their version of the article is genuine or entierly fictional is it still reliable? // Liftarn 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Sources don't have to be online at all - so urls that reprint reliable sources in unreliable contexts (on blogs, what have you) are only courtesies, they're not required. Judge the reliability of the source by it's origin (in this case, ask only whether the newspaper is reliable). WilyD 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
But they have to verifiable too. // Liftarn
Right. But you verify with the newspaper, book or whatever, not on the blog. WilyD 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It's like with Google Print: it's nice if you can link a direct page, but in the end, we are citing the book, and the fact that we can see part of it online is only a bonus. Of course, Google Print will not 'fake' content, and an unscrupulous blogger can - but we should follow the WP:AGF. Sure, if possible, do try to verify the blog or similar citation with directly checking the book - but I would put it on a lower priority then, let's say, verifying completely uncited statement.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know AGF also applied to any random homepage. // Liftarn
It doesn't - it applies to the user who adds it. You should not use the reprint in a blog to write the article - that should definitely use the original newspaper article. But providing a link to an online copy is a nice thing to do, even if it's in an unreliable source WilyD 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Meltyukhov in general and his 'Soviet-Polish Wars' in particular

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Mikhail Meltyukhov is a modern Russian historian, mostly unknown and uncited in the West (which is by no means a hint of his reliability or lack of it, most scholars from non-English speaking countries are unknown and uncited in the West; this only makes estabilishing their reliablity more difficult as it is hard to find reviews and commentary on them in English). His work Stalin's Missed Chance (from 2000, albeit due to poor reference formatting and my lack of command in Russian I cannot vouch for the data of publication) was apparently quite a hit in Russia, in has brought him to the attention of some Western historians. Later, however (2001?), Melt. published a book that has proven to be much more controversial: Soviet-Polish Wars. Political and Military standoff of 1918-1939. The book was first brought to our attention when User:Irpen started using it as a source about attrocities allegedly committed by the Polish Army during the Polish-Soviet War. Since those allegations were quite new to us, questions related to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and particulary Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources were raised. Two academic reviews in English were found, both very highly critical of Melt.'s work in general and this book in particular:

Peter Cheremushkin (from Moscow State University), Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation, InterMarium Volume 5 (an academic journal of nstitute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center). With reliability of author and publisher estabilished, let me bring a few quotes from the journal: p18: "Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] "This [Meltyukhov's - note by P.P.] point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

Polish professor of Jagiellonian University, Andrzej Nowak, in his conference paper writes (p.9): "It would be possible to indicate various examples of more subtle apologias for the Empire, linked with the rejection of all arguments for its victims or critics. Examples which dress themselves in the trappings of the most academic monograph. [...] A more brutal example of the same tendency is expressed in the book by the professional historian from Moscow, Mikhail Meltyukhov, dedicated to the Polish-Soviet conflicts of the twentieth century. These conflicts are, for him, fragments of eternal Western aggression against Russia. When Russia (in this case, Soviet Russia) comes into conflict it is only to take what is rightfully hers. Stalin appears as a genial successor to Catherine II. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the involvement of the USSR in the attack on Poland in September 1939 are presented as purely defensive postures, underlining the primacy of Russian raison d’etat. This posture represented not only Stalin’s profound realism but also historical justice and even – argues Meltyukhov – humanitarianism. In this context the mass deportations of more than half a million people from the territory occupied by the Red Army in September 1939 to camps in the depths of the Soviet Union is presented as a “peacekeeping mission” which prevented the murder of those Poles deported to Siberia by protecting them from the Ukrainians panting with thirst for revenge...". Please also note a damning footnote: "M. Meltyukhov, Sovetsko-polskie voiny. Voienno-politicheskoe protivostoianie 1918-1939 gg., Moskva 2001 – compare my comprehensive review concentrating on the shocking falsehoods in this book – in: A. Nowak, Od imperium do imperium. Spojrzenia na historię Europy Wschodniej, Kraków 2004, p. 258-271."

In light of those two reviews, it has been proposed at Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Criticism and Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Request_for_positive_reviews_of_Soviet-Polish_Wars, that unless positive academic (and preferably Western) reviews of Melt.'s works are presented (or critical reviews of Cheremushkin and Nowak works as partisan are presented), Melt.'s works should not be used as references for alleged Polish attrocities in particular, and areas where his "Stalinist and neoimperial" bias can affect in general (or at least, that such bias should be noted in text). Since in two weeks since discussions at the above discussion page stopped no requested positive reviews have been presented, I would like to ask editors interested in reliablity whether they feel it would now be justified to remove the controversial references to Melt. from our project? Note that nobody is questioning the Melt's reliablity where the references to his work concern purerly military matters (numbers, dates, strategy), only where they concern the issue of national POV, neutrality and undue weight/fringe to controversial statements (ex. about Polish army alleged attrocities not confirmed by any other work).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Update. Nowak in his 2004 book in detail lists bias and inaccuracies concerning Polish-Russian relations in this book, primarily pointing out that Poland is always portrayed as an aggressor and many instances of Russian aggression toward Poland are ignored: Bar Confederation for him is not a 'pro-Polish independence movement' but only an 'anti-religious tolerance' one; for a comprehensive study of Polish-Russian relations, there is no mention of Polish-Russian War of 1792 nor of Targowica Confederation; in another example, he claims that 60,000 Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war, and all Polish POWs were returned safely - ignoring the recent finding of both Polish and Russian historians that for both sides, POWs losses were similar (15,000-20,000) (For more on this subject, see Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) and Polish prisoners and internees in Soviet Union and Lithuania (1919-1921)); Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is declared non-infringing on Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact and as containing no anti-Polish aspects; Soviet invasion of Poland is termed 'peace operation' and 'liberation'; and main concern of Soviet government during its occupation of Poland was... the well-being of Polish citizens (deportations were meant to safeguard Poles from retribution of now-liberated minorities in that region, and Katyn massacre is justifed due to "60,000 Soviet POWs murdered during the Polish-Soviet War". Nowak also criticizes the work on methodological grounds, noting its reliance of Soviet sources like Nikolai Kuzmin Kruszenije trietjego pochoda Ententy (1958) or Paweł Olszański's Riżskij dogowor (1969) and near complete omission of any works from Russian authors who would disagree with his claims, Polish or Western historiography.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Melt. certainly seems to be a biased source... but I hesitate to clasify him as unreliable, even for his POV claims of attrocities. He meets our guidelines for being published etc. Once again, I find that Fringe and undue weight might well apply but not RS. If it must be used, a direct text attribution seems to be the way to go. Blueboar 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you expand on your statement "He meets our guidelines for being published etc."? Do you mean that we must accept as reliable every work by him? Balcer 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar is certainly correct with pointing out the importance of Fringe and Undue Weight, however I'd like to note that Fringe policy is part of RS (per WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources) and it advocates that mulitplie reliable sources should be presented to back up his exceptional claims. Yet here those claims are backed up only by his work (Soviet-Polish Wars), already criticized by two respected academics and not endorsed by any. Further, WP:ATT/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_reliable.3F notes that reliable books are ones not just published but published by universities and known publishing houses and written by widely published authors. Melt. has not been widely published outside Russia (and how widely pubished in Russia he is also a matter of debate), and to this day we don't know who was the publisher of his works (for all we know they could have been self-published online). Finally, I believe that WP:ATT/FAQ#Does_this_mean_we_have_to_include_every_crank_view_that_can_get_itself_published.3F answers the issue well, and he cannot be considered a reliable and neutral source on the raised issues.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider it a crank view. I consider it erratic, but necessary to be considered. Once a reputable scholar has published a work, and it has been taken sufficiently seriously by other scholars to refute it in academic periodicals, it may be wrong, it may be fringe, but it is no longer negligible. I've seen the same tendency in other articles to ignore minority views by classifying single books by qualified people that take a strongly revisionist position as crank. . One reputable person is enough. Since other people have commented, you just give all the views. In this case, as his work has not yet been translated into English, you could say that. But his Russian books are held by the major US academic libraries. Minority views do not disappear by calling them crank. Crank in this would be an erratic view expressed only in a blog. DGG 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The book is scary, but that might be a reason to keep it. Other editors have added some well-founded criticism to the article. My impression from a quick overview is that Meltyukov may represent a certain current of opinion within Russia, however irrational it might seem to us. Stalin was probably not the only one who thought those massacres were justified. This discussion would be different if he were truly an isolated crank, representing no-one but himself. EdJohnston 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That raises an interesting question. When do certain views cross from WP:FRINGE into a controversial but notable mainstream? Fringe is not only, after all, consisted of isolated cranks: there are relatively large communities of neo-Nazis, Holocaust denialers, Stalinism fans and such. Yet despite relatively high notability we don't, for example, cite David Irving or Stalin Society. As Nowak notes in his 2004, indeed, Melt. is not isolated and does indeed represent with his biases a clear trend in Russian historiography. There is however no proof that anybody outside Russia is treating this trend as reliable, and instead, when it's rarely commented upon, we have only critical academic reviews of it. Certainly, this trend is notable enough to be described in articles about it (such as Melt.'s bio) - but I don't see how a view "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts" can be considered reliable or even 'duly weighted' and be cited in other articles?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
it can be cited as a direct quote if a brief explanation of his position is included, which can be done as a ref. e.g.The neo-Stalinist [ref] Russian historian Melt. says that " ". I would not use a quote from that book to justify a statement of controverted fact without some qualification, but I see no reason to omit such sources altogether. DGG (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC regarding source at Right to bear arms

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A RFC has been opened regarding the use of a published appellate court opinion as a source in the article Right to bear arms. To what extent does such an opinion constitute a reliable source in articles not about the legal case in which the opinion was issued? PubliusFL 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Jossi's answer in the section right above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The section above deals with different types of materials, but looking at the applicable part of Jossi's answer, I guess the answer to my question would be "yes"? PubliusFL 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What appellate court? In the US? A Federal Court? Please provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Federal appellate decision are binding precedent only in the geographic region of appellate jurisdiction, and are just suggestive elsewhere. In the absence of contrary decisions they do represent that state of current legal opinion about what the law is. DGG (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical Science Sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone advise me whether the Statements and Recommendations of the International Herpes Management Forum (Editors of the Journal ‘Herpes’) and sourced from their website, [1] are considered a Reliable Source and Verifiable? I have been reverted several times now, without discussion on the article pages, but generalised comments made on my talk page and on other editors pages to the effect of unsourced material, quote mining, and lack of peer reveiwed sources? The particular quotes used are listed below.

“Current antiviral therapy for herpes zoster is moderately effective. Aciclovir, valaciclovir and famciclovir initiated within 72 h of rash onset reduce viral shedding, new lesion formation, time to lesion healing and time to pain resolution” “Current antiviral therapies provide a degree of efficacy against varicella infection and herpes zoster,”[2]
Where available “Antiviral drugs are useful (for herpes zoster) but have a limited effect on post-herpetic neuralgia prevention.” [3]
“Antiviral therapy, oral corticosteroids and neural blockade are appropriate in the pharmacologic management of acute pain in herpes zoster”, “There is only limited clinical evidence to support the use of aspirin, acetaminophen/paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs), opioid analgesics (including tramadol), tricyclic antidepressants (especially nortriptyline), gabapentin and pregabalin in the pharmacologic management of acute pain in herpes zoster “ [4]

The following has also been reverted without discussion by the same editor on a separate article on the basis of unsourced material and pseudoscience! And so I seek independent opinion on V and RS before engaging in further attempts at discussion.

Medications are available to ameliorate the pain of PHN, but data suggests these agents provide incomplete pain relief and their use is often accompanied by troubling side effects, especially in the populations of the aged and immuno-compromised, who should be monitored closely.[5] [6][7] Jagra 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ IHMF: Latest guidelines
  2. ^ Breuer J. ""Varicella Zoster Virus : Natural History and Current Therapies of Varicella and Herpes Zoster"" (PDF). International Herpes Management Forum. pp. page 12. Retrieved 2007-06-10. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  3. ^ Johnson R. ""Zoster-Associated Pain: What is Known, Who is at Risk and How can it be Managed?"" (PDF). Statements and Recommendations. International Herpes Management Forum. p. 3. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Johnson R. ""Zoster-Associated Pain: What is Known, Who is at Risk and How can it be Managed?"" (PDF). Statements and Recommendations. International Herpes Management Forum. p. 3. Retrieved 2007-06-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ "The Burden of Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in the United States -- Weaver 107 (Supplement 1): S2 -- Journal of the American Osteopathic Association". Retrieved 2007-06-16.
  6. ^ "The Journal of Family Practice". Retrieved 2007-06-16.
  7. ^ Johnson RW, Dworkin RH (2003). "Treatment of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia". BMJ. 326 (7392): 748–50. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7392.748. PMID 12676845.
I think dispute resolution would be preferable here since this seems to be more complicated than just a dispute over whether they are reliable sources or not. Try WP:RFC because this seems like a broader content dispute. That said, the sources you provided do seem to be reliable, at least at first glance. Sponsorship of medical research is not uncommon but I would advise you to take this to WP:RFC for further investigation and clarification. The appropriate place to file it is here.MartinDK 09:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Check WP:RSEX for some comment on medical sources. Has any claims been presented that your source is not reliable?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Piotr, leaving aside generalized accusations that arise from this, made on various user talk pages, such as here but more specifically to RS: here 21st june revert and here 1st july revert

I think dispute resolution should be the last avenue, what I would like to know is there a real issue of RS or just editor prejudices/ opinion?Jagra 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From a policy point of view they are reliable. That does not imply that other reliable sources are wrong. It implies that you can cite them but you need to keep in mind that NPOV means that both views should be represented if reliable sources exist. As for the rest of the content dispute and the various accusations you will want to refer to dispute resolution. MartinDK 10:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Opinions on treatment in professional journals often vary. & I would not necessarily use such statements fro ma research carticle. But these sources are explicitly put forth as representing a medical consensus, and are thus suitable unless challenged. I would still prefer to take such a statement from a source that aimed at a non-professional audience, such as PubMed Plus or some similar source.DGG (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Steam

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

More specifically, Steam_(content_delivery)#Crossplatform_Support. I dont think this should be there because its interpretation of primary sources and the given secondary sources is digg.com . What does everyone think? Corpx 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Forums and other user-edited sources are not reliable. I see no reason not to delete it. There is no way we are going to accept digg.com as a reliable secondary source. That whole section seems like the usual complaining by people who can't tell the difference between Wikipedia and the valve/microsoft/find more yourself complaint department. MartinDK 08:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone might re-word the paragraph in that article about cross-platform support, perhaps reducing it to a single sentence (with a reference). The fact that the Steam (content delivery) providers choose not to offer a Linux version is of interest, but the doings on those forums don't seem notable. EdJohnston 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be noted, but I dont think we should be interpreting it as criticism when no other reliable secondary sources do so Corpx 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Conference proceedings

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
  Resolved

Trawick, Prof. Margaret (1999), "Lessons from Kokkodaicholai", Proceedings of Tamil Nationhood & Search for Peace in Sri Lanka, Carleton University, pp. 1–10

Does using this violate WP:RS ? This is Professor Trawicks home page. This has been disputed in the Prawn farm massacre article. Thanks Taprobanus 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The book is certainly a reliable source by our standards (it is published by a reputable publishing house). It might count as a biased source... although that is not clear (and is a very different matter - one not within the domain of this guideline ... see WP:NPOV, especially the section on undue weight, for assistance on that), . If so, any statements taken from the book should be phrased as being the view of the author and not stated as fact. Blueboar 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean this ?McGowan, William (1992). Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka. Farrar Straus & Giroux. pp. 243–244. ISBN 0374226520. Right ? Because this has also been removed from the article but it is a book, where as the above is a Conference proceedings. I have written to the professor to see whether she has publsihed it anywhere else also Thanks Taprobanus 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Conference proceedings are usually published by someone reliable (although sometimes professional organisations, rather than publishing houses.) WilyD 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Careful. Not all conferences are peer reviewed. Quite a lot accept papaers based on abstract and are therefore less reliable, however they are published afterwards. Reliable source for what happened at the conference yes, reliable science may be less so. --BozMo talk 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I point to them being published by someone reliable. Conference Proceedings published by American Astronomical Society probably are reliable. Conference proceedings published by West Upstairs Hollywood Herbal Medicine Association probably aren't. Look at who's publishing ... WilyD 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a note, depending on context, a conference proceeding may or may not be peer reviewed. Some conferences are very selective about what goes in proceedings, while others will accept anything for a fee and are essentially no better than self-published. You'd have to look closer to know which this is. Dragons flight 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So if Prof. Margret's paper is considred self published then it can be used in the article with attribution per this. Am I correct in my reading of self published ? ThanksTaprobanus 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can call Prof. Trawick's paper "self published"... I suppose you could make the argument that the "Accademic Society of Tamil Students" (who seemed to have sponcered the conference) are the publishers, but not Prof. Trawick. Blueboar 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Her bio page says 1999 “Lessons from Kokkaddichcholai.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Tamil Nationhood and the Search for Peace in Sri Lanka, Ottawa: The Academic Society of Tamil Students. Pages 17-49. that means unless the material is used somewhere else or published by a reliable source, we cannot use it ? Taprobanus 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Though the material is not self-published in the literal sense, I think similar considerations as used for WP:SPS broadly apply. Here we have an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If it's acceptable to use a blog under those circumstances, it should be equally acceptable to use a conference preprint. (PS: This discussion really should be at WP:RSN, not here.) Raymond Arritt 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries, the same information is in Trawick, Margaret (2007). Enemy Lines: Warfare, Childhood and Play in Batticaloa. University of California Press. pp. Chapter 4. ISBN 0520245164. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). I wil use that instead. Thansk for all your helpTaprobanus 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was resolved but the book has been reverted without any comments ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone doubt that Enemy Lines is clearly a reliable source under our rules? I have a feeling that what you are dealing with now is a POV content dispute issue and that it should be raised at WP:NPOV. Blueboar 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hipgnosis

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Administrator, I have the following situation:

I have been editing the article on Hipgnosis off and on, adding artwork to the article, as Hipgnosis is a graphic design company that designed some of the most famous album covers of the past 30 years, including Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. By way of illustrating their work, I have been including the various album covers that they designed.

However, User:Moe Epsilon consistently reverts the edits, claiming that the use of the album covers in the article violates copyright. There has been a lengthy discussion, principally with other editors. User:Moe Epsilon's reverts are bordering on vandalism, as no reasonable argument will satisfy him/her.

My position (and that of other editors) is that the use of the album covers to illustrate Hipgnosis' work is warranted—after all, they are an important graphic design outfit. Therefore, including the album covers in the article falls under the rubrick of fair use. User:Moe Epsilon, on the other, clearly does not believe that any use of copyrighted material is allowed in the article, regardless of relevance.

I'd ask someone to please settle this issue, as it is becoming irritating. Thank you. --TallulahBelle 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First, very few of those who respond here are actually admins... most of us are just regular editors who care about reliability. Second, while you are discussing an interesting debate, this is not really the right place for it. Copywrite issues do not fall under the category of reliable sources. That said, I would suggest that you raise this issue at WP:COPY or at the Village Pump. You will get a response from people who are much more qualified to respond than we are (such as people who actually know copywrite law and its ramifications. Blueboar 00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!--TallulahBelle 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

as well as meny more as citation for this information in Muhammad al-Durrah

was killed

// Liftarn 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If your question is whether these are reliable sources... the answer is "Yes". Blueboar 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My question is if these sources is enough to be able to say he actually is dead even if there is a person promoting a conspiracy theory that say he isn't. // Liftarn
Liftarn, I think the article as written steers a careful course through the various theories. We talk about the New York Times reporting his injuries; the BBC reporting his death etc. We don't state as a fact that he had certain injuries, but nor have we used any weasel phrases like "his reported death," or "his family claimed that ..." I think most readers will come away with the impression that he is dead but that it's a very confusing story, which would be the right attitude to have, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The article uses a lot of weasly phrases such as "was reported to have been killed", "the reported shooting", "appears to be injured" and so on. Compare with the Elvis Presley article that says "His death" and so on. // Liftarn
I don't think you can challenge inclusion of the conspiracy theory stuff on reliability grounds, and certainly not based upon the articles you link to above. While they all back the "mainstream view" (that the boy was killed, by one side or the other) ... they don't address the contention that the whole thing was staged and that the boy might not have even been killed. The reports you cite all date from shortly after the event, and are, to some extent, superceded by subsequent information such as the existance of the contention that the event was staged. Note, I am not saying that the conspiracy stuff is 'true'... only that it exists and has not been debunked as of yet. This is the current status of the controvery, and that status affects how we phrase the article.
This is not really a reliability issue... more one for WP:NPOV. How much weight to give the theory that the boy lived is a legitimate debate, but not one to be decided here. Blueboar 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that no reliable source say the boy isn't dead it should be no problem. It may be a case of WP:UNDUE. Anyway, there are more recent articles about it like this from 2007, but they don't add anything new. // Liftarn

Salon as a source at a BLP related article under ArbComm special standards

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Discussed, found that no other review of the book mentioned it, and deemed insignificant by OP. GRBerry

A paragraph was recently added to Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, an article that needs to comply with WP:BLP and is also subject to this ArbComm remedy. The article has twice gone through a cycle of speedy delete - deletion review overturn - AFD keep. Here is the diff of the addition. The sourcing offered is from Salon.com. I followed the link, saw that it wasn't in the non-subscriber portion of the linked article. So my concerns about the source were aggravated. I then found Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia, which seems to demonstrate a consensus that they can be a reliable source used judiciously, but should generally not be used for BLP sensitive details. Since this article is extra sensitive, I removed the paragraph and explained at Talk:Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy#Reversion of book note. Was I correct to do so? Please centralize discussion there. GRBerry 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was able to access the link without being a subscriber or registering or even watching an ad. It looks fine to me. For the citing passage, it's just a review of a book. The author is a regular Salon contributor. Do you see any actual BLP concerns for the statements supported by the Salon source? I don't. The book maybe has an inflammatory title in general, but it's not a BLP concern. ←BenB4 05:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The source cited says this:
"Oh god, she is feminism's worst nightmare," said Neil Boyd, an SFU criminology professor who claimed that Marsden harassed him too. Boyd was a vocal critic of SFU's handling of the Donnelly case; his 2004 book "Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism Has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality" was inspired in part by the case. "She used these people, who were only too willing to jump on her bandwagon," said Boyd. "I'm not sure that she ever really presented herself as a feminist as much as she took advantage of an openness to victimization that existed on the university campus at that time."...
By phone, Boyd explained that as he had been a vocal critic of the school's handling of the Donnelly case, he was surprised when Marsden showed up to take one of his classes. The university denied his request to be exempt from teaching her, but agreed that he wouldn't have to evaluate her, since it might be a conflict of interest. Boyd said that partway through the semester, Marsden sent him an e-mail saying that it was going so well, she thought he should be able to grade her. When he refused, he claimed, she began phoning and e-mailing him frequently, asking him out, and "showing up after talks I gave in the community, or after classes, wherever I might be." But Boyd, who has a background in law, kept all her calls and e-mail messages. In 1999, Boyd took these records to the police, who reportedly warned Marsden to stay away from him. According to Boyd, she did.
The passage you removed says:
SFU criminologist Neil Boyd's 2004 book Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism Has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality was partly inspired by these incidents. Boyd had been a vocal critic of the university during the controversy and later had Marsden as one of his students.
Given that those direct quotes by a reputable journalist are substantially more inflammatory than the passage you removed, which really has no BLP issues at all, I would recommend replacing it. ←BenB4 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of a human rights organisation

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is an ongoing dispute at Talk:Prawn farm massacre#UTHR regarding whether a human rights organisation known as the University Teachers for Human Rights is a reliable source. To me, the issue seems clear, but another editor disagrees and I hope an outside opinion could prevent tens of kilobytes of unproductive discussion.

Arguments against reliability

I think the argument of the editor disputing reliability can be summed up by the following quote:

UTHR is all tamil organization and, and they are inherently bias to tamil. They may have criticized LTTE(who won't ??) or the GOSL, but that doesn't NOT change the fact that they are a ALL tamil organization with an agenda against the Sinhalese people.

Note: LTTE refers to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and GOSL refers to the Government of Sri Lanka.

Arguments for reliability

I maintain that the UTHR is a reliable and neutral source, which has criticised both sides in the Sri Lankan Civil War, based on a brief search to see what others had to say about it:

  • International Herald Tribune: "the University Teachers for Human Rights, an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"
  • BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
  • Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
  • New York Times: "The University Teachers for human Rights, an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group ..."
  • Washington Post: "the independent University Teachers for Human Rights ..."

The UTHR is not a pro-rebel group, so the editor disputing reliability has targeted the fact that their membership consists mostly or entirely of Tamils. The allegation that the UTHR has "an agenda against the Sinhalese people" or "is inherently bias"ed toward Tamils does not seem to mesh with what reliable sources have to say about the group.

Comments (here or on the article talk page) are welcome. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So far you have presented sources for reliability, but there are no sources (only another editors opinion) that it is unreliable - but we should remember that NGOs, even human rights one, have their biases, too - they are not on the level of neutral academic scholarship, after all. As you made the case, the source appear more reliable then not, though. A simple solution: when giving a fact cited to UTHR, state in text that "According to UTHR...". The reader can follow the link and decide if there is any bias himself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll suggest that and see what happens. I suggested it for another source that is currently in dispute, but the other editor rejected the idea. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is an article by a newspaper owner self-published?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The owner and editor-in-chief of a newspaper, Nicholas F. Benton, wrote an article we're using as a source. The Falls Church News-Press has a paid circulation of about 30,000 and is the chief newspaper for its community. The paper has a staff of editors. It's not a free paper or a one-man operation. WP editors commenting at Talk:Kenneth Kronberg object that the article is self-published since the same guy who wrote it owns the newspaper. My view is that many reliable sources are owned or controlled by a single person, and that when an owner writes an article it doesn't necessarily have less credibility than when a staff writer does since the reliability of a source is tied to its overall editing process. The newspaper is used as a source in several other WP articles without controversy.[17] Any comments? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an unusual case, because the article in question is making highly inflammatory insinuations that have a bearing on WP:BLP. It is also, to date, the only publication where these claims have appeared. So, it's not just a garden-variety sourcing issue. --Marvin Diode 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider that article to be a reliable source, even if it's publication usually is. As Marvin says, this is unusual. ←BenB4 06:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Food Intolerance

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would be pleased if someone could advise if the following reference is considered a reliable source and verifiable on the subject of food intolerance, as it seems to have been reverted here without reasonable comment.

Clarke L, McQueen J,and others (1996);"The dietary Management of food allergy and Food Intolerance in Children and Adults". Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics 53(3):89-98.)Full version of this reference together with references concerning food additives,may be viewed at [18] Jagra 07:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The citation is good... but the link to the website that you use with it is not (all it contains is a citation to the same AJN&D article you cite). Try citing to the original journal article without a link... you can obtain it here - Blueboar 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar for the confirmation and website for the journal. All I could find there in 'archives' Issue 53 (3) was an abstract from this , but a full copy of paper is shown on the website at here and this goes directly to the article now, which I would like to make available as abstract not directly accessed and it does not cover details. If I reference both does that overcome problem? Jagra 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of Patryk Dole as a reference in history articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Piotrus has been using an article by Patryk Dole, published online by polonica.net (home page:[19], article:[20] ) as a reference for several articles. The Dole article is heavily cited at Kiev Offensive (1920), which includes the statement "Some scholars stress the effects of Soviet propaganda (Dole citation) in encouraging negative Ukrainian sentiment towards the Polish operation and Polish-Ukrainian history in general."

Dole is quoted at length in the WP article's notes, including the statement that "Most Ukrainians had no idea what Bolshevism was and were easily manipulated by the Russians. Besides, many of the Ukrainian peasants were very simple people who still had memories of serfdom, which was imposed on them by the Polish Szlachta (Nobility)." This language is rather loaded - as is the language in the rest of the article. The WP article's talk page indicates a fair amount of controversy.

Although P. removed many of the polonica.net references in articles yesterday, he has suggested that Dole's publication on that site doesn't necessarily disparage his reliability (Talk:Treaty of Warsaw (1920)). However, Patryk Dole does not seem to be what most of us would consider a reliable historical source. He apparently participates in a blog [21], the "Christian Confederacy of Intermarium", but no academic or mainstream publications contain his work. Dole is mentioned in a discussion thread at University of New York - Buffalo [22], but not as a scholar.

A few sources [23], [24] put "Patryk Dole - The American University of Paris" at the top of his article, but a search for Dole at the AUP website yields no results. Novickas 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some clarifications. Dole's article is one of dozens used in those articles and I feel no special attachment to it. It seemed to offer the most facts (online) for Bezdany raid article which I wrote about a year ago; it doesn't seem to be used extensively in any other article (and even Bezdany can be relatively easily verified with print publications). The above-quoted Soviet propaganda fact is referenced with a source that seems more reliable (written by historian Anna M. Cienciala), and Dole's apparently just offered an online citation (I can't even remember if it was me or some other editor who added him to back up that point). I certainly agree that polonica.net, by itself, is an unreliable portal - but as far as I can tell, Dole's article (published on several websites, particularly in its Polish language version) is as reliable as an average external links, serves simply as a temporary citation till a better one is found, and should not be used for facts if they are contradicted by more reliable sources - but so far I have not seen any criticism of his statements (with more reliable sources showing errors in his piece). In any case, I will see about replacing references in Bezdany raid with a printed source (which I will have access again to in two weeks or so). But I actually not sure if Novickas wants the citations to be removed, or finds any facts controversial?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to discuss the content of the article - it doesn't meet the criteria for reliable historical sources. It doesn't belong on WP as a reference, and should be removed, along with any WP article statements that are supported by it. Its convenience to editors is immaterial. Novickas 11:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You may want to write more articles and seeing what is convenient and what is not yourself. You have yourself added content that is uncited ([25], [26], [27]...). Have all of your refs been from acedemic sources only? Would you now revert all of those and similar edits? We should certainly strive to cite everything with reliable sources; alas this is not the case in most Wikipedia articles. Even worse then poor sources are statements not cited with anything - look, for example, at Lithuania or Poland articles, and see how much material in both is uncited, and how much is cited to a sources of doubious reliability (online newspapers, etc.). Unless you can show that Dole's claims are contradicted by a more reliable source (in which case they should certainly be removed) or are plain ridiculous (granted, its hard to find criticism of some crackpot theories), the right thing to do is to find more reliable citations for them and replace them. Removing all uncited or poorly referenced material from this project would be pure WP:POINT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Depends on whom he is. If, for example, he were a recognized historian, then his online essays, though not as authoritative as his peer-reviewed writings, are usable; if he were a recognized non-academic writer on the subject, this too would give his essays a certain though still lesser degree of authority. If he were an amateur with no degree of recognition beyond his web essays, then I would still consider it usable if they are widely cited by RSs, because the citation by RSs would establish some degree of recognition. All this would be especially true for the presentation of non-controversial facts, less true for authoritative opinion of controverted subjects. I cannot find an informative page about him, but see [28] from which it is clear that he is not politically neutral--an avowed Christian conservative with a project to create a central European confederacy. Nor can I find any established authority or RS who cites him. On the current information, I would remove all the references. He has no more authority than any of us. DGG (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with Piotrus' points: 1) references and notes containing historic analyses such as "Ukrainian peasants were very simple people" are acceptable, even if they lack any provenance, since this happens elsewhere on WP; 2) the task of removing four such references is unduly burdensome and disrupts Wikipedia; 3) unreferenced altitudes, holiday traditions, and birthplaces are comparable to these usages in terms of importance. But at this point I've said all I wish to, and will hope for comments from other editors. Novickas 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I feel no special attachment to this ref; the only article still using it is Bezdany raid and I will fix it in a week or so. Or perhaps Novickas would try WP:SOFIXIT and do it for me, if he is so concerned about possible inaccuracies from that source?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Forbes Traveller etc

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What if any value does this forbestraveler.com article have if I wanted to write about the hotel ? Kappa 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Similarly can I use this thing from Economist.com city guide to source a "largest hotel claim"? a "has indoor rain forest" statement? Kappa 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? The publishers are large, longstanding, and reputable, and their income depends on their accuracy. I strongly encourage you to rely on those sources. Make sure you include any caveats, such as the "mixed results" on the rain forest. ←BenB4 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm like "the lobby has an indoor rainforest, which, according to an Economist travel writer, had mixed results in injecting atmosphere." ? Kappa 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
yes, though even better if you an find a pithy quote where they express that opinion.DGG (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

I am looking into including more academic sources at Watchmen (found plenty already), and I came across one that I was not sure seemed reliable. Reading Space in Watchmen is by Dr. Spiros Xenos, who calls himself an independent scholar. At the end of the paper, it says, "Dr Spiros Xenos has been researching and writing on comics for over ten years. He has presented papers at international conferences and in Australia, and published articles in general and academic journals. He completed his PhD thesis on spatiality and comics in 2002. He is on the International Editorial Board of the International Journal of Comic Art." The paper is linked to by the University of Technology, Sydney. How would one rate the credibility of this source? It does not seem published anywhere, which is why I was not certain. I have other academic sources that are published, but I am looking to encompass as many as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's published on an academic website, and according to [29] and [30], it was pretend/read during a symposium and might have even been published in a collection with ISBN 0646452398. Spiros Xenos doesn't seem to be a classic academic, but at the very least this paper has been given academic reliability by being presented and published there. Unless it is controversial or such, I see no reason not to use it as a source.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input! It's appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I'd appreciate people's thoughts on globalresearch.ca as a reliable source. Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

According to their "about" page, they are an NGO, claiming to have some academic connections. Unfortunatly after some recent edits RS has been significantly gutted of guidelines that would allow us to analyze the reliability of such an NGO, but I'd advise looking for reviews of the organization to see if its considered more 'academic', 'mainstream' or 'fringe'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Michel Chossudovsky seems to be the founder of http://globalresearch.ca.--Raphael1 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
An academic, but with visible bias. Perhaps a good solution would be to agree that this source can be used, but if controversy arises, it should be noted that this website is the source? Perhaps the NGO is notable and we could link it, and the article could discuss it possible bias.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree... I would say it is reliable, but with the caveat that statements based upon it should probably be directly attributed (as in "According to globalresearch.ca, such and such is true.") Any bias should also be noted. Blueboar 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
DIsagree- I consider them a frankly political group, making no attempt at an unbiased selection or presentation. This is not an academically based relatively neutral NGO in any meaningful sense; it is an NPO, a non-profit organisation, which can include almost anything, and, at least in the US, it certainly does include the entire spectrum politically, and the entire spectrum in terms of responsibility as well. I would accept that what they reprint is correctly reprinted, though I would certainly link to the original source if it can be found. But almost all their content seems to be written by their staff and contributors, and I do not consider it quotable as factual news unless otherwise supported. I see no academic connection at all, except that it says "articles are used as source material by college and university students. " and that academic institutions have "established a link to Global Research on their respective web sites." That perhaps I rather agree with some of their politics is no reason for pretending they are other than they are. 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) looks like you hit ~ too many times :) --Haemo 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Choke

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An editor has been attempting to add a scan of the purported production schedule for Choke (film), seen at Image:Choke day 1 front.jpg. It is "released" in the public domain, but the editor has not claimed the document as his own, only scanning it and providing it for the article. There's been a disagreement about the appropriateness of this source, especially considering the verifiability and notability of the enclosed information. Is this image appropriately licensed for inclusion, and if it is, is the image appropriate to cite for information about the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So far two of the sources cited in this image as well as article (Hospital & Mesob's) have been verified through third party sources. Details in image include shooting time (25 days) as well as crew members already acknowledged as correct - with over 75 percent of image details as well as other information (plus first hand account) have to assume that information supplied is correct and accurate209.212.28.50 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above user is the editor with whom I am in dispute at the article and not one whose opinion I am not looking for here. Is there a neutral perspective available as to the appropriateness of the image? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm also doubtful as to whether the uploader has the rights to release the document into public domain. Corpx 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Data Base

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reliable source, or as worthless as it's apparent namesake (IMDB)? WilyD 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me, as they claim to have fact checking - "We will need verification of submissions of cast/crew participation in a show (a copy of the theatre program usually suffices). Please fax or mail the verification along with a note explaining the correction/addition to" Corpx 15:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal and fandom protest reports

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, there's a content dispute over whether the recent changes to this article meet WP:RS and WP:NOR's standards. It appears that veteran editors believe the inclusion does not meet the criteria, but it is pretty tricky with the usage of "self-published" news sites to back up the claims of the anons and new users. Looking for some input since this is a, seemingly, gray area. Kyaa the Catlord 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've had a look at the FireFox News page and I wonder if it would be better described as a blog than a news site? If so I think there would be problems using it as a verifiable source. Xdenizen 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain. The articles I have read there certainly have some bloggish tendancies and are definately not what I'd call unbiased journalism. They have a "blogs" section and often blur the boundaries between the two. (Such as the author of the story in question having BOTH a blog and a news "byline".) Kyaa the Catlord 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Given that established editors have problems with using the FFN info as a verifiable source and the doubts you've raised here, it would probably be wisest if those who wish to include those changes sought a more acceptable source. Xdenizen 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What article are we talking about? Corpx 15:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
LiveJournal sorry I forgot to include that. Kyaa the Catlord 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

IMHO neither the anonymous website www.thereligionofpeace.com nor the contentious claims on www.religion-of-peace.com satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Can anyone confirm this? --Raphael1 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They're just self-published sites, not reliable per WP:RS. ←BenB4 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The context of this request is that this source is quoted in the Religion of peace article as an example of a group that uses the words "religion of peace" in a sarcastic way. It definitely does that. The site is not quoted as a source of data for terrorist attacks (although googling any of the attacks reported usually gives gives a news report showing details of the attack). I would say quoting the site as an example of sarcastic use of "the religion of peace" is legit. Quoting the commentary from the site would fail WP:NPOV. Mike Young 05:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be citing a source that says the phrase is used sarcastically instead of self-published primaries? Surely there must be someone else who has said it. Linking to those sites or even referencing them by name without a link seems to me to be The Wrong Thing. ←BenB4 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
In the article the prime minister of Malaysia said "Religion of peace" and Bush said "Islam is peace" Mike Young 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree to that as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:SPS also states, that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" fails as well since the article in question is about the phrase "Religion of Peace" and not about those websites. --Raphael1 10:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
the religion of peace article is a list of attacks. It does not invent data, so is not "Self Published". Raphael1 you have now reverted the article 12 times and been undone by several editors, please learn the lessons from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where doing this got you banned for a year. Mike Young 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com does invent data. I.e. it states, that only 225 out of between 18,000 and 26,000 civilians killed in 2006 involve American troops[31]. Besides being "self published" has nothing to do with invented data. "self published" only means, that there is no editorial oversight involved, which is certainly true for this anonymous website.--Raphael1 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Skinny Bitch

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I wrote a stubby but properly sourced article about a book called Skinny Bitch. A new editor keeps introducing poorly written and poorly sourced additions about a Chicago radio program. The edits are not vandalism, so I am bound by the 3RR. Can someone help? I already tried politely reasoning with the editor on her talk page, with little result.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Took care of it Blueboar 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Blueboar.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Majid Kavousifar and Hossein Kavousifar

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Really not certain what should happen to this page. It purports to be summary of the mob-execution of two men convicted of assassinating a judge. The photos appear to follow the summary, but there is no sourcing, no confirmation that the summary is a true version of what the photos show. For all we know it could be a fiction attached to unrelated photos. And then there's the issue of whether this belongs on the project in the first place, even if it is true. Does not seem to fit any Speedy criteria, and really not sure if it should be AFDed. But I do know that it is improper in it's current unsourced state, and that I simply do not have the knowledge to try to fix it myself. So I hope someone else can help clean it up, or help decide to toss it at AFD. - TexasAndroid

Well, it is sourced (two articles... one from Yahoo news, and one from iranfocus.com), however the sources could be better. The photos come from these two sources, and it is a copywrite violation to use them here. I have removed them. I have also cut the "play by play" summary that followed the photos. All that the article needs to say is that the two were convicted and executed by hanging. That leaves the issue of notability... are these two people notable and/or is their execution notable? It may be too current to tell. Blueboar 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
<Sigh> Sometimes I look and look and just do not see. You're right about the sources being there. <Sigh> Still, thanks for the clean-up assist anyway. - TexasAndroid 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I was updating and cleaning up, it seems the Yahoo article was taken off line (the link is dead). So I have cut that as well. This leaves just the focusiran.com source... which does not really say all that much (also it is a non-profit "news agency" that may not be reliable ... don't know enough about it to say for sure, but it smells like an issue advocacy web site to me.) Definitely needs better sourcing... or perhaps merits a Prod or AfD (but I would need to figure out what category applies before I did so.) Blueboar 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I fail to see any historic notability for this incident, per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NewsInsider.org for Sanctity of Life Act

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is this article a reliable source for the statement, "If passed, the bill would have caused abortion to be treated as murder"? For background please see http://www.newsinsider.org/faq.html -- I note they have an editorial structure, but I don't know if they have a fact-checking system in place. ←BenB4 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. It looks to me like a blog run by a bunch of people Corpx 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I would agree... at best it might be reliable for stating: "It is the opinion of Simi Lipsan (the author of the newsinsider.org article) that, if passed, the bill would have caused abortion to be treated as murder." Of course, inclusion of that opinion in a Wikipedia article would depend on the article's topic and whether Simi Lipsan is considered an expert on the subject. Blueboar 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Corpx. That site seems like a news-blog to me. If they reorganized in the future it could be a WP:RS - but not at the moment. Like Blueboar says if you were even including a quote from Simi Lipsan you'd need to ask - how much weight does that opinion have?--Cailil talk 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the section concerning his last appearence in the Dark Tower, I wrote how his fate was controversial among the fans. Its easily one of the more controversial topics in the last novel and fans are still debating it to this day. I was wondering if using topics from thedarktower.net (one of the largest Dark Tower websites on the internet) would be good enough citation to show the conflicting views between fans.--CyberGhostface 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Genrerally forums are not considered reliable, as we have no way to verify who posts to them, or if what they say is accurate. In this case, using thedarktower.net to demonstrate a controversy would constitute original research as the observation of the conflicting views is your own. What I think you need is a third source that comments upon the debates at thedarktower.net (or on the controversy in general). Blueboar 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bluboar that forums are not reliable sources of information. -- Librarylefty 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree in general that forums are not reliable sources, if there is a claim that something is controversial, or frequently discussed online, then links to such discussions should be acceptable sources for that contention. Corvus cornix 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonder World

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for additional opinions on an article I've become involved with. There have been a number of fictional theme parks by this name over time, and there was an AFD deleted article at this location at one point on a fan-made theme park within one of the Roler Coaster tycoon games. Recently someone created a stub on another of the fictional Wonder Worlds, that was PRODed, and then convered into a sub-stub about a real Wonder World park in San Marcos, Texas. I then found the page on the Short Pages list and, being from the area, decided I could at least create a viable stub on the existing amusement park. At first I only sourced the park with it's own web page, and the article was properly tagged for sourcing and again PRODed. I have now added several more sources, mostly from travel sites, and officially contested the PROD. I also found that the cave that is the core of the park is an official Texas Historical Site, and tracked down the offical designation page for this on the Texas government web site.

Which brings the article to where it currently stands. The park is well known around the central Texas area, and is mentioned prominently on many pages that talk about what attractions San Marcos has to offer. But these are all effectively "trivial" sources because they really are just mentions. And I'm not 100% certain that the travel sites that I did find would qualify as "reliable" sourcing, though they are definitely not "trivial". Anyway, I would like for some additional opinions on the page and it's current sourcing. Between the travel sites and the official Texas Historical Site designation page, is the article sufficiently sourced now for a stub? If so, would someone neutral please judge if the sourcing tag still belong. Or, on the other extreeme, do I still have more work to make this a viable stub? - TexasAndroid 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Man vs Wild: Sources for criticism section

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Ive (unfortunately) gotten myself neck-deep into a longstanding argument on the Man vs. Wild Talk Page, in which one user in particular has attempted to put forth a criticism section that states that elements of the show are staged using sources that myself and a few others feel is flimsy at best. However, as the debate has begun to turn nasty, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if it is agreed to be reliable here.

The following are sources which have been used for criticism sections, all of which was removed.

1. [32] This picture, which user Rei has put forth that it appears that the raft was cut rather than fireburned, as the episode apparently stated. The problem I have with this is that his analysis is not backed up by any source other than photograph itself, which appears to me to be a violation of WP:OR, while another user, grahamdubya, has suggested that the image itself isnt strong enough evidence regardless.

Analysis of a photograph, if controversial, is certainly WP:OR. As such, until a reliable source describes the photograph, this claim should not appear on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2. [33] A youtube video of an episode where the unregistered user who used it as a source by stating that at one point in the video, a harness is visible. Again, no secondary source corroborating this claim, only the primary source from which the claim is based.

Analysis of videos posted on youtube with no secondary claim to introduce or corroborate that analysis was common on the original criticism section. For example this video, [34], from 4:44 onward, was used as a reference for a claim that because the cameraman followed the host, Bear Grylls, as he jumped off of a crevasse, the height of the crevasse wasnt as high as he claimed.

The rest of the evidence used for the criticism section can be seen in context here: [35]

YouTube is a source of poor reliability, in essence, a self-published source. See more at Wikipedia:V#SELF.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Forum posts had been frequently implemented to present theories viewers had questioning the narrative presented in the show, including this forum post [36] questioning the opening sequence of the pilot episode.

Forums are not reliable. See WP:ATT/FAQ#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

4. The original criticism section also included 2 google searches elsewhere [37][38] in order to show how there is widespread viewer criticism of the shows content.

Google searches are not reliable sources. Somebody there should really read WP:V and WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If these are deemed to be acceptable sources, then I will reinstate it myself, but I am highly doubtful that it is.--Tao of tyler 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied under your points above. Hope it helps.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus has the right of it. Every source they are using violates our guidlines on reliable sources and using it may be considered a violation of WP:BIO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC opened on use of translated court documents as source

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

An RFC has been opened regarding the provenance of material that was originally published by Baker's defense. Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments: Use of translated court documents as a source I appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources and not considered reliable sources. Court decisions may be used, but affidavits, evidence etc/ should not be used in articles, in particular in BLPs, unless discussed in secondary published sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This RFC, which was opened on 13 July, was archived that same day to Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 2#Request_for_comments: Use of translated court documents as a source. I assume that some BLP concern could be behind the speedy archiving. The tide was running heavily against the use of the documents when the archiving occurred, and it was based mostly on skepticism that the documents were real, and absence of the Japanese originals, not so much on the documents being primary. EdJohnston 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Not reliable sources? They are reliable in some uses... for instance "X presented evidence Y to support Z", etc. However, if the sources is being used as "X presented evidence Y, so Z must be true" then no, it can't be used. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Article about Smail ferroudj verification source

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

if someone knows about this player please send us more informations about him your help is appreciated

Maybe the Reference Desk is what you are looking for? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Michael Neumann as a source for remark on Raul Hilberg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been asked to repost this here from 'Reliable Sources'.

'I've been slightly worried, I think needlessly, but I am not expert on these rules, about possible objections to my using Michael Neumann as a source for a remark on Raul Hilberg as a life-long Republican voter. He wrote an 'In Memorian' article in Counterpunch recently. Michael Neumann is, for some (not myself) a controversial figure: Counterpunch is attacked as an, intrinsically, 'unreliable source', a view I find questionable (it depends on who wrote the article: they host people there who have long public records as senior administration officials and tenured academics).

Michael Neumann happens to be the son of Franz Neumann, who was Raul Hilberg's Phd supervisor, and oversaw the drafting of that historical masterpiece. There's a family connection, in short. If someone out there thinks this questionable, I'd appreciate a note.Nishidani 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)'Nishidani 08:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of India theory

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Whose source(s) is more reliable? What do the sources say? Topic experts would be nice. Moreschi Talk 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article states up front, groups of reputable scholars disagree, and it seems to me from a cursory glance that it's clear neither side is really a fringe. The article at present does a great job of making this controversy clear, so I don't think there are any RS issues here. ←BenB4 06:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You are quite wrong. One side is fringe-y, the other isn't. OIT has not appeared in a single mainstream publication, and would be thoroughly discredited if mainstream linguistics scholars got tenure for doing easy stuff like discrediting fringe theories. Dbachmann, who is something of an expert in the area, says it quite clearly. [39]. Hornplease 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

this article has got lots of expert attention, but, by its nature as fringe scholarship, also lots of crank attention. The quotes of the JIES debate really say it all. If the article creates the impression that "neither side is really a fringe", it still needs further de-crankification. dab (⁳) 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: mainstream scholarship considers the Indian subcontinent as at best an unlikely candidate for the "homeland" of the Indo-European language family. For a general overview of the "homeland problem" see Chapter 26 of JP Mallory and DQ Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (a digest form of their Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture), where they enunciate the relevant principles of evaluation for all hypotheses. The one reliable feature of the steady stream of blog-barfers filling WP pages with crankcruft is that they haven't done their homework. rudra 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Francis Crick

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

A debate is currently ongoing [40] at Francis Crick over the reliability of certain sources being used to verify some claims regarding Crick's alleged involvement with drugs, which a regular contributor to the page User:JWSchmidt feels are "unreliable sources". I'm not too sure, and to be honest I haven't found a conclusive answer in WP:RS. Can someone look in and give an opinion on the sources concerned? They are:

  • Full text of statement, The Times Monday July 24th 1967 This is a reproduction of a statement printed in The Times newspaper in 1967. As far as I'm aware, the newspaper's own online archives do not extend this far. This specific link is pointed at in the peer-reviewed Medical History article alluded to above. The publication of this particular letter is a moderately well-known aspect of British history in the 1960s and can be easily verified independently.
  • [41] This a story in the British national newspaper The Mail on Sunday appearing in August 2004. The MOS does not have the reputation of The Guardian or Indy, but neither is it a tabloid rag like The Sun or The Daily Star. Although not universally respected (largely due to its pronounced right wing bias, as is typical of the British press) it is perceived essentially as occupying the middle ground between chip-paper tabloids and more highbrow “broadsheets”.
  • [42] A book review from The Guardian, again a widely-read British newspaper with a strong reputation for accuracy, written by Robin Mckie, the science editor of its sister publication The Observer.

I'd be grateful for opinions, particularly on the newspaper sources. Badgerpatrol 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Chris Beckett is a reliable academic writer and the journal one of the standards of the field.
  2. An ad in the Times is really a primary source, & can not in general be used unless referred to by secondary sources, but it would seem the use by Beckett is sufficient for that.
  3. MOS is not acceptable for controversial politics, and for other subjects a little dubious. I'd be leery of anything certified by it alone, For the particular story used, the material cited is about as weak as I've seen--a reporter (Rees) writes that another person (un-named) tells him that he heard a story years before from yet a third person (Kemp--a known illegal producer of LSD) that Kemp had spoken at one point with Crick about Crick's use of LSD. A story indeed in the traditions of British journalism. Appropriate weight for this one would be a link alone, not 3 paragraphs in the article on Crick.
  4. RobinMcKie, however, is a respected science ed., and what he writes either in the Observer or the Guardian is an unquestionably RS.

DGG (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good analysis- my only comment would be that since there's no interpretation of the primary source, it should be reasonable to include it unalloyed. If necessary numerous secondary sources containing the information can be found though, the episode is fairly well known. I also agree [43] [44][45] that the issue is given undue space at the moment. Tomorrow I'll endeavour to cut it back to 3 or so lines and integrate it into the main text rather than a separate section. The MOS source is the weakest, but I do think that all the sources are acceptable per WP:RS- as you say, the relative weight given to each is probably the key issue. Badgerpatrol 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The two disputed citations are for:

  1. "LSD was allegedly 'drug of choice' for Francis", which cites a book review of a Crick biography. The book reviewer invents a personal interpretation and description of Crick's drug use in order to sensationalize a minor topic from a book-length biography. Since the topic of Crick's drug use is covered by the published biography, User:Badgerpatrol should directly quote from the published biography. User:Badgerpatrol has demonstrated a skill for cherry-picking sensationalized gossip from opinion pieces and other unreliable sources rather than using the published biographical sources about Crick. There is no need to quote a sensationalized phrase from an opinion piece about a biography when the biography itself can be cited. The larger dispute is over inclusion of the topic of Crick's drug use in the Francis Crick article. User:Badgerpatrol refuses to provide a justification for including this topic in the Francis Crick article. Crick's drug use has nothing to do with his work or his fame.
  2. "Allegations persist that Crick was a user of illegal hallucinogenic drugs, which may have had some influence on his work", which cites a story in The Mail on Sunday by "Alun Rees". This "news" article claims that, "Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life". This is the kind of sensationalized fantasy claim that Crick was prepared to sue over as long as he was alive. Why is there only one "news" source that was willing to publish this "news" after Crick's death? This non-reliable article and its sensationalized claim about the role of LSD in Crick's work was explicitly refuted by Matt Ridley in his book-length biography of Crick, as discussed on the talk page (all of this has been discussed there, but User:Badgerpatrol refuses to address these issues there, apparently preferring to come here to forum shop). "Allegations persist" means that one sensationalized tabloid story made the allegation, however no reputable news source has repeated the absurd allegation that LSD influenced Crick's work on the structure of DNA and Ridley explicitly refuted this absurd claim.

Neither of these two sources (above) are reliable sources as used by User:Badgerpatrol and they certainly do not provide the basis for an entire section in the Francis Crick article. User:Badgerpatrol's persistent attempts to keep citing these unreliable sources while refusing to cite the published biographies of Crick is an unproductive waste of time. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okaaay. Well, firstly thank you for joining in the discussion here. This issue is obviously one which has upset you a lot more than I realised, per your earlier edit this afternoon [46]. This is a content dispute and an honest debate over sources. I have no issue with you personally, and I don't think any of my actions have been unreasonable. I genuinely am sorry if I have said something to offend you. I think I have shown myself repeatedly to be willing to engage in discussion over at Talk:Francis Crick, and it is maybe a little disingenuous of you to say I have been "forum shopping" - this is surely the logical first port of call where there is a dispute over the reliability of sources? I have also now posted the issue at WP:THIRD, although that was before I realised that you felt quite so strongly as you obviously now do. If you have any other ideas for a third party resolution, please go forward with it. As for the sources- the Ridley book, the MOS article, the Guardian piece all agree that Crick was an LSD user. You don't seem to dispute this, and it's obviously verifiable. You do seem to dispute the fact that Crick's use of drugs influenced his thinking as to biochemistry. You do seem to dispute whether this should be included in a biography of Crick. To be blunt, I disagree with you. If you want to change the wording then please go ahead and do it and we can come to some sort of agreement. I think though that excising the issue (which contains verified information) wholesale, just because you don't personally like what it contains, is a bit silly. You don't own the article. You cannot dictate to other editors how they should edit, or what specific sources they should use, except in so far as to encourage compliance with policy and etiquette. I have at all times complied with policy and etiquette. I've already invited you to add the material from the Ridley book, which you've read and I haven't[47]. I also agree that it shouldn't be an entire section [48], and I've invited you (and any others who are willing) to work with me to integrate the material into the main text[49]. I've also pared down the material from the excessive length it once had, in proportion to the importance of the topic and the resources at hand. You obviously have a great deal of respect for Crick, as do I. But please don't let that emotion cloud your judgement as an editor. Can we lay off the incivility and threats and work together to come to a resolution and improve the article? Badgerpatrol 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is traditional in Wikipedia to admit newspapers as reliable sources. I accept DGG's ranking of the reliability of the various newspapers that he provided above. Robin McKie's article in the Guardian appears completely credible, but you should note that McKie chooses his words very carefully, and I think we should be similarly careful as to who used what. So far nobody has made a plausible connection between Crick's apparent drug use and his scientific work, so I'd be reluctant to include anything suggesting that. However the mere fact that he used drugs appears to be encyclopedic.
I think it would be hard to defend the complete text of this section about drug use that JWSchmidt removed from the article on 19 August, but some part of that might be retained. EdJohnston 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, although I think McKie is fairly unambiguous really ([Crick] "...came perilously close to being investigated by the police when an acquaintance was jailed for manufacturing LSD (one of Crick's drugs of choice"). Best way forward is for John to alter the section to a wording that he finds acceptable, and we can then discuss it from there. Badgerpatrol 10:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think DGG is so much ranking the sources 1-4 as describing them each in turn with numbers for reference- not sure if that's what you literally meant? Badgerpatrol 10:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
My conclusion is that none of the sources commented on by DGG can be excluded using the WP:RS rule alone. They are all from newspapers, and newspapers are considered reliable sources. I don't object to the use of editorial judgment to sift this material down to three sentences or so, because we don't have to include EVERYTHING ever written about Crick. When creating those three sentences, it is useful to keep in mind DGG's observations about the journalistic quality of the newspapers and the writers. I think User:Badgerpatrol might go ahead and draft up new text to propose at Talk:Francis Crick based on whatever he concludes from the comments here. We shouldn't practice content-based censorship (excluding a report of something because of what the report says) but I imagine we could rely more on sources that are perceived to be of higher quality. EdJohnston 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've already had a little go at this [50] per DGG's initial comments above, but I think there is still fat to be trimmed and the material should be integrated into the man text if we can find a suitable place for it. Badgerpatrol 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand by my personal view that User:Badgerpatrol's approach to editing the "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" section of the Francis Crick article has been an unproductive waste of time. User:Badgerpatrol has taken the position that it makes sense to add into the Francis Crick article anything published by a source calling itself a newspaper. The refusal by User:Badgerpatrol to participate in a reasoned and responsible effort to make informed decisions about what is relevant to the Francis Crick article is upsetting to me. User:Badgerpatrol persists in in the position that Wikipedia should include an absurd rumor about the influence of LSD on Crick's scientific work, a rumor from a non-reliable source. This absurdity has been explicitly refuted by one of Crick's biographers. No reputable news source has repeated the absurd rumor. Has the "news" source that published the absurd rumor shown any journalistic integrity in this matter? The "news" source that published the absurd rumor only published this rumor after Crick died because Crick had promised to sue anyone who published the rumor. If this "news" source had editorial integrity then I think it would now retract the absurd story it published. This is the caliber of editorial oversight that User:Badgerpatrol brings to Wikipedia and persists in forcing on the Francis Crick article. "If you want to change the wording then please go ahead and do it" <-- I have repeatedly requested that someone provide a justification for including mention of drugs in the Francis Crick article. There are thousands of pages of published biographical information about Crick in reliable sources. None of these reliable biographical sources provide any kind of a justification for the idea that drugs contributed to Crick's work or to his fame. Ridley's book about Crick has one small section that addresses Crick's drug use and the main point it makes is that the rumor about LSD contributing to Crick's scientific work on DNA is an absurd claim. Ridley explicitly refutes the story from the "news" source that User:Badgerpatrol insists on adding to Wikipedia. I suggest that User:Badgerpatrol take this crusade to a new Wikipedia page, Sensationalized, absurd and refuted claims about drug use by famous people. "I've invited you (and any others who are willing) to work with me to integrate the material into the main text" <-- I refuse your invitation and I still request a reason for including mention of drugs in the article. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand that such a reason be built upon citation of multiple reliable published sources that explain why drugs are relevant to Crick's life and fame. There are some famous scientists who published descriptions of their drug use and speculated about the role of their drug use in their scientific work. In such cases, there might be reason to mention drug use in a biographical Wikipedia article about a scientist. Crick does not fall into this category. --JWSchmidt 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK John, I'll keep this short because I'm fed up wasting my time responding to your sillyness:

1) Lay off the personal attacks. if you can't be civil, say nothing. 2) For casual readers of this debate, it's important to clarify that nobody disputes that Crick was an LSD user. All sources agree on this, and I believe John accepts this also. 3) The issue therefore seems to be, is it reasonable to state that Crick's drug use had any influence on his work? Here the evidence is more equivocal. I've invited John to alter the wording of the relevant material to a form that he finds acceptable. He has refused to do so. 4) Until now, the issue of relevance has been subordinated to John's bizarre belief that newspapers are somehow inherently unreliable (as stated above, there are now at least three known sources for Crick's drug use, including two national newspapers and a published biography of Crick by Matt Ridley, as well as numerous contextual sources establishing the involvement of the Crick's with figures in the drug scene. The wording of all these sources is crystal clear and unambiguous). I am happy to work with others (as stated ad nauseum) to pare down this material (and the article generally, which is overlong) to an acceptable length and to give this issue no more than the space it deserves in the context of what it is a biography of Crick's life. Not just his work. 5) Note that it was not me who originally added the material pertaining to Crick's involvement with drugs to the article. I have already worked to cut this material in half, have expressed repeatedly my opinion that it should not constitute a separate section, have added new references and rewritten the material to reflect the nature of the sources and the importance of the topic, have engaged in a civil (from my side) discussion on talk re the whole subject, and I have invited John on numerous occasions to work with me to continue this work and add the reference material that he has to hand and I do not. Without meaning to get personal, diatribes like the one above are the thanks I have received. 6) I will work to pare down the material and integrate it into the main text, per what seems to be the emerging consensus amongst the editors that have contributed so far to this discussion on Talk:Francis Crick and in this thread. If you want to continue this discussion with me John, keep a civil tongue in your head, otherwise say nothing at all. I have treated you with courtesy and respect at all times - I expect the same in reciprocation. If you can't manage that, leave. I will continue to work on Francis Crick in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Do not expect a response from me to personal attacks, incivility and patronising diatribes. Badgerpatrol 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolfsegg Iron

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems to be a hoax until there are no real sources. Anyone has an idea for getting facts? Greetings, Conny 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Existing in Charles Fort's book would lend at least notability to the subject. Also, the article mentions a Nature article on the subject. If someone can produce that article they could use it rewrite the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Relatively minor Martial Arts books about those arts

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, I'm thinking of two articles in question with this query, but the principle applies to other articles. There are a number of relatively small martial arts schools with articles on Wikipedia. They have been discussed in multiple independent sources so notability is obvious. Shaolin-Do just survived an AfD with a pretty heavy consensus on the grounds that notability was shown by a number of newspaper articles in major newspapers discussing or mentioning that art.

However, the amount of information in those articles about these arts is usually only enough for a stub. From these newspaper articles you could gather what type of martial art it is (Kung Fu/Karate/Jujitsu/Tae Kwon Do ect), who runs the school, and typically where they teach and maybe a few short snippets of history or philosophy of that school. To get anything more than a stub (or at absolute most, a start-class article) you'd need more sources than that.

However, many of these schools have books about them, which include more elaborate histories, discussions of philosophy and training techniques, and a lot of information that would be useful for creating an encyclopedia article. These books are published by independent, reputable publishing firms, although they are written by heads or instructors of those schools. There has been some dispute over whether these are considered primary sources or secondary sources, and if they are considered reliable sources. They have been written by people very closely affiliated with the subject, but they have been published by an outside reputable publishing house and have presumably thus been through an independent editorial review. It could be seen as a secondary source, since it's not self published and it's been reviewed and approved by a mainstream publishing house which decided to take the financial and reputation risk on publishing it. It is argued by some editors that it is a primary source since it's written by a source very close to the subject.

I was curious what other editors thought about this issue, which would it be considered? --Wingsandsword 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular books on martial arts styles and schools are notoriously superficial, marked by innumerable errors and clichés. The vetting process in publishing houses is primarily 'will it sell and allow us to recoup, with a profit' the publishing costs, not whether it is 'reliable'. There are excellent books in Chinese, Japanese and Korean with detailed historical accounts of the various traditions surrounding these schools, and those sources are the best. In-house traditions handed down from 'masters' to 'students' who in turn are nominated as masters are highly tendentious, and often reflect sectarian needs to promote an ostensibly novel approach and theory, established by the founding master, to restore a 'tradition' that other schools have lost. In fact, the asserted difference is grounded on commercial calculations (to open a school with a secret tradition passed from one master to another means you can lock in students at higher rates. The tea ceremony or Zen archery can be learnt more quickly than the 10/15 year training formally required by a master to give you a teaching certificate. The lengthy span of time does not indicate difficulty: it simply means more income to the teacher, and more authority over his charges) or personal rivalries, and rarely based on a proper understanding on the intricate politics of martial art schools. The snippets, especially, dealing with 'oriental philosophy' are mainly hand-me down clichés that take on bizarre forms when re-expounded by Westerners who do not have a grasp of the doctrinal backgrounds.Nishidani 09:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear, I don't mean general-purpose books on martial arts as references in general on martial arts, or mass-market books being used in general martial arts articles. I mean books about specific small arts/schools in articles about those arts/schools. This would seem like an ideal source, but some editors have raised a controversy over these books because they were written by people closely tied to those schools/arts, even if they were published by an outside entity.
Let's say sources are needed for a specific article about (fictional example, there are a number of martial arts articles in this general scenario, I'm using a generic example) Fubuki-ryu Jujutsu, a new style created 40 years ago in Hawaii. This school has a number of newspaper articles and a short magazine article or two about it, but none in particular depth. For the article to be more than a stub you'll need more in-depth sources. However, an instructor of this school has written a book about Fubuku-ryu and it was published by a mainstream publisher in the US. Even an excellent book in Chinese, Japanese or Korean may discuss jujitsu as a whole, but not that form of jujitsu specifically in terms of it's history, doctrine or how it differs from other forms of jujitsu. Some editors have cast doubts on the validity of these books as references because they could be considered Primary Sources since they were written by someone close to the subject of the article, even though they were published and edited away from the source. Thus, I was asking for opinions on whether or not a book in such a circumstance would be considered primary or secondary sources, not whether or not a mass-market book on martial arts would be a good general reference for martial arts articles. --Wingsandsword 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Collective (BBC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this site reliable? This is in reference to its use as a reference in Optimo for a statement that an anonymous editor has just removed for the third time. It seems like some of their content is user-submitted and I kind of doubt they're held to the same editorial standard as the rest of the bbc, although the article in question was at least written by a freelance journalist.--P4k 06:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would take the article at face value if it's attributed to the author. Also, this seems to be a writeup of an interview for which the audio is available on the Collective site. If this is an interview with the actual musician, and if you listen to it yourself, that might help to confirm what you say. (I didn't try to straighten out all the people's names, so I don't know if the person interviewed is the one whose song is being discussed). The item that this provides a reference for seems to be a fairly minor point, so I don't know how hard you are planning to work to get that fact included. EdJohnston 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lauder

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A (terribly polite) dispute at Talk:Lauder on the reliability of older historical works when these do not correspond with more recent interpretations. Any input much appreciated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really a Reliable Sources issue... it is more a NPOV issue. The older works are certainly reliable by our definition, even if they are, arguably, outdated. This could be solved by textual attribution of who said what (and when) and an explanation of what current scholarship is. Don't claim either view is "correct"... simply present them both with explanation of the pros and cons for each argument. Blueboar 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Without delving into the particulars of the situation if older sources disagree with equally legitimate newer sources then the newer sources are usually more relevant. However, if old disagrees with new there is often an important story to be told there. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, newer scholarship is usually more relevant (but not always more accurate)... The point is that when there is a dispute between different sources we don't make the judgement as to which is "right" or "wrong"... we discribe both views and discuss the dispute in a neutral tone. Blueboar 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument here has been consistant. We are indebted to pre-twentieth century scholars for their indefatigable locating and deciphering of ancient manuscipts, documents, and charters. Without their industry today's generation would have been in difficulties. Most if not all of these industrious people were scholars, some, Like Sir William Fraser, of very high regard. Who is suddenly to say that late twentieth century scholars are superior (unless they have some sort of X-Ray vision with documents)? One of the big problems we are faced with is the interpretation of the ancient writings or, indeed, events. It is common for several handwriting experts to disagree. Moreover, as Joseph Bain (another great Victorian scholar) points out, what of the huge number of documents which we no loger have.

In the case of Lauder/Lauderdale we appear to have no extant charters before de Morville. This is much the same throughout Scotland. It does not mean that that was where history commenced. When we get back to the pre-1200s we enter a very grey area as far as verifiability is concerned throughout Great Britain and not just in Scotland. If I find twenty books written between, say, 1700 and 1920, all citing similar things albeit in slightly different formats, and all those books citing even older documentations, should I say all these scholars were crétins just because they reached similar conclusions or they were not born in the 20th century or held a different conception of Scottish history to a variety of sceptics or purists of today?

We on Wikipedia strive to construct articles which will be informative and to the best of our ability have a semblance of truth. We don't come here to construct fantasy. If I were writing about Paris and Helen would you delete the article? Because, lets face it, how many accurate sources are there for the existance of all the Greek myths that we still love and even make films about? If detractors of articles, critics of what has been presented, scoff and say 'what a story', fine. But if it is adequately sourced should they be wrecking or deleting the article just because of their own personal opinions? I say, comment if you must, add consturctive comment with sources if you can. David Lauder 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Houston Freeways

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Houston Freeways is a comprehensive self-published book about the freeway system of Houston, Texas. I know that self-published sources are generally bad, but this seems to be a rare exception. It's well-cited (which, of course, means that I could go to those sources, but I don't have access to them), and has been listed alongside a number of non-self-published books on the FHWA's site. Is it reasonable to use this book as a factual reference? --NE2 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that he was awarded the 2004 Excellence in Journalism Award for the book by the Houston Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Can I assume that this is enough? --NE2 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, "However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study." I'd say the New York Times quoting the author (one of nine news pieces listed on the book's web site) is substantial evidence of that recognition. —David Eppstein 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about his other works, like TexasFreeway.com? --NE2 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin, Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, and William Wetherall

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

A single-purpose anon IP user wants to know if Wikipedia can cite as definitive FACT the following sentence from the Encyclopedia of Japan.[51]. The only question I have with this quote is the issue of weasel words like “many” popping up to implicitly endorse some kind of faulty logic, so I asked if the user knew who the author was. His reply wasn’t too helpful, [52] so I looked up the source myself.

The article is entitled “foreigners in Japan” by William Wetherall (Volume 2, 1st ed., 1983, p. 314). It doesn’t cite any sources, and the only thing that I could find that Wetherall apparently published related to the subject is a report on foreigners in Japan for a partisan think tank entitled “Minority Rights Group" (Report No. 3, new 1983 edition) That source gives Wetherall’s bio. It reads: “William Wetherall is a graduate student in Asian Studies at the University of California Berkeley. His Japanese research covered popular culture, modern literature, contemporary cinema, and minority discrimination.”

Any ideas on what to do with this source:

1. Cite it completely as fact? 2. Cite it as Wetherall’s opinion….something like “Wetherall writes….” 3. Cite it in part with ellipses that remove words like “many”? 4. Don’t use the source at all? 5. Keep looking for another source that says “some” instead of “many”?

Experienced editors haven't expressed an opinion on the gaijin talk page yet, and I suspect some of the single-purpose users are getting restless. Comments from experienced editors here would be most helpful. In good faith, J Readings 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

William Wetherall is a perfectly respectable source, as is the Kodansha Encyclopedia, since it is one of several standard sources for articles on Japan, even if like many respectable sources it can often get things wrong, usually by not fully covering nuances. The word gaijin (外人) originally meant 'someone outside of the group to which the user belonged', hence someone estranged from the primary group. In the Heike monogatari it is used of people who should be looked on as enemies. In modern usage it is employed quite innocuously in most cases, and it not thought derogatory, but it can often take on negative connotations according to context, especially since it implies frequently, in a Japan that is increasingly open to foreigners, that foreigners cannot as gaijin, ever belong to the national group. When the Aids epidemic began, 'gaijin' was punned on to create the neologism' (I modify for clarity to outsiders) 'Aidsjin', implying Aids was something 'foreigners had'. This is too brief a reply, but for the moment Nishidani 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I've carefully studied the Heike Monogatari and what scholars think on the subject (they all don't agree that it means "enemy"[53]), but let that pass. What's at issue here is the word "most" and I certainly agree that we're talking about its modern post-war usage here among foreigners. What do experienced editors recommend: going with 1,2,3,4, or 5? J Readings 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, didn't have time, it was lunch, to check through your links. Impressive research (original by the way, but I have no objections). Tthat original research however in no way affects what I said above, since it is overwhelmingly focused on ancient philological questions, which by their nature cannot throw light on the issue you asked an opinion on.
On 'most' you strike me as making a storm in a teacup, or rather suffering from needless scruples over a point of minute valency. If that point is sustained as policy, then no poll results could be cited on Wikipedia because they make illations about most people on the basic of a statistical sample. You yourself on the linked page use the word 'many' or 'most' without proving that the generalisation implied covers the whole field of dictionaries or scholars. It refers to the extensive sources you have checked, which by no means cover the whole field.
I was thrown off by your mentioning that you checked out who this W Wetherall was. All Japanologists of my day knew and know who he is, and I surmised, not reading your research, that you were someone who had to check up the background of a scholar everyone in my day in the field was familiar with.
You write:'The point all along here, Bendono, is whether these old usages of gaijin and their examples, regardless of its reading—tohito, kotohito/kotobito, etc.—are useful for understanding whether the gaijin of today’s vernacular is by definition or etymology a term of disparagement—an epithet. My argument all along is that they are not, because the current-day term referring to foreigners and the old term referring to the other, another person, other persons, those outside one’s ingroup, strangers, potential enemies enemies (by virtue of not being members of the ingroup)'
Of course etymology is no guide to meaning, so all that research is useless for understanding the contemporary sense of 'gaijin', but it certainly warrants a full scale academic elaboration. In IE languages, the word guest/host and hostile are all interrelated. That doesn't mean there is an intrinsic tinge of hostility in host-guest

relationships, even though, on a psychological plain, tensions exist.

Your second point puts the finger on a problem you seem unaware of. The distinction between the modern concept of 'foreigner' and 'the old term' for 'other', those outside one's ingroup' etc. is a non-distinction, because the former term is simply an extention of the latter set of terms. Japanese social structure strongly demarcates 自/他 boundaries, within Japan and between Japanese and non-Japanese. The problem you pose is sociolinguistic, not etymological. All ingroup/outgroup distinctions carry, by that very distinction, a contrast between people you trust, and those you trust less, between social situations you are comfortable in, and social situations, constituted by outsiders, in which you are not too comfortable in. 'Gaijin' thus tended naturally to bear a connotation of an outsider in whose presence one's customary ease of interaction is destabilized, in early Japan as today. Over the decades this has decreased, but people who lived in Japan from 1945 to 1985 at least, know from innumerable personal experiences that their being foreigners often created embarrassment, confusion, unease and sometimes shock, in everyday transactions (shocked storekeepers going blank when you asked, in Japanese, for a packet of cigarettes, endless occasions of being blocked at the door of restaurants and bars because 'No gaijin' cries of alarm when the club's clientale or owner set sight on you). Wetherall is just stating this obvious fact, at least to my generation of scholars. I fail to see why you find it problematic because it says 'many'. That was empirically true at least for the period I specified.
One might add that the word 'gaijin' is certainly less pejorative in Japanese usage, referring to as it does to obvious ethnic outsiders, than the words 'burakumin/yottsu/eta', which refers to a Japanese pariah group.
You write:-'WP guidelines states that we should not give undue weight to extreme minority views on any given topic. Considering that most dictionaries and Japanese academics do not consider the word 外人 in the prewar period to be (1) pejorative, etc'
We have to take your word for it. Note you say 'most' but have problems with weasel words like 'many'. You haven't by any means justified 'most'. Kojien is not by any stretch of the imagination an 'extreme minority view', even if as you note, many other authoritative dictionaries disagree ( nor is Wetherall, for that matter.) Regards and best wishes for your research and the page, which looks like it is in eccelent hands Nishidani 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Nishidani: Thank you for the thought-provoking reply and kind words. My explanation was not very clear, but a full review of the back history will show that the gaijin article and its talk page to be an unstable mess, with a focus on elaborately unsourced POV explanations and unreliable internet material to debate whether the word CURRENTLY is a derogatory "racial slur" (my opinion, based on the sources, is that there's no reputable third-party source supporting that sweeping characterization, including Wetherall, but that's something to discuss on the talk page).
In any case, a few editors are now trying to resolve this problem by following the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and grounding the main article with reliable in-line citations.
You're probably right that this concern about Wetherall's background and word choice ("many") might be unnecessary, but the troubling “Everybody knows….” rationale to insert weasel words, unsourced assertions, and further contentious edits to the main page hopefully explains a little bit better my query here. Best regards, J Readings 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

www.onlineworldofwrestling.com

Latest comment: 17 years ago32 comments16 people in discussion

Apologies for bringing this to the administrators noticeboard, I'm sure there is a better place for this (and if so please point me in the right direction). How does one judge reliable sources? I have found a site which appears on 2522 different Wikipedia pages, called www.onlineworldofwrestling.com [54] and am finding that a large number of articles are relying on this site as not just their primary source of information, but the sole source of information. Considering that anyone can pay the $25.00 to submit a profile to this site, and then in turn have it used to source a Wikipedia article, I have my doubts as to its reliability. Is this cause for concern, or no big deal? Burntsauce 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(the above has been copied to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard at the suggestion of WilyD.)

This is unfamiliar territory for me, but I am writing to inquire about the reliability of sources such as onlineworldofwrestling.com which are being used as primary and in most cases sole sources to create articles about professional wresters, many of whom are living people. Burntsauce 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears it has less control over content than Wikipedia - here it doesn't cost anything to fix them, there it does. I would believe this is not a reference at all, or if it is, it is certainly not a reliable source and should not be the sole reference. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Online equivalent of a vanity press, although they do claim to have some standards. Still not a reliable source by a long, long way. Sandstein 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) If this is consensually deemed as an unreliable source, what is to be done about the hundreds, neigh, thousands of articles in Category:American professional wrestlers and similar categories? Burntsauce 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I picked one at random, Colt Cabana, and that has plenty of different sources. You need to make a list of all the articles that only use the unreliable source, or just get that source removed from all articles and put on a blacklist. Though note that I don't really know how this works. Hopefully those who post here regularly will give better advice. Carcharoth 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are a handful of examples for consideration: Rodney Begnaud, Dwayne Bruce, David Cash, Jonathan Coachman, and Mark Copani. Burntsauce 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, someone familiar with the area of professional wrestling I can confirm everything that I've seen at this site has been researched pretty carefully and reported accurately. I've also spoken to the creator of the site and he seems reliable enough for a source here. Burntsauce, you're just looking for reasons to falsely use WP:BLP and WP:V on the Pro Wrestling WikiProject, which you have been known to do. — Moe ε 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Moe Epsilon. Onlineworldofwrestling.com is perhaps they best professional wrestling site in existence, sometimes even providing more accurate and detailed information than the official company websites. Gavyn Sykes 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Moe, you have been warned once before regarding your personal attacks. You are welcome to cite examples where I've falsely applied the BLP policy, otherwise I strongly urge you to retract the statement. Thank you. Burntsauce 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Criticizing your judgement isn't a personal attack, I thought this had been explained to you. You want to know where? Warrior (wrestler), Rodney Anoai, Stacy Keibler, need I go on? — Moe ε 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source as well when dealing with the biographies of living people. It may be the "best movie site in existence" just as onlineworldofwrestling may be the best pro-wrestling site in existence. That is irrelevant, and does necessarily not make it a reliable source. WP:ILIKEIT does not apply. Burntsauce 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not a fair comparison. IMDB is not considered reliable because anyone can edit it and add false information. Not anyone can edit the profiles of Onlineworldofwrestling.com. Nikki311 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way Moe, edits like this [55] are totally unacceptable. Burntsauce 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to you as well. You haven't made a accurate case saying that it is unrelaible and cleverly dodged the fact that I can cite places where BLP was used uncorrectly on your part. And FYI, you're entirely wrong. BLP doesn't apply to the Terry Gerwin article. The commentary has to be contentious for you to remove it and it wasn't simple as that. There is no BLP concern there. BLP doesn't apply everytime an article is unsourced. — Moe ε 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Moe. The Hybrid 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, OWW is a mixed bag in my view. For the most part, they are accurate..however they have had mistakes as well. In my opinion, they are basically a glorified fansite that wrestling fans take too seriously at times. Sourcing for wrestling articles is an issue: but frankly OWW shouldn't be the only source for articles. I've seen it used as the only source several times, as it seems to be the "default" link and reference listed if people can't (or simply don't want to) find anything else. RobJ1981 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Blacklisting the link isn't really a fair choice since this site contains info concerning the early years of several undoubtly notable wrestlers, however wwe.com and tnawrestling.com should be used more often for info inside kayfabe excluding injuries and other legitimate issues, I find it hard to assume good faith here considering Burnsauce's attitude towards wrestling articles in the past. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Burntsauce what is this, the crusade to destroy WP:PW? Anyway, OWW is a reliable source as it provides wrestling results years back and without that website, who knows what would happen with wrestling articles today. Blacklisting it would destroy WP:PW and most of its articles, including John Cena, Dave Bautista and The Undertaker. Cena I've nominated for FA, Batista and Taker are GA and they all have links to OWW. Davnel03 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it flawless? No, can anyone edit it? no - can current independent wrestlers get their profile on there for cash? sure they can. But are ALL the profiles there because someone paid for them? Not even close, the majority - 90-99% of them are created and researched by the contributors to the site, not for monetary reasons nor vanity as has been implied. Yeah maybe the "Kidz Kewl" profile is a vanity project, which is why WP:PW has a rule of thumb that says "Just cause it's on Onlineworldofwrestling" doesn't mean it's automatically notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. And nor should it in my view be the ONLY source for an article. That's profiles covered, but the site has another and probably more important function, it's a repository of match results from a lot of federations over a long period of time - which is used as a reference when article mention specific matches (the overcitation in the wrestling articles that cause EVERY match to be cited in places is a direct result of the missapplication of WP:BLP that Burntsauce has championed). Are the results reliable? I'd say yes, they're basically a recap of what people have seen on TV, except you can't use your own personal viewing of the program as a source, you need a secondary source - Onlineworldofwrestling provides such a secondary source, it's neutral and recaps the results and happenings without it being a review or a rant or anything like that, just a run down of results and happenings usually. Those results can be verified against 3-4-5 different independent sources in a heartbeat to prove that they are indeed correct 99% of the time. I agree that articles that only cite OWOW need to have more sources added to help establish the notability of the subject but it shouldn't be blacklisted. MPJ-DK 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow... with a entry criteria of "no yard tards"[56] and 25$ (or a dvd the site owner doesn't have yet) and "1 year of full time wrestling" I can't believe this is even a debate! OWW is a tertiary source, and as such should usually NOT be relied upon by as the sole source in an article. Also given the exceptionally low entry criteria the site is unusable as a gauge of notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you are unfamiliar with professional wrestling. The "no yard tards" rule and the $25 submission to have a profile placed on the site makes it extremly more of a valuable source. This requirement will put a limit on unnotable wrestlers going on the site, and I think the owner has been doing a great job of that. We also have a rule at WP:PW that not every wrestler on OWW is notable. No one said we should be using these as a source alone, but blacklisting it because Burntsauce has it in for the professional wrestling WikiProject, is completely nonsense. No one is using as a gauge of notability either. Your points are entirely moot. — Moe ε 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to know anything to know that this site is about as reliable as any self-published source on the internet. Also, continued attacks on the credibility of those who disagree with you only serve to highlight the fact that you have no actual defense of the credibility of the website. I see no claims that the website has any of the hallmarks of a real reliable source: editorial review, etc. It's not our job to prove it's unreliable - It's your job to prove it is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, here's evidence it's a reliable source, I've picked a line from The Undertakers article - but finally defeated Kennedy in a Last Ride match at Armageddon 2006[128], which directs to this, which quote: LAST RIDE MATCH: The Undertaker defeated Mr. Ken Kennedy.. The Undertaker tombstoned Mr. Kennedy on top of the hurse and then put the bloody Kennedy inside of the hurse.. . Now, J.smith, please tell me why OWW isn't reliable having just provided you with a perfectly good example of why it is reliable. EDIT: By the way, Burntsauce has gone AWOL since this started... Davnel03 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, edited, proof-read, and things like that. There isn't much checking or editing of any sort going on on the site under discussion. What is a hurse anyway? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Davne103, that made me smile. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I do not feel that this site is a very reliable source. It has lots of rumors, is far from comprehensive, and has lots of other errors/mistakes. While it is not directly user-generated, much of the info comes from contributors who e-mail them, and a lot of it is not even formatted or checked for spelling. It is a decent fansite, but to use it as a source is asking for trouble. In fact, there is some strange notion that every match by a wrestler needs to be cited, which is probably just a bit over the top, and we should use published sources to document notable facts, not predetermined wrestling matches. Biggspowd 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that there shouldn't be a need to cite every single wrestling match event in a wrestling article. Sadly it has happened time and time again that even wrestling results and title lists have been blanked citing "WP:BLP says it should all be cited or deleted" (or references to "mail from Jimbo"), forcing the pro wrestling project to get down and in effect oversource everything to the exessive extent it's seen in places. Considering that this user has the backing of several admins it's seen as a defacto rule and thus to avoid having articles gutted down to "XXX is a pro wrestler" articles go in the opposite direction. It's not by choice, well not the choice of the article editors but the choice of those who remove everything not sourced. MPJ-DK 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability is policy and is non-negotiable. Citations facilitate verifiability. None of this is new. Yes, if something is unsourced and someone questions it... it needs to be cited or removed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL this is a circular argument isn't it? someone says "it's over cited", I explain why then someone goes "Well it's policy" - Now I'm just waiting for someone come in and say "man those wrestling articles are seriously overcited" to keep this infinity loop of logic going ad nauseum. Count me out, I'm getting off the carousel. MPJ-DK 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Being "over-cited" isn't prohibited in policy. Your attitude of "there shouldn't be a need to cite every single wrestling match" is not backed by policy and is contrary to the project's core philosophies. If you want something to be included in an article... find a source and cite it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Racial Slur Database", "Roadjunky.com", and two personal homepages

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I would appreciate editors' thoughts on the third-party reliability of The Racial Slur Database, Roadjunky.com and two personal homepages that copy verbatim an essay entitled "Japanyes;THE THIRD EDITION" of publicly unverifiable origin [57][58]. All four citations are used to justify the following contentious and exceptional clause in the gaijin article: "...[gaijin] is considered a racial slur by many to whom the word is applied." J Readings 10:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "Louis Leclerc" a noted expert in this field of study? I don't see anything that sujusts that this is the case. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. No, he is not a Japanese linguist, a lexicographer, a literary expert or even a noted Japanese specialist (to my knowledge.) This is part of the problem. Another editor insists that because these sources can be found on the internet, the word gaijin must be considered a racial slur by default. I'd also appreciate your opinion on sites like The Racial Slur Database and Roadjunky.com. Personally, I'm very skeptical of these sources, but I'd like to know what others think. J Readings 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither of these are reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi in that regard. I don't see any evidence that those are reliable sources. Also, you might want to point out that drawing conclusions based on evidence is the definition of original research. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1&oldid=1147944610"